There has been a great deal of input to this site, by many who took several of the tests. It would be wonderful to have this correlated in some way, with all respondants listed together.

I write this knowing full well that I'm not the one to do it, but it would be grand.

Eric:

I took it twice more this afternoon. Scores:

32R, 27S
36R, 28S

Now THAT is more like it. That ought to be right on the money, according to your chart divisions. Well done!

Here are all of them thus far:

47R, 14S
42R, 19S
42R, 26S
39R, 23S
32R, 27S
36R, 28S

I was barely awake the first time I took it so the first set of scores (47R, 14S) should probably be disregarded. I was still swilling coffee the second time I took it but I am not positive that I would disregard those scores (42R, 19S). You be the judge. Regardless, I ought to average out to somewhere in the 30s for R and a tad over 25 (maybe 26) for S. And that sounds just right.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

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 have given it to scores of people since the late 1980s. There haven't been too many who have scored as far left as you and Justin. In fact, noone except my Plato teacher has scored a higher R score. But it is probably true that in the circles I run in, rationalists are relatively rare. But I have gotten scores in most places around the wheel. Moderate scores are more common, of course.

Have you estimated an error range to attach to these scores?

No; usually people don't take it 6 times in a row, nor do that and get different scores! Once you are clear on the meaning of the questions, your scores should be consistent if you are taking it over and over.

I notice people have changed places somewhat when they have taken it several years later. People do change their positions during their lives.

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?

More accurately, Plato is about 45S and 50R, very far out. Leibniz would be about 38S and 45R, in Plato's orbit. Aquinas would be about 40S and 20R, and Kant would be 30-plusS and 20R. Aristotle is probably at least 30R and only about 12S.

That compares with you about 27S and 38R. You do seem to have a stronger R score than you might have thought. Perhaps too you are misjudging Plato, as many do; he actually is quite a good philosopher, with lots of relevant things to say, even if tight-ass in some ways.

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.

Yes according to your "final score," you are in the "truth/principles" quadrant, right above the "purpose/ideals" quadrant.

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?

Probably if he himself took the quiz, that might be so. He was wise, spiritual and well-informed. But going by his primary approach to his ideas, there is a strong emphasis on their being order and deterministic law in the universe and a desire to prove that, and that is why I place him below the horizon. Quite moderate compared to his predecessors though. Something of the same could be said of Newton. He was into astrology and occultism and so on, but his physics don't show any of that.

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?

I am pretty confident that Mill is where I say. I am not as confident about Bentham; I just threw him in there this time, in fact, because he is a utilitarian and you guys are familiar with him. Maybe I should take him out until I have re-read him.

3) Agnosticism in a single sector?

The keywords are approximate and meant to give you an idea of the meaning of a sector. No, it would not really be confined to that sector!

4) Sophists and Epicureans in the same sector?

Why not? Actually, in the more accurate picture, the Sophists are about 25E/30M and Epicureans further out at about 40E and 45M. Both are highly empiricist and sense-based in their approach.

Originally Posted by eameece

I have given it to scores of people since the late 1980s. There haven't been too many who have scored as far left as you and Justin. In fact, noone except my Plato teacher has scored a higher R score. But it is probably true that in the circles I run in, rationalists are relatively rare.

As I indicated, I was not yet awake when I first took the thing so I seriously doubt that I am in the 40R range. Although I did get a kick out of seeing how significantly more rationalist and less spiritualist I am when I crawl out of bed! But based upon your own designations, I should be at least 25R, and the 30R range is probably about right. I will take it again today to see if I have finally settled upon "gradations" with your questions.

No; usually people don't take it 6 times in a row, nor do that and get different scores! Once you are clear on the meaning of the questions, your scores should be consistent if you are taking it over and over.

Yes, but as with that other test, your questions do not always elicit a firm yes or no, particularly to an INTP who can continually think of "exceptions to the rule." I doubt that any test can however. But your test seems very well done in comparison.

I notice people have changed places somewhat when they have taken it several years later. People do change their positions during their lives.

And I have been reevaluating my own worldview over the past year or two. I am still not certain where I may ultimately come down. But had I taken this a few years earlier, I believe I would have come out significantly less S and I am not sure about R, at least as far as your questions go.

More accurately, Plato is about 45S and 50R, very far out. Leibniz would be about 38S and 45R, in Plato's orbit. Aquinas would be about 40S and 20R, and Kant would be 30-plusS and 20R. Aristotle is probably at least 30R and only about 12S.

Thanks. It does mirror the reality. I should be probably be close to Kant first and Aquinas second and then perhaps roughly equidistant from both Plato and Aristotle. 25-30S and 30-40R should be about right.

That compares with you about 27S and 38R. You do seem to have a stronger R score than you might have thought.

I am not sure that I am more R than I thought but let me settle on firm answer "gradations" to your questions and let's see. Regardless, by your own designations, I should not fall below 25R. I am just uncertain as to whether I should fall closer to 25R or 40R.

Perhaps too you are misjudging Plato, as many do; he actually is quite a good philosopher, with lots of relevant things to say, even if tight-ass in some ways.

Oh, I like Plato to the extent that I do, just as I like Aristotle to the extent that I do, but that extent is moderate in both cases. I am with Aristotle in wishing to cut out much of Plato's "fantasy," but Aristotle went too far in the other direction. So I am in between the two, favorably disposed to both, but following neither. Obviously, I am not a fan of Plato's (partially) communist ideal and I do not share his preoccupation with order. Aristotle was correct to value liberty but naturally I cannot agree with his aristocratic application. The ethics of both left something to be desired. For that, I look to Kant and Aquinas.

I am pretty confident that Mill is where I say. I am not as confident about Bentham; I just threw him in there this time, in fact, because he is a utilitarian and you guys are familiar with him. Maybe I should take him out until I have re-read him.

That makes sense. Of course there is much room within each sector and Mill and Bentham might be at opposite ends. If not, then Bentham ought to be in one of the three bordering sectors further away from me.

4) Sophists and Epicureans in the same sector?

Why not? Actually, in the more accurate picture, the Sophists are about 25E/30M and Epicureans further out at about 40E and 45M. Both are highly empiricist and sense-based in their approach.

Yes, but the Epicureans had their own conception of virtue. The Sophists were anything but virtuous. If they truly would score similarly despite their different outlooks, then it may be a limitation of the two-dimensional grid. I would just tend to think that the Sophists fell closer to Darwin and Determinism, and the Epicureans...let me think about it.

Eric:

You never did indicate where you fall on your chart. Let me guess that it is the Spiritism/Mysticism sector. If not, then Aspiration/Faith. You did indicate that you fell in the INFJ zone, right?

Speaking of which, what led you to believe that Jung, an INTP, is in the Aspiration/Faith sector? If anything, I see him closer to Theosophy than anything else you have listed...somewhere between Theory and Mysticism in any case.

And any guesses where INTJ Brian Rush may come out? I do not see him so much near Plato as near this same Theosophy/Mysticism zone mentioned above. If so, then it will be fun trying to reconcile how INTJs can be all over the board.


I have an idea of how the different types may fall in different zones on your chart. I will only deal with the eight I types here since I am still not sure what "rules" with respect to Es. And this is obviously very rough and very speculative but let's see what comes out:

Let's start by highlighting your horizontal and vertical 0 lines. Draw two diagonals through the centerpoint such that you now have eight sectors of equal size.

Now we need to account for areas of overlap where two different types may meet. Start by highlighting the horizontal lines immediately above and below the horizontal 0 line (25S and 25M) and do the same with the two verticals immediately left and right of the 0 verticle (25R and 25E). We are not yet finished but, at this point, stop and consider that the two types in the upper left quadrant will be found in a square bounded by 25E and 25M (not 0E/E and 0S/M). The two types in the lower left will be found in a square bounded by 25S and 25E. The two in the lower right should be bounded by 25R and 25S, and the two in the upper right should be bounded by 25R and 25M. So you should have a horizontal band of overlap between 25S and 25M, and a verticle band between 25R and 25E.

Now we need to draw the diagonal overlaps. For the new expanded upper left quadrant, go to the new corner at 25E, 25M) Move left to the next intersection at 0E, 25M and draw a parallel diagonal out to the upper left. Go back to that corner at 25E, 25M. Move up to the next intersection at 25E, 0M. Now draw another parallel diagonal out to the upper left. Go to the "new" corners for each of the other three "new" overlapping quadrants and peform the same procedure.

In the end we get the following type borders:

INTP - Start with 25E at top and draw down to 25M. Go left to 0E, 25M, thereby including the whole Utilitarian square. Now move up that diagonal splitting Explanation/Manipulation, Purpose/Ideals, and Essence/Forms. This should roughly be the INTP zone with necessary overlaps.

INTJ - Start at left edge and follow 25M over to 25E. Move up 25E to next intersection so that all of Utilitarianism square is included. Now follow that diagonal out to the left, splitting Reverence/Nature Worship, Theology/Theosophy, and Ascetism/Abstraction. This should roughly be the INTJ zone with necessary overlaps.

Do the same all the way around, continuing counterclockwise with ISTJ, ISTP, ISFJ, ISFP, INFP, and INFJ (in that order).

I have not had a chance to consider how valid this is but I do note that it allows for INTP Virgil and ISTJ Kiff to land at about the same place at 20-25S and 10-20R. In fact the odd INTJ or INFJ could conceivably fall at the same place. If I am not mistaken, the odd ISFJ and ISFP might fall there as well (double-check though). Interestingly, ISFP would hold the Existentialist bent for which Kiff was looking. Maybe there is something to this? I certainly would not want to make the zones much larger however. See what you think.

"You never did indicate where you fall on your chart. Let me guess that it is the Spiritism/Mysticism sector. If not, then Aspiration/Faith. You did indicate that you fell in the INFJ zone, right?"

Good guess! That's about right; about 50-plus S and 8 E.

"Speaking of which, what led you to believe that Jung, an INTP, is in the Aspiration/ Faith sector? If anything, I see him closer to Theosophy than anything else you have listed...somewhere between Theory and Mysticism in any case."

Reading his works he seems to be more sympathetic to a feeling, experiential orientation, despite his interest in archetypes.

"And any guesses where INTJ Brian Rush may come out? I do not see him so much near Plato as near this same Theosophy/Mysticism zone mentioned above. If so, then it will be fun trying to reconcile how INTJs can be all over the board. "

I would guess he is somewhere in the Nature Worship sector, or left of that in the Theory sector. He does have a strong intellectual bent, as an INTJ, so perhaps the latter is correct, although he would probably be more relativist and sensualist on moral questions. I doubt he is further up than 25S, but probably above the horizon. I think most INTJs would be on the left side at least. Brian may be an exception.

I favor plotting the types in a particular spot (which is easier for me since I have the grid, and haven't gone to the trouble yet of drawing it on the computer and/or scanning it in). Then I imagine that most people would fall within a couple of quadrants of where I plot their type, and I wouldn't systemize it more than that, Mr. 35R!

The different meanings of E/I between MBTI and my questionnaire, makes that scheme somewhat problematic though. Temperament is not always going to match philosophy by any means. In my case for example, I am a bit more anti-intellectual than my temperament, for the very reason that I am trying to overcome my temperament! In your case though, your strong R matches well your strong T plus N.

I had INTP in the upper left portion of the theory quadrant, about 15S and 20R. INTJ would be further left about 35/40R and 20S. INFJ prophets would be in the theology sector, about 35/40S and 15R, and INFP would be in the awareness sector about 30/35S and 30E. ISFP artists would be in the flux sector well out about 40E and 10/15S.

I would put ISFJ in the reverence sector not too far from the center, maybe 15E and 5S. ISTP would be moderate too, maybe 20M and 5E in the pragmatic sector. ISTJ would be about 20M and 20R in the explanation sector. Opposite E types would be at opposite points, but probably not as strongly M as the introverts are S.

Looking at an earlier version of my map, I actually had Sophists further down in their M score than Epicureans, so perhaps you are right. I still had the Epicureans further E.

I'm a +9R/+7S (want to guess how I answered the math questions? :-)

Originally Posted by eameece

Good guess! That's about right; about 50-plus S and 8 E.

Wild man!

I would guess he is somewhere in the Nature Worship sector, or left of that in the Theory sector. He does have a strong intellectual bent, as an INTJ, so perhaps the latter is correct, although he would probably be more relativist and sensualist on moral questions. I doubt he is further up than 25S, but probably above the horizon. I think most INTJs would be on the left side at least. Brian may be an exception.

You may be right. The only actual data we have is the 40-question test he took and I do not attach too much weight to those results. But I think he came out about evenly in all four areas on that, perhaps peaking with 7 for Existentialism and bottoming out with something else at about 5 (I did not go back and check). But if we do attach any weight to those results, I suppose it implies that he may not be extreme in any direction. Nature worship may much more accurately reflect his spirituality than mysticism. And I suppose that his interest in the occult may edge him up over the 25S line toward either Aspiration or Theosophy. If I was anywhere close with my earlier type zone description, then the INTJ zone would encompass the SW half of the Nature Worship/Neo-Paganism sector as well as the SW half of the Theosophy sector. In fact you have Quantum Theory in the Pagan square. That may well be where he is.

I favor plotting the types in a particular spot (which is easier for me since I have the grid, and haven't gone to the trouble yet of drawing it on the computer and/or scanning it in). Then I imagine that most people would fall within a couple of quadrants of where I plot their type, and I wouldn't systemize it more than that, Mr. 35R!

Hey! Hey! That may be only 25R after I sit back, relax, and take a few breaths. :wink: Earlier you described to me how you arrived at your "points." And I am still examining whether your methodology makes sense. Regardless, I am suspicious of placing any type at a specific point. Yes, people of the same type use pretty much the same mental process in arriving at their conclusions. But they do not always arrive at the same conclusions. In fact, they may land very far apart. Consider ISTJ Kiff who is way up around 20S in the Theory square when we know intuitively that the bulk of her fellow ISTJs probably fall in the lower left quadrant. Nevertheless, it seems logical that people of a given type will tend to fall within the confines of a given range or field rather than anywhere and everywhere. And this is what I attempted to capture with the scheme I described earlier.

In my case for example, I am a bit more anti-intellectual than my temperament, for the very reason that I am trying to overcome my temperament!

Hey, don't blow a good thing!

In your case though, your strong R matches well your strong T plus N.

And all this demonstrates the difficulty with the chart labelling you provided. To wit:

R/S = N
R/M = T
E/S = F
E/M = S

In fact, it seems more accurate to make the following correlations:

R/S = NT
R/M = ST
E/S = NF
E/M = SF

These correlations in fact imply that N and S are found at top and bottom, respectively, of the verticle 0 line, and also that T and F are found at the left and right ends, respectively, of the horizontal 0 line. Indeed since we have a good idea that INTJ and ISTJ occupy the extremely left side of the chart, that left horizontal pole appears to represent Te specifically. Since INFP and ISFP occupy the right side of the chart, the right horizontal pole appears to represent Fi specifically. The chart may represent some sort of continuum from Te to Fi on the horizontal axis, possibly as follows (from left to right): Te - Ti - Fe - Fi.

Things are not so clear on the verticle axis. At the top, we have INTP to the left and INFJ to the right. These types do not share the same dominant function (as the left-side and right-side types do). Similarly we have ISTP and ISFJ at the bottom. So what does it mean?

Certainly, we know that N is up and S and down. Reasonably, we might assume that we find more INFJs than INTPs at the upper extreme of that verticle 0 line, based upon your designations. Since we shifted attitudes from Te to Fi horizontally, it seems logical that we might do the same vertically, and if the INFJ's Ni is at the upper end, we might expect to find Se at the lower end. Do we? This is not so clear to me but let's assume that this is true, for the time being.

In the same way that we presumably move from Te through Ti and Fe to Fi horizontally, we may move from Ni through Ne and Si to Se vertically. If this is true, then the chart might be divided into 16 blocks containing the following dominant pairs of functions:

Ni/Te | Ni/Ti | Ni/Fe | Ni/Fi

Ne/Te | Ne/Ti | Ne/Fe | Ne/Fi

Si/Te | Si/Ti | Si/Fe | Si/Fi

Se/Te | Se/Ti | Se/Fe | Se/Fi

You can see how the same function-attitude exists in a row or column (depending on its horizontal or verticle chart orientation). You will also note that, in may blocks, the two listed functions do not ever work together. This suggests that two different types predominate in the given block. In fact two different types probably predominate in every block if we treat each function in each pair as a required dominant function for any type. With this in mind, let substitute pairs of types for each of the 16 blocks:

ENTJ/INTJ | INTJ/INTP | ENFJ/INFJ | INFJ/INFP

ENTJ/ENTP | ENTP/INTP | ENFJ/ENFP | ENFP/INFP

ESTJ/ISTJ | ISTJ/ ISTP | ESFJ/ISFJ | ISFJ/ISFP

ESTJ/ESTP | ESTP/ISTP | ESFJ/ESFP | ESFP/ISFP

If there is anything to this, then it appears that IxxJ and ExxP types center on the border between two blocks which span horizontally and IxxP and ExxJ types center on the border between two blocks which span vertically. We get the following concentrations:

_____INTJ______|______INFJ_____
ENTJ______INTP_|_ENFJ______INFP
_____ENTP______|_____ENFP_____
_____ISTJ______|______ISFJ_____
ESTJ______ISTP_|_ESFJ______ISFP
_____ESTP______|_____ESFP_____

I will not try to transfer this to your chart here, but I imagine that this might work in tandem with the overlapping zones I offered earlier. The above placements would represent the "center of gravity" for each zone where the bulk of a given type congregates within its zone. Of course my earlier zones only dealt with I types so only the I types can be applied here. I'll leave it at that.

I had INTP in the upper left portion of the theory quadrant, about 15S and 20R. INTJ would be further left about 35/40R and 20S. INFJ prophets would be in the theology sector, about 35/40S and 15R, and INFP would be in the awareness sector about 30/35S and 30E. ISFP artists would be in the flux sector well out about 40E and 10/15S.

I don't think those points would exactly accord with what I represented above but then does it even make sense that ENTJs, for example, would be further left than INTJs as I represented? I don't know.

I would put ISFJ in the reverence sector not too far from the center, maybe 15E and 5S. ISTP would be moderate too, maybe 20M and 5E in the pragmatic sector. ISTJ would be about 20M and 20R in the explanation sector. Opposite E types would be at opposite points, but probably not as strongly M as the introverts are S.

I am getting dizzy. See if you can make anything of that table I made above, based upon intersections of implied horizontal and vertical continua of function-attitudes.

Eric:

Two results for today:

29R, 22S
32R, 24S

I think ultimately I am simply 30-35R and 20-25S.

I got 32R, 25M, which is:
Natural Law
Reliability
Mechanics
Hawking

ISTJ

my scores place me at
Theory
Ideas
Whitehead

sounds about right although I WAS hoping for mathematics :-)

Eric:

You provide coordinates for a few of this guys in the upper left. I have from you:

Plato 50R, 45S
Leibniz 45R, 38S
Aquinas 20R, 40S
Kant 20R, 30S
Aristotle 30R, 12S

For evaluation purposes, how about coordinates for the remaining guys in the quadrant? I see:

Augustine
Plotinus
Pythagoras
Hegel
Parmenides
Spinoza
Epictetus
Whitehead

Also, do you have point locations for the following or just general zones:

Stoicism
Theosophy
Theology

One more thing: did you once state that Kant's ethics were further left? Out of curiosity, where would you place those?

I broke down and took the test.

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.

R22 S 21

Theory
Ideas
Whitehead

I'm surprised that I, a scientist, came out as slightly spiritual and only moderately rational. Then again, I probably know the limits of science better than most!

BTW, Number Two and I are both ENTJs and scored in the same quadrant--interesting! Isn't that also near Virgil and Kiff?

Eric,

What do you make of these scores. Now ENTJ Vince is in the same area with Kiff and Virgil. Unless I am forgetting someone, that makes three different types in that one little area. Of course the Theory sector borders the center and various type should overlap there. We may be seeing the particular subsets of various types who have an interest in the topic of this site and that interest may relate in some way to a common philosophical placement.

For whatever it is worth, I have comfortably pinpointed my score. I am never going to be completely happy with all the questions, but I do now hit both R and S within narrow ranges and one number in each range comes up again and again and again. It seems reasonable to assume that those two repeating numbers are my real scores. They are:

32R, 22S

This of course represents my change over the past year or two, given the current state of our leadership and civilization. Prior to that, I suspect that I would have scored 20-25R, 15-20S. In other words, I would have been right in the same pack as well. If nearly everybody is going to score around the same place, then we really cannot effectively analyze the relation of temperament.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

If nearly everybody is going to score around the same place, then we really cannot effectively analyze the relation of temperament.

We definitely need a larger sample size, don't we? And we need to get some data from people like Susan, and Tim Walker, and Ally if she's still hanging around this site.

Another thing: sometimes I wonder if I'm answering these questions in a way that I feel like I'm "supposed to," and not the way I truly believe. There is a phenomenon noted in psychometrics in which test takers try to "please the examiner" in their responses. Am I being "PC" in light of the discussions we have had on T4T in the last year?

I think I'll go back and take the test again and see what happens this time.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

We definitely need a larger sample size, don't we? And we need to get some data from people like Susan, and Tim Walker, and Ally if she's still hanging around this site.

Yes, and Dave Krein and Robert, off the top of my head. I was just thinking about Dave's earlier results and they really suggest that he too would land in the same general area! I'll bet it is because we have a shared interest in this topic of this site. If we went around town digging up people of the same types, with little or no interest in this topic, we might get a greater diversity of scores.

Another thing: sometimes I wonder if I'm answering these questions in a way that I feel like I'm "supposed to," and not the way I truly believe. There is a phenomenon noted in psychometrics in which test takers try to "please the examiner" in their responses. Am I being "PC" in light of the discussions we have had on T4T in the last year?

I think anybody needs to take it at least twice to make sure. But you are turning up in the area implied by your interest in Aquinas and Aristotle so I doubt that you are far off.

I'm glad to see all the results. It is amazing that everyone here is on the left side so far! Outside this site, the majority of responses I have received have been on the right, by almost 2 to 1. You guys are helping to fill out my circle very nicely. Probably because you are mostly all NTs, or close to it; this site appeals to that temperament. I noted Alex fits right where he was supposed to as well. I'm sure though when Susan arrives we will get someone who is at least somewhat on the right or E side. (plus myself, of course; I am slightly E. Of course, I am from California; that may explain a lot. The "right" coast indeed!).

Your chart was impressive Stonewall. I would still tilt it all 45 degrees counterclockwise where I had it before though. N cannot be at the top and S at the bottom, because materialism (as you yourself pointed out) involves rationalist thinking (T) as well as sense experience (S) Earlier you had put F at the top and T at the bottom! You had it right before that T in itself tends toward the objective. Jung certainly said so. In your case, your N and Ti bring you upward philosophically. N Intuition means knowing through general concepts and speculations in the Jungian sense, not just spiritual awareness as it is often defined by non-Jungians. It is also intellectual and so must be on the left. However, you have a good chart there although it's 45 degrees off IMO! You are so good at that stuff.

Thanks for the questions too; I will change "agnosticism" to "secularism;" that might be closer. The keywords can only be indications, and can't be taken too literally. It suffices if they help you get the drift and understand the landscape of the circle, and what goes where within it.

INFJ leans to the left side and INFP well to the right side. Also, anything i-introverted would lean upwards rather than to the right. Introversion as opposed to extraversion has nothing to do with the right brain and that side of the mind, which has to do with receptivity to experience primarily and with diffusity and randomness.

If anyone has any feedback about the questions themselves, please let me know.

"For evaluation purposes, how about coordinates for the remaining guys in the quadrant? I see:"

Augustine at least 55S and about 35 R
Plotinus I have at 65S and 25R
Pythagoras 30/35S, 65R
Hegel 50S, 20/25R
Parmenides 20S, and at least 65R
Spinoza 7S, 55R
Epictetus 25S, 40R
Whitehead 25S, 5R

Also, do you have point locations for the following or just general zones:

Stoicism (same as Epictetus)
Theosophy -- no point locations for keywords
Theology no

"One more thing: did you once state that Kant's ethics were further left? Out of curiosity, where would you place those?"

Yes, his ethics would be 40R at least; probably more.

Okay. Took it again (this time on a full stomach ;-)):

39S, 15R

Same quadrant, only more so. I was a little more willing to "strongly agree" with some statements, and I only "copped out" with neutral responses twice.

My "raw" scores were: 18E, 45S, 33R, and 6M. FWIW. :-)

Originally Posted by eameece

Your chart was impressive Stonewall. I would still tilt it all 45 degrees counterclockwise where I had it before though. N cannot be at the top and S at the bottom, because materialism (as you yourself pointed out) involves rationalist thinking (T) as well as sense experience (S) Earlier you had put F at the top and T at the bottom!

Well, it is all a matter of definition. Remember that I was developing an original chart earlier using different assumptions. Now I am simply trying to interpret what your chart means.

You had it right before that T in itself tends toward the objective. Jung certainly said so. In your case, your N and Ti bring you upward philosophically.

OK, but the whole left side of your chart is objective, Eric. Certainly the Theory and Truth sectors would be objective, for example. I am an objective idealist. My only hesitation about this lies in the fact that some in your lower right are objective as well when the right side is subjective generally. I see Mill as objective although Bentham is less so. Darwin, Bacon, and Locke certainly seem objective. Objectivism certainly is although I would argue that it does not in fact lie where you have placed it even though Rand indeed worked to place it there.

The objective characters in your lower right might be captured by shifting my line 45 degrees. However, once we do that, we throw half the Theory sector in the subjective field as well as half the _Truth_ sector and this is absurd. Indeed Aquinas and Kant end up fully in the subjective field.

It almost seems as if the line separating objective from subjective is not straight. Surely the whole of the Truth sector is in the objective field. The line should probably split the Theology sector in half diagonally and then turn south separating Theory from Paganism. If we mirror things south of the equator, we run into problems since Mill is left in the subjective field and Locke as well. I am just not sure, Eric.

Thanks for the questions too; I will change "agnosticism" to "secularism;" that might be closer.

No problem. I wasn't criticizing, was just curious what your reasoning was.




Here, I am trying another approach. I retook that Ethical Philosophy test. Results:


1. Kant (100%)
2. Prescriptivism (95%)
3. Mill (94%)
4. Rand (67%)
5. Aquinas (59%)
6. Augustine (56%)
7. Bentham (54%)
8. Spinoza (52%)
9. Sartre (48%)
10. Ockham (48%)
11. Epicureans (41%)
12. Noddings (39%)
13. Plato (39%)
14. Aristotle (30%)
15. Stoics (25%)
16. Nietzsche (6%)
17. Hume (4%)
18. Cynics (0%)
19. Hobbes (0%)


I like this test because it accurately captures the fact that Kant, Mill, Aquinas, and Rand have always been my most influential philosophers. It also always throws in Augustine and that may be accurate but I would honestly need to go back and read him to tell for sure since it has been so many years. If anything, his appearance reflects the fact that I have moved up and left on your chart over the past couple of years. The order often changes when I take this insofar as Aquinas and Augustine usually beat out Rand, and others in the middle may move around somewhat. But Kant, Mill, and Prescriptivism are always the top three; Aquinas, Augustine, and Rand always comprise a second level; and Nietzsche, Hume, the Cynics, and Hobbes are always last.

Let's see what happens when we place your sector assignments by each philosopher:


1. Kant (100%) - Truth/Eternal Values (you place his ethics here, right?)
2. Prescriptivism (95%) - Truth/Eternal Values
3. Mill (94%) - Utilitarianism
4. Rand (67%) - Objectivism
5. Aquinas (59%) - Theology
6. Augustine (56%) - Abstraction
7. Bentham (54%) - Utilitarianism
8. Spinoza (52%) - Order/Doctrine
9. Sartre (48%) - Nihilism/Absurdity
10. Ockham (48%) - lower half
11. Epicureans (41%) - right half
12. Noddings (39%) - upper right
13. Plato (39%) - Essence/Forms
14. Aristotle (30%) - Purpose/Ideals
15. Stoics (25%) - Purpose/Ideals
16. Nietzsche (6%) - Nihilism/Absurdity
17. Hume (4%) - Chaos/Nominalism
18. Cynics (0%) - lower right?
19. Hobbes (0%) - Atomism/Determinism


Eric, I am not going to try to read too deeply into this but I noted that the two representatives of the Purpose/Ideals sector (where you place me), Aristotle and Stoicism, are listed consecutively and way down. On the other hand, I noted that the two representatives of the Truth/Eternal Values sector (where I think I belong) are listed first and second. I wonder whether your test should not be placing me in the Truth/Eternal Values sector. If we consider the four sectors in that area, I am first and foremost concerned with Truth/Eternal Values and Theory/Ideas as a very close second. Next I am interested in Theology and lastly (of the four) I am interested in Purpose/Ideals (at least if Aristotle and Stoicism are representative).

But it is interesting to note that, although my favorite philosophers are very near each other and my least favorites very far from me, there is not a continuum in between. Through the middle, I jump away and then closer and then away again, at least according to your chart arrangement. And I think it is noteworthy that, although my top two are in the Truth/Eternal Values sector, I do not actually hit the neighboring Purpose/Ideals sector until 3/4 of the way down the list. Nevertheless, I hit the neighboring Theology and Abstraction sectors early on. It seems as if there is another axis here which we are missing.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Okay. Took it again (this time on a full stomach ;-)):

39S, 15R

Same quadrant, only more so. I was a little more willing to "strongly agree" with some statements, and I only "copped out" with neutral responses twice.

My "raw" scores were: 18E, 45S, 33R, and 6M. FWIW. :-)

Holy smokes, Kiff! You ARE up there with Aquinas! An ISTJ theologian? This totally blows my theory about the zones.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Okay. Took it again (this time on a full stomach ;-)):

39S, 15R

Same quadrant, only more so. I was a little more willing to "strongly agree" with some statements, and I only "copped out" with neutral responses twice.

My "raw" scores were: 18E, 45S, 33R, and 6M. FWIW. :-)

Holy smokes, Kiff! You ARE up there with Aquinas! An ISTJ theologian? This totally blows my theory about the zones.

:-D

Let's see: how can I put those together?

I use organization, judgement, and detail in service to a Higher Purpose. (I buy books, catalog them, and help people find them in service to the Higher Purposes of Education, Entertainment, and Enlightenment).

Many librarians see our field as a vocational calling. I felt it at an early age but chose to ignore it; I had such a tremendous reverence for what libraries stood for that I did not feel I was worthy to join the profession. Two years of therapy and a couple of vocational tests finally convinced me otherwise.

We even have our own singular meditations! :-)

Thanks Kiff for welcoming me back. Glad to be back, although sometimes this Opera browser still gives me problems.

Stonewall:
MYERS-BRIGGS TEMPERAMENT TYPES
Raw scores I came up with months ago:
INFJ ? counselor 55S/20R
ESFP ? performer 35M/50E
ENTJ - fieldmarshal 20M/55R
ENFP ? enthusiast 15S/20E
ISFJ ? protector 5S/10E
INFP ? monk/healer 50S/35E
ESTP ? entrepreneur 55M/20E
INTP ? architect-theorist 20S/15R
ENFJ ? teacher 10S/5R
ISTP ? artisan 10M/5E
ISFP ? bucolic 20S/55E
ISTJ ? inspector 15M/20R
ENTP ? inventor 5M/10R
ESFJ ? provider 20M/15E
ESTJ ? supervisor 50M/35R
INTJ ? mastermind 35S/50R

In my chart however, I moved the highest scores, especially the E scores, more to the center, because E types are common, while extreme philosophies are rarely held.

This was based on the following
Scoring of MB Types on the wheel:
E = 4M, I = 4S, N = 3S/2R, F = 3E/2S
J = 4R, P = 4E, S = 3M/2E, T = 3R/2M
+ dominant function scores:
N = 2S/1R F = 2E/1S
S = 2M/1E T = 2R/1M
All scores X 5

So in this scoring I moved the wheel clockwise, a bit closer to your scores, from what I said before. This is not archetypally or deductively valid, but may reflect what you notice that "N" is more spiritual and "T" is more left than down. Whether this is valid or not, I don't know. But if there are really more NTs who fall in the R/S quarter of my chart, that means something. Our sample here is too small to conclude anything though.

You may well be in the the truth-eternal values sector; most times you took the test you had more than 25S. It may be that you don't relate to Stoics even though they are close to you, because of some particular ancient and out-of-date doctrines they have which were stated on that test. Remember too that ethics is only a small part of philosophy.

As for "objective," we may have a different definition of the word, and both are valid. Eternal truths are "objective," meaning they don't depend on the passing whims of individuals; but they are spiritual and found by looking within in intuitive thought. Philosophers like Plato and Leibniz link eternal forms to the soul. In that sense they are "subjective" and are found by or in the mind. Kant says the mind supplies them.

As I was using "objectivist," it means materialism; worldly objects and outward forces as dominant over the inner soul and consciousness. In that sense, philosophers in the R/S sector are definitely not objectivist. Often though, it is true the existentialist quadrant seems the most "subjective" in the sense we use the word, and subjective also seems to imply feelings. But spirituality pertains to both upper parts of the wheel, left and right.

Be not confused about my advice to turn chart counterclockwise. I meant that if you turn YOUR chart of MBTI types 45 degrees counter-clockwise, it aligns with where I put the MBTI types in the philosophy wheel. Except that if may be only 30 degrees.

Again, the questionnaire is at:
http://www.california.com/~eameece/questionnaire.htm

My philosophy and MBTI correlations related to Strauss/Howe archetypes:
(this list is more organized around the wheel too)

going counter-clockwise from the "top:"

INFJ ? counselor 55S/20R - prophet
ENFJ ? teacher 10S/5R -prophet - moderate (moderate = more mixed)
INTJ ? mastermind 35S/50R - prophet/hero
INTP ? architect-theorist 20S/15R - prophet/hero - moderate
ENTJ - fieldmarshal 20M/55R - hero
ENTP ? inventor 5M/10R - hero - moderate
ESTJ ? supervisor 50M/35R - hero/nomad
ISTJ ? inspector 15M/20R - hero/nomad - moderate
ESTP ? entrepreneur 55M/20E - nomad
ISTP ? artisan 10M/5E - nomad - moderate
ESFP ? performer 35M/50E - nomad/artist
ESFJ ? provider 20M/15E - nomad/artist - moderate
ISFP ? bucolic 20S/55E - artist
ISFJ ? protector 5S/10E - artist - moderate
INFP ? monk/healer 50S/35E - artist/prophet
ENFP ? enthusiast 15S/20E - artist/prophet - moderate

How do actual generations modify the types within each generation? This chart doesn't say; it's archetypal. But it may give a clue. What type you are may be modified by what type your generation is, or vice-versa.

Philosophy types again:
S = spiritualist, M = materialist (equals "idealist vs. realist")
R = rational/essentialist/intellectual,
E = empiricist/existentialist/experiential

R/S = essentialist = N intuitive
R/M = rationalist = T thinking
E/M = empiricist = S sensing ("pragmatism" is a moderate empiricism)
E/S = existentialist = F feeling