Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Uh, well, yes. And he drives me nuts for that reason. But I have never understood "thinking type" to be the equivalent of "rational." To be led by the emotions is quite consistent with being a thinking type, and in some ways inconsistent with being a feeling type. The feeling type distrusts strong emotions because they lead to social friction. The thinking type may distrust strong emotions because they confuse reason, but then again may allow full play to feelings in service to beliefs and ideals, particularly if also an Intuitive.

This gets into the contemporary concept of "Emotional Intelligence." An individual's functions develop and mature over the course of his lifetime. An NT (or ST) type will have F as either his tertiary or inferior function. The tertiary does not typically develop until mid life. The inferior does not typically develop until late in life. The NT, particularly if he has F as his inferior function, will have poor control over his emotions so he suppresses them. When they get out, they REALLY get out. Only in middle age does he begin to master control of his emotions. But contrast this with the NF (or SF) types who have F as dominant or auxiliary. They are already well in control of their emotions by the time they become adults. So, yes a T type is more likely to have an out-of-control outburst. But unlike the F type, his subjective feelings/values do not lead his thinking.

But these functions are perhaps better understood by what they seek. T seeks control while F seeks harmony. The attitude of the function dictates the type of control or harmony:

Te -> control of outer world
Ti -> control of inner world
Fe -> harmony in outer world
Fi -> harmony in inner world

INFJs being intuitives seeking harmony in the outer world, typically have a vision for all humanity. Will they never be contentious in pursuit of that goal? Well, I do not think that they are necessarily wallflowers. You have tangled with Eric much more than I have witnessed personally and it may well be that he is too contentious or confrontational to be an F. But he would still be the most "feeling" INTP I have ever met. But then that may be the generational effects which can be significant from what I have seen.

Eric is more concerned with what he believes and what others believe, and in fighting over same, than he is with social graces and getting along. That's why I believe he's right to call himself a thinking type.

Here is one more way to look at it since INFJs and INTPs are somewhat related (both use Ti and Fe). The INFJ uses Ti in the service of Fe while the INTP uses Fe in the service of Ti. The INFJ is driven to be authentic and his Ti principles stem logically from that authenticity. The INTP is driven to find the truth and his intellectual honesty and consistency (authenticity) naturally follow. The INFJ is driven to find the greatest good for the greatest number and he uses Ti in pursuit of that goal. The INTP is driven to find the truth and he uses Fe to provide the greatest good for the greatest number to the extent that the truth allows. This could probably be stated better but it is essentially a horse and cart argument.

Again, feeling function doesn't mean "driven by emotion."

OK, driven by the need for harmony.

Often, it means the exact opposite: keeping emotions under control for the sake of social amity. Unless my recollections are totally drug-fused , that did not really characterize the Awakening too well.

Yes, but were the Awakeners (of the '60s) driven by subjective values or objective truths? I think the former predominated and that is F.

The Awakening was about ideas, values, judgments. It was very much an NTP thing, IMO.

And I think you have just described NFJ...unless the value of which you speak was truth. I don't think it was.

I took the 40 question test and came out:
Pragmatic - 8
Existential - 8
Idealist - 6
Realist - 4

My MBTI has been ENTP. I thought pragmatic and existential was consistent with MBTI, particularly pragmatic, since I've always thought the best face validity comes from application - "yeah but does it WORK?"

I don't know of any other ENTP's at this site, so it's hard to comment in a general way.

Why am I not surprised that Brian Rush is INTJ? I have an INTJ family member who thinks like Brian. I think.

I wrote Eric Meece to get his opinion about the INTJ as a Prophet archetype (Brian's association). He has yet to upgrade his browser and get on this site but he sent the following response for posting:

Originally Posted by Eric Meece

MBTI says INTJ is the "mastermind" and INFJ is the "prophet." INTJ seeks
to make his/her ideals into realities. They are "policy wonks" and
rigorous philosophical scientists. Plato is the archetypal INTJ; Gore
and Hillary Clinton are probably INTJ. INFJ is a counselor type who
explores intuitive and spiritual realities and brings them to focus. One
of the MBTI originators is an INFJ. I already posted the four archetypes
of MBTI that are virtually identical to the four generational
archetypes. That is already on there, back somewhere. INFJ is the
prophet, ENTJ is the hero, ESTP is the nomad and ISFP is the artist.
Their MBTI names are even the same or similar: prophet, field marshall,
entrepreneur and composer, respectively. All the other 12 types are just
gradations and mixtures between these four, some more extreme or pure
than others. INTJ is an extreme type that falls between hero and
prophet. INTP is a combination of the same two, but less pure and mixed
with the other types too. I wonder if Brian would disagree that his
"prophet" INTJ type is mixed with the hero's interest in politics and
institutions, and is very intellectual as well as spiritual. I am INTP,
but my T and F scores are so close that on some days I am INFP. My J and
P scores are fairly close too, but my lifestyle is definitely an
unfocused P.

OK, here I am; IF it works.

This site is still very SLOW since the upgrade, even with the new browser.

Prophet: xNTJ
Nomad: ESxP
Hero: ExTJ
Artist: ISFx

Regarding Brian's first impression, I agree except prophet should be INxJ in my opinion, and Artist should be IxFP.

I would say that for prophets and artists, the E types are less pure examples of the I examples, and vice versa for nomads and heroes.

You could say in general the following:
N = prophet
T = hero
S = nomad
F = artist

although that doesn't get you to specific types.

Pragmatism and Utility may not be identical in philosophical traditions, but they are closely aligned allies. Both are concerned with what works as opposed to what's true. What works is determined by one's perception of the world, and that is determined by experience; hence these are basically S philosophies.

That does not mean however that utilitarians like Mill would test as S on an MBTI test. Anyone philosophically inclined (no matter what philosophy they argue) will likely have S as their weakest scoring function, and N as their strongest, with T stronger than F in the majority of cases. They are likely to be more I than E.

I agree that ESFx are the most pragmatic types, and least interested in philosophy (the ESTx types may prefer other intellectual pursuits).

Originally Posted by eameece

OK, here I am; IF it works.

This site is still very SLOW since the upgrade, even with the new browser.

At least you're back! Be sure to clean out your Startup Menu if you have not done so already and free up all that memory/resources on your computer. That should greatly help your speed.

Anyone philosophically inclined (no matter what philosophy they argue) will likely have S as their weakest scoring function, and N as their strongest, with T stronger than F in the majority of cases.

If we assume that Is, generally, are most likely to be drawn to philosophy, then we would get the following hierarchy of philosophical inclination according to your theory:

1) INTJ - NiTeSiFe
2) INFJ - NiFeTiSe
3) INTP - TiNeSiFe
4) INFP - FiNeSiTe
5) ISTP - TiSeNiFe
6) ISFP - FiSeNiTe
7) ISTJ - SiTeFiNe
8) ISFJ - SiFeTiNe

I am not sure this is quite accurate. What do you think?

Should I "defend" myself?

Some wise people say that the position of power is defenselessness. At least not to react, but to keep your cool (or your "center").

Well, maybe I'm not there yet, so I'll defend myself a little :wink:

I think Stonewall that my comments about corporations are usually accompanied (at least in my own mind if not always stated) by solutions.

Being close in F and T, my thoughts and opinions are colored by feelings/values and vice versa. Rarely either/or.

I do "piss people off" sometimes. I don't necessarily consider it a value to do so. Nor do I consider it wise not to speak the truth as I see it.

An additional thought about F:

I know F is thought of by some as interest in "harmony." It figures as such in some MBTI questions, I think. However, I don't think that is the essence of the feeling function. Feeling is the way we connect with ourselves, our values/preferences/significance, and with other people. Strong feelings may also lead to disputes, while we are sometimes asked to "reason together." Thus neither T nor F has the total lock on "harmony." The F function helps us to know what makes us feel good. But to get there, one may have to confront danger, despair and/or other not so good experiences. People with strong F are probably adept at this. That is why F is related to existentialism, and existential philosophers are notoriously disputatious.

Oh yes, and I agreed with Stonewall about the Awakening in his discussion with Brian. It was very F driven.

Anyone philosophically inclined (no matter what philosophy they argue) will likely have S as their weakest scoring function, and N as their strongest, with T stronger than F in the majority of cases.

If we assume that Is, generally, are most likely to be drawn to philosophy, then we would get the following hierarchy of philosophical inclination according to your theory:

1) INTJ - NiTeSiFe
2) INFJ - NiFeTiSe
3) INTP - TiNeSiFe
4) INFP - FiNeSiTe
5) ISTP - TiSeNiFe
6) ISFP - FiSeNiTe
7) ISTJ - SiTeFiNe
8) ISFJ - SiFeTiNe

I am not sure this is quite accurate. What do you think?

Well, according to the MBTI folks, INTP was supposed to be the "philosopher." INTJ wants to apply it. Close enough; but I doubt you can systematize such a thing; (why would you want to anyway). High scoring does not equal dominant function. My N score is highest, but my T is dominant. I was going by highest score.

I'm looking for your tests so I might try them....

Eric

Originally Posted by eameece

High scoring does not equal dominant function.

But shouldn't it beyond some error range?

I'm looking for your tests so I might try them....

Great.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by eameece

High scoring does not equal dominant function.

But shouldn't it beyond some error range?

No, there's virtually no connection between the two. The scores are raw results; the dominant function is determined by the logical formula used by MBTI, involving the J/P and I/E scores too.

I'm looking for your tests so I might try them....

Great.

The Ross Barger test is the one we discussed the most. It was easy to take and was low tech. I just printed it out. My test is similar but more complicated, but worth looking into posting on my site in that way.

Anyway, his definitions of "realism" and "idealism" according to the content of the questions, are as I suspected and told you. They are exactly equal to materialism and spiritualism respectively. There are no essentialist or rationalist views represented. They could only be estimated as pretty much the opposites of pragmatism and existentialism, respectively. Only if all 6 basic philosophies are included do you have a test which includes the complete scope of philosophy; the Barger test DOES NOT. It is "right-brain" dominated.

So, as I explained to you in my emails, in that test pragmatism correlates with S and existentialism with F, but realism does NOT correlate with T nor does idealism correlate with N. If, Stonewall, you reinterpret those philosophical terms to fit with rationalism and essentialism respectively, then they would; but that is NOT how they are interpreted in Barger's test. He uses realism and idealism in their usual meanings, equating EXACTLY to materialism and spiritualism (as I prefer to call them) respectively.

(Looking over the test again I found one question that is rationalist (although too general really to be anything), and scored as realist; #17. I agreed with that one, so my "edited" realist score is 2. Conceivably, question 39 could be seen as essentialist, but not necessarily)

Anyway, my scores are: idealism 10, realism 2, pragmatism 7 and existentialism 8.

As a strong spiritualist, my "idealism" and "realism" scores should come as no surprise. I agreed with #7, that humans discover knowledge from the physical world. That they do. As Brian pointed out, these are not necessarily either/or questions, so you can agree with opposing viewpoints. Certainly we do gain knowledge from the physical world, but also by revelation from God.

I am anti-materialist, and yet fairly pragmatic in my approach to things. More perhaps than would correlate with my low S score. But, the N philosophy was not represented in the test for comparison.

Originally Posted by eameece

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by eameece

High scoring does not equal dominant function.

But shouldn't it beyond some error range?

No, there's virtually no connection between the two. The scores are raw results; the dominant function is determined by the logical formula used by MBTI, involving the J/P and I/E scores too.

Hold on here. When you take that Keirsey test you get scales as follows:

T -----------|----------- F

N -----------|----------- S

What do you come out, 90-100% N? If so, then you are 0-10% S. The perceiving questions oppose N and S in order to determine which you prefer and it presumably gives you a very rough estimate of how much you use one in relation to the other.

You score about 50% on the T/F scale, right? The judging questions oppose T and F so your results imply that you rely upon T roughly half the time and F the other half.

Can we not deduce from these scores that N is probably your dominant function? Yes, we do have to allow for an error range and I would not doubt that it is +/- 20-30%. But if your N is near 100% and your T near 50%, it sure looks like N is your dominant function.

Consider the absurdity of having T as your dominant. Since you use F nearly as much as T, F cannot possibly be your inferior function as is necessary under the theory Your ratio of T to F is about 1:1. If you are T-dominant, then both N and S have to fit in the order between T and F. How can they if your N to S ratio is maybe 10:1?

Let me be more precise. Let's express T in terms of F. If the ratio T:F = 1:1, then T = F. Similarly, let's express N in terms of S. If the ratio N:S = 10:1, then N = 10S. Now substitute these terms in the INTP order:

T = F
N = 10S
S = S
F = F

The dominant and inferior values are equal. However the auxiliary is ten times greater than the tertiary. This is impossible. The only way this might work is if you were also about 50/50 on the N/S scale. But instead you are poles apart.

What am I missing, Eric? Granted, there can easily be an error range of +/- 20-30% on the test. But you require +/- 50%. That seems a bit much.


Just for clarification, I generally come out 95-100% T (and 0-5% F) and 70-75% N (and 25-30% S). Let's use a T:F ratio of 19:1 (95/5) and an N:S ratio of 3:1 (75/25). So, for me, T = 19F and N = 3S. Now plug these into the INTP order:

T = 19F
N = 3S
S = S
F = F

Do you see how this fits in a way which your scores do not?

Anyway, my scores are: idealism 10, realism 2, pragmatism 7 and existentialism 8.

Now that is consistent with results I expected for an INFJ (i.e., Idealism first and Existentialism second).

Hey, so far my quotes are wrapping. Let's see how it looks after I post it!

Stonewall wrote:

"Plato - 1w9 INTJ - All I can say is that I never felt that I was on precisely the same wavelength as Plato and I am an INTP. I do not see him as an INFP so, assuming that he was an IN, I think it must be either INFJ or INTJ. INTJ is probably the most likely choice and I noted that our Philosophy "Master" Eric Meece has also labelled him as such. "

Indeed. He was a strong rationalist, and tried to apply his ideal world to reality.

"Socrates - 6w5 ENTP - INTP or ENTP. I think it could go either way."

I think that is a brilliant stroke to call him, alone among the philosophers, an E. He didn't write anything, but enjoyed dialoguing with people one on one out on the street. According to the definition of E, he fits.

"Aristotle - 5w6 INTP - Here is another one with whom I never felt exactly on the same wavelength. His Golden Mean is too moderate and too pragmatic for an INTP, in my opinion. I can much more easily see ENTP here, reinforced by his vast range of interests as opposed to the INTP's limited list of preferred areas of concentration."

Good point; he could be ENTP, but as a scholar rather than an engineer he probably was I, with a strong E score. Not as typical INTP as Kant; more E and S.

"St. Thomas Aquinas - 5w6 INTP - I am torn on Aquinas but I can easily see INTP. Would Mr. Saari agree? "

I don't know about him, but I would.

"Rene Descartes - 5w6 INTP - I more easily see Descartes as an INTJ."

Agreed; definitely!

"David Hume - 6w5 INTP - I don't know but I do not think that Hume was an INTP. I see him more as an S. I will not try to pin him down any further than that."

Sounds right. In terms of what he advocated, he was completely S. But all philosophers are thinkers, even if they are anti-intellectual.

"Immanuel Kant - 5w6 INTP - Kant, according to Eric Meece, is the archetypal INTP (as Plato is the archetypal INTJ in his opinion) and I have to agree. "

Right.

"Rousseau - 9w1 INFP - Either INTP or INFP. I actually favor INTP but it may be INFP. "

Definitely INFP; very typical (in fact, maybe he invented the type). Very much the 4 type too.

"G.W.F. Hegel - 5w6 INTJ - INTJ or ENTJ? "

No, very introverted. I would favor the INTP type for him. He was not oriented to action or goals I don't think, although he was concerned with history and the future (but then so am I and I am INTP). Very wide-ranging speculative philosopher. In many ways he is INFJ, but he is a rationalist.

"Friedrich Nietzsche - 5w4 INTP - I definitely do not see INTP. Either INFP or INTJ (both use Te and Fi in opposite order). His writing seems more INFP but his attitude seems more INTJ. Perhaps if he were an E, it would help bridge the gap? ENFP or ENTJ? I will just stick with xNFP or xNTJ. "

Sounds right. But since INFPs can be radicals, then F.N. can be one. I think his S score might have been close; his views are ISFP in many ways, very sensuous oriented; though as you say his attitude is like an NTJ.

"Jean-Paul Sartre - 5w4 INTP - I don't see that. Either SFP or NFP."

Agreed. Very close to Nietzsche. Maybe they are 4w5 rather than vice-versa.

Eric

I thought you knew that MBTI does not determine dominant function by the raw score. I know that you know! If you are an introverted P like me, according to THEM, then your dominant function is a J, either T or F. (If you are introverted J then your dominant function is a P one, either N or S).

Since my T is higher than my F by 1 point, then T is my dominant function, according to THEM; even though on another day, if I change my answer to one question, it is F (going from inferior to dominant). But that is just the problem I have with that method of determining dominant function. It may be right; my T is very dominant in me and I have trouble with feelings. But it certainly is problematical.

So that's why I prefer seeing a "philosopher" as probably an INTP; but in general much more N than S, and in general more T than F, and more I than E, in terms of their raw scores only.

My philosophical views align with INFJ, according to my own correlation chart, and so do my interests and preferred occupations. And yet, according to the test, which I have no reason to doubt, I am INTP, and I fit the descriptions I have read very well.

Originally Posted by eameece

"Socrates - 6w5 ENTP - INTP or ENTP. I think it could go either way."

I think that is a brilliant stroke to call him, alone among the philosophers, an E. He didn't write anything, but enjoyed dialoguing with people one on one out on the street. According to the definition of E, he fits.

I was hedging earlier but, having thought about it some more, I have little doubt that he was ENTP. Yes, obviously he would engage people in the agora and everywhere else. That suggests E. Additionally, his demand for precise definition suggests Ti. Also his "dialoguing," not to prove a point or forward a specific view but just to play devil's advocate, suggests ENTP specifically. ENTPs of course make the finest trial lawyers. And in Socrates we have a man who would routinely outwit the Sophists whose specialty was teaching men how to successfully argue their cases in court. Socrates would have made one hell of a trial lawyer and he was almost certainly an ENTP. I wonder if Brian has a view on this possible extraversion?

"Aristotle - 5w6 INTP - Here is another one with whom I never felt exactly on the same wavelength. His Golden Mean is too moderate and too pragmatic for an INTP, in my opinion. I can much more easily see ENTP here, reinforced by his vast range of interests as opposed to the INTP's limited list of preferred areas of concentration."

Good point; he could be ENTP, but as a scholar rather than an engineer he probably was I, with a strong E score. Not as typical INTP as Kant; more E and S.

The breadth of his interests suggested possible ENTP to me. However consider Aristotle's ideal man which reasonably was a reflection of himself. His ideal man was so classically and severely introverted that surely Aristotle was an extreme I. Indeed as studious as he was, he might as well have been a monk. But INTP or INTJ? His conservatism (valuing of custom/tradition) and elitism seem more INTJ to me. Yet many of his ideas seem INTP. I will have to consider him some more.

"Rousseau - 9w1 INFP - Either INTP or INFP. I actually favor INTP but it may be INFP. "

Definitely INFP; very typical (in fact, maybe he invented the type). Very much the 4 type too.

What exactly suggests INFP to you? I cannot decide between INFP and INTP.

"Jean-Paul Sartre - 5w4 INTP - I don't see that. Either SFP or NFP."

Agreed. Very close to Nietzsche. Maybe they are 4w5 rather than vice-versa.

You obviously have gotten a handle on the Enneagram where I have not. However I do recall specifics about Four, Five, and Six. I would definitely think that Sartre and Nietzsche were 4w5s and not 5w4s.

Originally Posted by eameece

I thought you knew that MBTI does not determine dominant function by the raw score. I know that you know! If you are an introverted P like me, according to THEM, then your dominant function is a J, either T or F. (If you are introverted J then your dominant function is a P one, either N or S).

Since my T is higher than my F by 1 point, then T is my dominant function, according to THEM; even though on another day, if I change my answer to one question, it is F (going from inferior to dominant). But that is just the problem I have with that method of determining dominant function. It may be right; my T is very dominant in me and I have trouble with feelings. But it certainly is problematical.

I agree with you about the faulty methodology. And if you yourself know that you are so clearly T-dominant then the test is really faulty. Your T should be unambiguous.

Originally Posted by eameece

I thought you knew that MBTI does not determine dominant function by the raw score. I know that you know! If you are an introverted P like me, according to THEM, then your dominant function is a J, either T or F. (If you are introverted J then your dominant function is a P one, either N or S).

Since my T is higher than my F by 1 point, then T is my dominant function, according to THEM; even though on another day, if I change my answer to one question, it is F (going from inferior to dominant). But that is just the problem I have with that method of determining dominant function. It may be right; my T is very dominant in me and I have trouble with feelings. But it certainly is problematical.

I agree with you about the faulty methodology. And if you yourself know that you are so clearly T-dominant then the test is really faulty. Your T should be unambiguous.

Originally Posted by eameece

I thought you knew that MBTI does not determine dominant function by the raw score. I know that you know! If you are an introverted P like me, according to THEM, then your dominant function is a J, either T or F. (If you are introverted J then your dominant function is a P one, either N or S).

Since my T is higher than my F by 1 point, then T is my dominant function, according to THEM; even though on another day, if I change my answer to one question, it is F (going from inferior to dominant). But that is just the problem I have with that method of determining dominant function. It may be right; my T is very dominant in me and I have trouble with feelings. But it certainly is problematical.

I agree with you about the faulty methodology. And if you yourself know that you are so clearly T-dominant then the test is really faulty. Your T should be unambiguous.

OK, I did it. You can go to
http://www.california.com/~eameece/questionnaire.htm
and take my philosophy quiz and score it.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

INTP

• 1.Aquinas 1.Epicurean? #1 St. Augustine/ Aquinas
  
  2.Aristotle 2.Baconian #2 Immanuel Kant
  
  3.Augustine 3.Aristotelean?? #3 Jean-Paul Sartre
  
  4.Bentham 4.Lockean #4 Soren Kierkegaard
  
  5.Cynics ?? 5.Stoic/Aurelian #5 Arthur Schopenhauer
  
  6.Epicureans ?? 6.Thomist #6 John Stuart Mill
  
  7.Hobbes ?? 7.Newtonian #7 Simone de Beauvoir
  
  8.Hume ? 8.Ockamian? #8 Lao Tze
  
  9.Kant ? 9.Humean #9 W.F. Nietzsche
  
  10.Mill 10.Platonic/Socratic #10 You're not a philosopher!
  
  11.Nietzsche ? 11.Randian
  
  12.Noddings 12.Augustinian
  
  13.Ockham 13. Kantian
  
  14.Plato
  
  15.Prescriptivism ?
  
  16.Rand
  
  17.Sartre
  
  18.Spinoza ??
  
  19.Stoics ?

I had a score of 20S/10 R on Mr. Meece's Philosophical questionnaire and come out on the Theory-Ideas-Whited section and as an iNtuitive. HTH

I come up a 25R 30M on Eric's questionnaire. This is right on the border between "Natural Law; Reliability; Mechanics; Hawking" and "Prediction; Engineering; Freud; Russell; Marx; Santayana", and is Thinking no matter which side of the boundary one considers.

Originally Posted by eameece

OK, I did it. You can go to
http://www.california.com/~eameece/questionnaire.htm
and take my philosophy quiz and score it.

Eric, this is really quite an achievement. How fully have you tested its accuracy with people from all over the field? Have you managed to test people fitting all the designations on your chart?

I took it four times this morning and got the following scores:

47R, 14S
42R, 19S
42R, 26S
39R, 23S

If we average these, it implies that I am in the Purpose/Ideals sector, perhaps 70% of the way left toward the Order/Doctrine sector and maybe 85% of the way up toward the Truth/Principles sector. However, based upon your designations, surely I am actually in the Truth/Principles sector. Certainly I would be in the lower half of the Truth/Principles sector and, if I am actually near the border with the Purpose/Ideals sector, then my test average may really not be that far off (perhaps by less than 10 points). That would actually be a pretty close score. Have you estimated an error range to attach to these scores?

What is more difficult for me to see is the 70% of the way left. Assuming that I belong in the Truth/Principles sector, this would place me 70% of the way toward Plato and away from Kant and Aquinas. In reality, I am closer to Kant and Aquinas than to either Plato or Aristotle. Of course, this might still make sense if in fact you have Kant (and Aquinas) near the border with 25R and Plato way over, perhaps beyond 65R, such that Kant and Aquinas are clearly closer to me. What coordinates do you actually attach to these guys?

I like the fact that you placed Stoicism in the same sector with Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle's ideal man is rather stoic and barely has a pulse. It is really with that repression and pragmatism (along with his elitism) that I diverge with Aristotle. I am definitely in the next sector up (Truth/Principles) but then I have never felt joined at the hip with Leibniz either. How far up in that quadrant do you place Leibniz?

Let's get the whole picture. What coordinates would you assign to these guys in the upper left quadrant? I would anticipate that I am in the Truth/Principles sector, closer to Kant and Aquinas than to Plato. On the other axis, I may be about midway between Augustine and Aristotle, although I really need to reevaluate Augustine. Neither should be as close as Kant though. But you certainly have me squared by the proper guys in the Truth/Principles sector. Of course the test itself wanted to edge me into the Purpose/Ideals sector but, if I am in the Truth/Principles sector but close to the border with the Purpose/Ideals sector, then that is not far off at all. This is a pretty outstanding job, Eric.


In looking over your chart, I have a few questions.

1) Are you confident of your placement of Einstein? Could you see him in the sector directly above (Theory/Ideas) or would that confuse things?

2) Are you confident of your placement of Mill? I cannot see him in the same sector as Bentham. I always felt pretty close to Mill and more distant from Bentham. If anything, I see Mill immediately up and left in that Theory/Ideas sector. But that might mess things up. If Mill is in that sector with Bentham, then surely he is in the upper left corner while Bentham is toward the bottom. What do you think?

3) Agnosticism in a single sector?

4) Sophists and Epicureans in the same sector?

I hope I did this right. I scored 25S, 12R on Eric's test, which puts me more or less in line with Aquinas again.

And with Virgil as well. I did notice that my scores on those three SelectSmart instruments were pretty close to his.

Can anyone explain this? A male INTP paleoconservative and a female ISTJ liberal finding common ground? :-)

By the way, welcome back, Eric! :-D

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I hope I did this right. I scored 25S, 12R on Eric's test, which puts me more or less in line with Aquinas again.

And with Virgil as well. I did notice that my scores on those three SelectSmart instruments were pretty close to his.

Can anyone explain this? A male INTP paleoconservative and a female ISTJ liberal finding common ground? :-)

It may have to do with the closeness of Princess Kay of the Milky Way and Alice in Dairyland and/ or an addiction to tomes.

No doubt. I live within shouting distance of several dozen Bovine-Americans. :-)

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I hope I did this right. I scored 25S, 12R on Eric's test, which puts me more or less in line with Aquinas again.

And with Virgil as well. I did notice that my scores on those three SelectSmart instruments were pretty close to his.

Can anyone explain this? A male INTP paleoconservative and a female ISTJ liberal finding common ground? :-)

There does not seem to be much of a conflict, Kiff, although I do not understand it either. For example, Aristotle in many ways appears INTP, but in other ways appears ISTJ (I typed INTJ last night but I meant ISTJ). His relative stoicism in conduct seems more ISTJ to me than anything else and, if I am not mistaken, Mr. Saari as an INTP is partial to stoicism as well. This may be a generational attribute for an INTP, I do not know. But it may be Mr. Saari's particular generational attributes as an INTP and yours as an ISTJ which produce the common ground. I am hoping that Eric (who seems to have his own generational attributes as an INTP) will offer an explanation.