Are You Depressed?

[phoneutria]

But then, you disagreed with me. Why?

I expect anyone who agrees with what I said in the above to respond with a simple "Yes, that is true" and anyone who wants to add that they do not think that "choleric introvert" is an instance of a logical contradiction to respond with a simple "But I don't think this particular combination of terms is a contradiction."

But did I get that? I don't think so.

Instead, I get to hear about how what I say is "truer in geometry than it is in psychology". So what am I to think other than that you think that contradictions are "truer in geometry than they are in psychology"? I have no choice but to assume that you think that logic does not apply to psychological terms.

you assume
hm

The word "introvert" does not mean "not choleric". That's not my position. I don't know who told you that, but trust me, it is not my position (:

The word "square" does not mean "not circle" since there are things (such as hexagons) that are "not circles" and at the same time "not squares".

ok true i'll grant you that one

My position is that the two concepts, "choleric" and "introvert", do not overlap in the same exact way that the concept of "square" and the concept of "circle" do not overlap.

though they do overlap if you consider the transition from square to circle I wrote above
anyway, all of the four types come in introvert and extrovert form

Binary classification, you may say. Well, when it comes to temparements, it is actually a quaternary classification. Without such a classification, it is impossible to put people in one of the four groups. How many classes do you want? An infinite number of them? What's the point of having so many of them? But then, this isn't about MY method of classification. It's actually Greeks who came up with it and they just happened to settle for four classes in total -- no more and no less.

we need as many classes as necessary to comprehend all human behavior
and allow for distinction and grouping
but not as many as to cause redundancy
the greek method is useful in its limited way
like if a friend will introduce someone to you, and beforehand they tell you they're sanguine
you can go ahead and tell them you'd rather stay home

the ocean method actually has some decent scientific foundation to it
enough for me to consider it valid
i recommend looking into the technical bits of it if you care to

On the other hand, someone is either choleric or they are not. That's binary classification. You can also say, binary membership. A thing either belongs to a set or it does not. Without it, you can't say someone is choleric. Instead, you are forced to be verbose, in many cases unnecessarily, by making statements such as "John is 89% choleric". Nothing wrong with that sort of thing, it's just that it's not useful in every situation. Binary classification isn't evil. (And a method of classification cannot be true or false, it can only be useful or useless in relation to a goal.)

since there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1
the only way to categorize a person as one type rather than another
is when there is a distinct prevalence of one over the others
and then when there isn't a prevalence
you simply can't say that a person is either choleric or not
you have to settle for "kinda"

You are merely reasserting your opinion that the concept of "choleric" and the concept of "introvert" overlap. But do they? How are we going to resolve this without studying definitions? (Obviously, you don't want to bother with definitions. Nothing wrong with that per se, each one of us chooses how they are going to spend their time, but then, there can be no further discussion between the two of us on this particular subject.)

i'm cool with looking at a dictionary
you can make a case here if you want to, i'll read it
but then i'll just come back to you and say that's not what those words mean
that the meaning you are assigning to them is biased by your living experience and whatnot
and what a word means to you in particular is entirely of irrelevant to me

[Magnus Anderson]

though they do overlap if you consider the transition from square to circle I wrote above

You know full well that circles and squares do not overlap and that what you're doing here is changing definitions. A polygon is a polygon, and not a circle, no how matter how similar to circle it is.

the ocean method actually has some decent scientific foundation to it
enough for me to consider it valid
i recommend looking into the technical bits of it if you care to

Not impressed by it.

since there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1
the only way to categorize a person as one type rather than another
is when there is a distinct prevalence of one over the others
and then when there isn't a prevalence
you simply can't say that a person is either choleric or not
you have to settle for "kinda"

It has to do with definitions e.g. if you say that a person is choleric insofar the prevalence of their choleric tendencies is greater than or at least equal to the prevalence of other tendencies, then someone who is 25% choleric, 25% melancholic, 25% sanguine and 25% phlegmatic is a choleric. And definitions are chosen based on the prupose of classification. But this doesn't strike me as particularly relevant to our discussion.

What's important is that someone who is 25% choleric, 25% melancholic, 25% sanguine and 25% phlegmatic is also 50% introverted and 50% extraverted. The same applies for other types such as 50% choleric, 50% melancholic, 0% sanguine and 0% phlegmatic. Someone who is not predominantly choleric or predominantly sanguine cannot be predominantly extraverted.

i'm cool with looking at a dictionary
you can make a case here if you want to, i'll read it
but then i'll just come back to you and say that's not what those words mean
that the meaning you are assigning to them is biased by your living experience and whatnot
and what a word means to you in particular is entirely of irrelevant to me

Actually, you have to read Jung and Hippocrates. Dictionary definitions are of no use.

[MagsJ]

For Magnus.. in how to differentiate your S from your N: S function dominant people will place emotional importance on specific details. N function dominant people will place emotional importance on the environment surrounding the memory.

[surreptitious75]

You are merely reasserting your opinion that the concept of choleric and the concept of introvert overlap
How are we going to resolve this without studying definitions ?

When two people cannot agree on the definition of a particular word the problem can be resolved very easily by
each one accepting the definition of the other and then demanding that they stick to it as rigorously as possible

Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive and so what ultimately gives words their legitimacy is how they are used NOT how they are defined
Also words can have multiple definitions and do not always refer to clearly defined concrete things but unclearly defined abstract things as well
Such as for example the two words being questioned by you here . The reason why language is ambiguous is because human beings are ambiguous

[Magnus Anderson]

When two people cannot agree on the definition of a particular word the problem can be resolved very easily by
each one accepting the definition of the other and then demanding that they stick to it as rigorously as possible

Not when we're dealing with other people's words. In such a case, both parties must come to an agreement how this other person defines their words.

Remember that it is FC who said "I am choleric". The question is: is he defining the word "choleric" in his own way or is he referring to how someone else defines it? If the former is the case, then what matters is how FC defines it; if the latter is the case, then what matters is how this other person (most likely Hippocrates) defines it.

I assume he's referring to Hippocrates's definition given that he said what he said in response to MagsJ's post.

And since it is me who introduced the terms "introvert" and "extravert" here in this thread, it is me who gets to define these terms. And I define them in a way roughly similar to how Carl Gustav Jung, their originator, defined them.

It's just that phoneutria is not interested in playing this game. Nothing wrong with that. But then, no further discussion can take place on this particular subject. (Remember that phoneutria said she has low enthusiasm. I guess that's what it amounts to I am much more of a maniac than she is.)

Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive and so what ultimately gives words their legitimacy is how they are used NOT how they are defined
Also words can have multiple definitions and do not always refer to clearly defined concrete things but unclearly defined abstract things as well
Such as for example the two words being questioned by you here . The reason why language is ambiguous is because human beings are ambiguous

Do you think there are cholerics on this board?

Trump is a choleric. Does FC look like Trump to you? I know that FC adores Trump but that proves nothing. Phlegmatic women are typically attracted to choleric men -- what does that prove? (Not saying that FC is a phlegmatic woman, by the way.)

Hopefully, FC doesn't mind the fact he has become the subject of this thread. There is certainly no ill will from my side.

[surreptitious75]

Remember that it is FC who said I am choleric
The question is : is he defining the word choleric in his own way or is he referring to how someone else defines it ?

He would not be using a definition that he did not actually agree with even if it is someone elses definition as well
The important thing here is to ask him to provide that definition and then ensure that he sticks to it as I suggested

[phoneutria]

You know full well that circles and squares do not overlap and that what you're doing here is changing definitions. A polygon is a polygon, and not a circle, no how matter how similar to circle it is.

yeah but a person's temperament isn't nearly as straightforward a thing to measure as a circle is
nobody can even come to a consensus on what they're measuring for

What's important is that someone who is 25% choleric, 25% melancholic, 25% sanguine and 25% phlegmatic is also 50% introverted and 50% extraverted. The same applies for other types such as 50% choleric, 50% melancholic, 0% sanguine and 0% phlegmatic. Someone who is not predominantly choleric or predominantly sanguine cannot be predominantly extraverted.

I gather that you're going by the definition that there are two big categories, introverted and extroverted
and that inside each there are two subcategories
choleric and sanguine under extroverted
such that cholerics would fall under a subset of extrovert
and therefore could never be considered introvert

sure
but if you're going orthodoxicaly by hippocratic definitions you would also need to accept
that you can measure how choleric a person is by the amount of bile in their system
which I don't think is taken seriously by anyone in this day and age
say it ain't so

and if you're allowing for adaptations to it
you might be able to see how those groups might be better defined as eight (4, each divided in two)
as those temperaments come in both introverted and extroverted forms

so yeah
you can go on to say that I'm not using them as hippocrates intended
to which i'll say whatever, he was wrong
(but not without merit)

Actually, you have to read Jung and Hippocrates. Dictionary definitions are of no use.

if you're going to take an existing word and use it to describe a physical phenomenon
the dictionary damn hell better have some use
otherwise you may as well smack the wall and call it babeh

[phoneutria]

i should have added that i also don't discuss jung anymore
because this is what always happens
i stick to his theories
at the first hint of a disagreement with someone
they go FREUD WAS BETTER ANYWAY

at this rate i will soon stop speaking entirely

[MagsJ]

“An Ambivert is someone whose overall behavior is between introversion or extroversion.
-An Omnivert is someone who can be either, at different times. 26 Mar 2020”

I just remembered about these options, following Phon’s post.. I think that most, when in their comfort zone, can/will be Ambivert.. the painfully painfully shy, maybe not.

[Magnus Anderson]

Continued here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 2#p2775324

Let's leave FC's thread alone. I don't want it to get depressed.