Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You say some subjects have too much inherent subjectivity in them for scientific analysis. Does that make it impossible for them to have any validity, in your view?

Not really. For example, I subsribe to a form of rule utillitarianism smilar to that of JS Mill (the form that avoids the vulgar hedonism of Bentham). IMO Utillitarianism has both an objective element (the observation that most people want happiness and and don't want suffering, and so it make sense to try to maximze the happiness [I, like Mill, consider personal liberty an important part of happiness and thus there is no risk of "Solyent Green" situations]), and a subjective component (what each person has a different opinion about maximizing thier own happiness, a monk or nun might find happiness in praying for and thinking about whatever deity of deities he/she beleives in, another person might find happiness in social work, and still another bulding stuff in his/her garage).

Some people have scored over 50 points M, but you are the first to have scored over 70. I also know only one person to score over 70-S, but a lot more over 50-S. Probably the circles I travel in.

I might look at the test again to make sure I understood the questions correctly and did the math correctly, especially after reading your's and Brian's discussions about the quiz in the Religion and Spirituality thread.

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)

extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************** (17.9)
limited use

introverted Sensing (Si) ***************************** (29.9)
average use

extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************** (34.1)
good use

introverted Intuiting (Ni) ************************************** (38.2)
excellent use

extraverted Thinking (Te) *********************************** (35.2)
good use

introverted Thinking (Ti) *********************************** (35.9)
good use

extraverted Feeling (Fe) ************ (12.9)
unused

introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************ (36.1)
excellent use

Looks like that rules out you being an INFJ!

That to me looks like you must be an INTJ, INTP, or INFP.

1. The Heart has its reasons, which Reason does not know.
disagree
2r 1m


2. The senses cannot be trusted to give us the truth.
strongly disagree
3e 2m



3. There is a rational explanation for everything, since events are produced according to physical laws.
strongly agree
3r 3m


4. Your thoughts and beliefs create your reality.
disagree
2m

5. Reason leads us to discover the general truths and ideas that explain all existing things.
strongly agree
4r



6. If you would know the truth of life, look inward into yourself.
disagree
1r 2m



7. Since we’re all different, and times change, there can’t be universal standards of right and wrong.
strongly disagree
4r



8. Do not seek your treasure in the things of this world, but only in the eternal things.
disagree
1e 2m



9. Reality is fluid and ever-changing; thus forever beyond the grasp of the rigid, abstract concepts & categories of our thought and language.
strongly disagree
4r


10. Ultimately, the universe is made of solid and indivisible particles.
strongly agree (assuming superstring theory is correct)
4m



11. The universe is unfolding according to a divine plan and order.
strongly disagree
3e 3m



12. A human has no fixed character, but only a history; you must choose your character and meaning of life.
yes & no


13. Spirit or mind creates the world, and all our science can only describe the effects after-the-fact.
strongly disagree
4m



14. Faith is unreliable; we’d better trust to what we know
strongly agree
3r 2m



15. Psychic abilities exist, proving mind over matter.
disagree
2m



16. All knowledge is based on experience and observation; rational theories alone are only meaningless abstractions.
yes & no


17. Act on moral principles as best you know them, rather than yielding to the temptations and passions of the moment.
agree
2r



18. With understanding and clear, logical thinking, you can solve almost any problem and increase your control of events.
strongly agree
4r



19. You can’t wait until you have the answers; you’re not fully alive unless you are taking a risk.
disagree
2r


20. Our personal souls will survive death, and perhaps be back on earth for another go-round.
strongly disagree
4m



21. The soul can only be free by overcoming the body.
strongly disagree
2e 4m



22. I am not a number, I am a free man! (or woman)
(Ugh, a loaded question...) yes & no



23. Human consciousness and behavior can be fully explained in terms of the electro-chemistry of the brain and nervous system.
strongly agree
4m



24. As Plato proved, a child has innate knowledge of mathematics; therefore eternal and rational truths exist.
disagree
2e



25. Human history is largely explanable in terms of economic and technological conditions.
yes & no


26. The best way to live is to follow the delightful energies of the body. Reason is only the outer bounds of energy.
disagree
2r 1s



27. Science will eventually give us most of the answers to what seems uncertain to us today.
yes & no


28. There are universal symbols and archetypes that keep appearing in our experience.
agree
2r 1s



29. Mathematics is probably one of the closest things to truth you can find.
disagree
2e



30. Seeing is believing; whatever can’t be touched, observed or tested experimentally probably doesn’t exist.
agree
1e 2m



31. By transcending the delusions of your thinking mind, you discover that you are not a separate ego, but are one with a greater being.
strongly disagree
2r 4m



32. This is the best of all possible worlds; seen from God’s viewpoint, all evil fits into a greater good.
strongly disagree
4m



33. God does not exist.
strongly agree
4m


21R 51M

Phew, things change a bit after I understand better what Eric was asking in the questions and thinking more carefully between answering strongly or somewhat agree/disagree, and between somewhat agree/disagree and yes & no.

Oh, and Eric, I prefer to call myself a physicalist instead of a materialist, spicifically a non-reductive physicalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Physicalism is the metaphysical position asserting that everything which exists has a physical property; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. In contemporary philosophy physicalism is most frequently associated with philosophy of mind, in particular the mind/body problem, in which it holds that the mind is a physical thing in some sense. Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and unseen, non-material forces.

Non-reductive physicalism

The earliest forms of physicalism, growing historically out of materialism, were reductionist. But after Donald Davidson introduced the concept of supervenience to physicalism, non-reductionist physicalism became more popular.
Non-reductive physicalism is the idea that while mental states are physical they are not reducible to physical properties. Donald Davidson proposed anomalous monism as a non-reductive physicalism. Supervenience physicalism (also proposed by Donald Davidson) is a non-reductive physicalism, as mental events supervene (i.e. physical properties are identical to mental properties) on physical events rather than mental events reducing to physical events. For example if we accept supervenience physicalism, the pain someone would feel if electrocuted would supervene on the firing of their c-fibres. If we accept, reductive physicalism, the pain would be those c-fibres firing.
Emergentism is a theory which came to popularity in the early twentieth century. It is a form of non-reductive supervenience, but one where reality is considered to supervene in a manner more akin to layers, rather than patterns within a single layer, as per later physicalism. These layers are said to be genuinely novel from each other (i.e. the psychological vs. the physical), and is thus a type of dualism. Physicalism is essentially monistic.
Nonreductive physicalism has been especially popular among philosphers of biology and some biologists, who argue that all biological facts are fixed by physical facts but that biological properties and regularities supervene on so many multiple realizations of macromolecular arrangements that the biological is not reducible to the physical. Prominent exponents of this view are Philip Kitcher and Elliot Sober. Alexander Rosenberg introduced Davidson's notion to the debate in 1978 but thereafter argued against nonreductive physicalism in ways similar to Jaegwon Kim's (see immediately below).

I ran into this personality quiz on the INTP Central forums:

http://www.soulmark.com/test.html

Maestro

Designer of your world, Creator of your own destiny, an endless journey in search of revelation. You’re a modern day Maestro, the conductor of your own brilliant symphony.

A quiet achiever with astronomical achievements, you work your deal with a positive, focused attitude. You confront challenges with a smile, defying life to throw out something that you can’t catch. A seasoned veteran of doing things for yourself, you don’t depend on anyone to hold your hand for you. You know what has to be done, you know how you’re going to do it and it always gets done with time to spare.

Deep, intense and contemplative, chill time alone is vital for your survival. You’ve got your own fortress of solitude, purpose built to give you the head space you need to centre your core, recharge your batteries and plan your next move.

But too much alone time in the fortress can lead to cabin fever. Hanging with your buddies is just as important to your sanity as those hours alone. You have selected your inner circle with care, with a focus on quality rather than quantity. Genuine friendship is all about loyalty, allegiance and keeping it real.

No point leaving anything to chance when you can use your grey matter to make it happen. The architect of your own life’s blueprint, you meticulously chart your chosen destiny – and then work the work to make it happen. If it’s not part of the plan, you’re interest level is nil.

Emotional speak is not your forte. You’re a deep, compassionate and generous soul but you don’t need the world to know about it. Talking matters of the heart is no easy task at the best of times - and near impossible at the worst of times.

It looks like you moderated your answers. I guess that's fitting, since your posts sound more moderate than 74M. Still, I count both of your responses as examples of someone taking the test. I think even a score of 51M shows that Brian was not correct; there are many people today including scientific-oriented folks who would subscribe to what Brian called "19th century materialism," in the sense that they are just as materialist as people back in Lucretius and Democritus' or even Darwin's or Dalton's day; today's materialist or physicalist philosophers just explain their positions with more clarity and subtlety than the ancients did.

My thought was that a philosophy questionnaire should include any possible position and point of view, not just those considered "valid" today by Brian or other "modern" scientists or by prevailing opinion generally.

I agree that "physicalism" may be a better term than materialism. It may be a slightly more-moderate position, if you and Mr. Davidson are correct. The implication seems to be that you can hold that all phenomena, including mental phenomena, are the same as physical phenomena; but this does not mean you can use physical terms to describe all mental phenomena. So, one's thoughts may be based on the behavior and nature of the physical brain, but brain chemistry is not adequate to explain our thoughts.

I don't know whether I understand or agree that supervenience is fundamentally different from reductionism. It's food for thought. It seems like a clever way of avoiding the implications of one's position. It's a splitting of hairs (which is what analytic philosophers do; they split hairs); supervenience is still the idea that the physical is prior to the mental; which is the basic "materialist" or "physicalist" position, whichever term is used.

Originally Posted by Odin

I ran into this personality quiz on the INTP Central forums:

http://www.soulmark.com/test.html

A new world designer, designing a world unique and distinct to you. Secondhand thoughts and recycled ideas have no business in your world. You’ve dreamt your own dreams - and now you’re working your deal to make them happen....

Thanks; I love tests!

Originally Posted by Odin

I ran into this personality quiz on the INTP Central forums:

http://www.soulmark.com/test.html

Sage...
Wisdom of the ancients, foresight of the seer, perceptions of the prophet with visions crystal clear - the soothsayer of your social scene, your deal is dishing out the profound words to whoever’s in the need.
A wise old owl sitting up high and scoping the scene - you watch the players, you learn the play and then decide whether or not you're going to deal yourself in. You take the time to work out what’s real and, more importantly, who’s real. This can cause pain and anguish sometimes, but if that’s how it is that’s how it has to be. A little pain and suffering is all part of being alive.
A free-spirit refusing the confines of conformity, you are the creator and controller of your own destiny. You’re absolutely OK with the life you’re living because it’s the life you’ve chosen to live. When you’re not happy with the space you’re in, you make the change and move to a better place.
You know your own mind and you know how to use it. Logic, reason and common sense are your guiding stars in a galaxy of complexities and confusion. If they want you to believe something there better be some solid facts in there somewhere.
The bleeding heart pushes the boundaries of your comfort zone. You’re definitely up for a deep and meaningful but when it gets emotional, well that’s kind of awkward and clumsy, but you can deal when you know and trust the others involved.
As deep as any well ever runs, you’re an insightful, reflective and essentially private individual. Chill time alone is essential to your survival.
“Rebel,” “loner” and “non-conformist” – why do we always try to label people who are just doing what they do?. You’re not big on labeling people and you don’t have a lot of time for people who go in for it. You have a carefully selected band of loyal buddies with deep values, philosophical ideals and an intense desire for what is authentic and real.

Originally Posted by Odin

I ran into this personality quiz on the INTP Central forums:

http://www.soulmark.com/test.html

A lone wolf, the silent shadow surveying the scene from the sideline. A fringe dweller by choice, you have nothing but contempt for all that is phony and false. But even lone wolves can’t spend all their time on the outside and you’re happy enough to come into the den and chill with the rest of the pack, but usually on your own terms.

A deep, intense and compassionate soul, you have an inner peace that others envy. In a world of insanity, you are sane. You know what’s real and you know how to keep it real. A heavy dose of quiet, reflective chill time, mixed in with a spot of self reflection, life contemplation and inner cleansing pretty much covers your deal. When you’re cool with you, you’re cool with the rest of the world.

Superficial parties, stereotypical socialites and meaningless banter don’t do it for you. You need a bit of soul food, and you get it by chilling out in your own personal retreat and doing some inner searching, cleansing and decontaminating. You need to work out your own deal before you can take on the burden of others. A generous soul, with a genuine desire to help out, you constantly refuel to make sure you’ve always got enough to give.

Logic, reason and good old common sense anchor you through rough seas. A systematic and logical approach to any problem will usually get you to an answer that works.

Irresponsible is not cute and you’re totally over the teen rebellion thing. You have goals and aspirations and a life blueprint to make it all work. You’ve got it all mapped out to the utmost degree and the course you’ve plotted is absolutely doable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree that "physicalism" may be a better term than materialism. It may be a slightly more-moderate position, if you and Mr. Davidson are correct. The implication seems to be that you can hold that all phenomena, including mental phenomena, are the same as physical phenomena; but this does not mean you can use physical terms to describe all mental phenomena. So, one's thoughts may be based on the behavior and nature of the physical brain, but brain chemistry is not adequate to explain our thoughts.

I don't know whether I understand or agree that supervenience is fundamentally different from reductionism. It's food for thought. It seems like a clever way of avoiding the implications of one's position. It's a splitting of hairs (which is what analytic philosophers do; they split hairs); supervenience is still the idea that the physical is prior to the mental; which is the basic "materialist" or "physicalist" position, whichever term is used.

My interest in non-reductionist physicalism generally stems from my intrest in biology, the workings of organisms and ecosystems cannot be fully comprehended in fully reductionist terms, dispite folks's like Dawkins' attempts to do so. Ernst Mayr and Steve Gould pretty much distroyed Dawkin's hyper-reductionist gene selectionism (the notion that genes and only genes are the "unit" of natural selection, a position, unfortunately, that is thought of as dogma in molecular biology circles), In his later years Ernst Mayr wrote several books on biology and the philosophy of biology (Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, This is Biology, and What Makes Biology Unique) where he gave support to a more "holistic" stance towards biology, I found those books quite refreshing compared to the almost droningly dogmatic reductionism I often run into.

This is Biology: The Science of the Living World is a book by Ernst Mayr. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press published the book in 1997.

The book's first chapter presents a brief history of schools of thought in biology; it describes physicalism, vitalism, organicism, as well as the concept of emergence. Mayr concludes the chapter (p. 20) by indicating what he propounds is a modern consensus in biology: Organisms "obey the laws of physics and chemistry", yet "are fundamentally different from inert matter". Further, Mayr writes, organisms have a dual nature, represented by genotypes and phenotypes, not found in inanimate matter. Finally, Mayr lists phenomena unique to living organisms, and specific "capacities" (such as evolution and self-replication) they have as a result.
Later in the first part of the book, Mayr discusses various definitions of science. He notes 20th century science saw a shift from determinism toward probabilism. Determinism was a popular paradigm during the Scientific Revolution, but had since broken down. (For example, meteorologists and oceanographers had discovered natural phenomena involve "stochastic processes".) In addition, "an attitude which favors discoveries over concepts" (p. 26) persists "into the present day". (Mayr implies personal disfavor toward this fact.) Mayr also proposes "five stages of explanation" in biology (p. 56), in the following order: observing, questioning, conjecturing, testing, and explaining.

Organicism is a biological doctrine that stresses the organization, rather than the composition, of organisms. William Emerson Ritter coined the term in 1919. Organicism became well-accepted in the 20th century. By definition it is close to holism.

I also support James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis (though I dispise how the New Agers have thoroughly abused and butchered it).

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Irresponsible is not cute and you’re totally over the teen rebellion thing.

LOL!!!!!!!

Interesting thoughts. I like those things too, except of course I'm sure you think I would butcher them.... (IOW have a more spiritual interpretation)....

Originally Posted by a passenger of note

on HMS Beagle

Up to the age of 30, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds gave me great pleasure. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great, delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry. I have also almost lost my taste for picture or music. My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts.

If I had to live my life again, I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week. The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.

I would hope T4Ters would include a bit of music/poetry/painting in their week.

Great idea. Of course for me, there's lots of music every day. Poetry not so much; but I love painting.
But then, there are too many INTs here. And in terms of the philosophy wheel, too many Rs. Or is saying that, grinding out those general laws?
But in the circles I travel in here in Northern CA, there are too few Rs.

A nice learning style test.

Reflective: 9
Intuitive: 11
Visual: 7
Global: 7

Code:

      ACT                                          X        REF
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      SEN                                              X    INT
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      VIS          X                                        VRB
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      SEQ                                      X            GLO
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->
          

• If your score on a scale is 1-3, you are fairly well balanced on the two dimensions of that scale.
• If your score on a scale is 5-7, you have a moderate preference for one dimension of the scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favors that dimension.
• If your score on a scale is 9-11, you have a very strong preference for one dimension of the scale. You may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that preference.

Originally Posted by Odin

A nice learning style test.

Ragnarök's numbers
Reflective: 1
Intuitive: 9
Visual: 3
Global: 11

Code:

      ACT                      X                               REF
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->
 
     SEN                                              X        INT
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->
 
     VIS                   X                                  VRB
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->
 
     SEQ                                              X      GLO
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->

Originally Posted by Odin A nice learning style test.

Wanderer's numbers
Active: 7
Intuitive: 1
Visual: 5
Sequential: 1

Code:

  
     ACT           X                                           REF
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->
 
     SEN                          X                            INT
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->
 
     VIS              X                                        VRB
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->
 
     SEQ                      X                                GLO
          11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                               <-- -->

• If your score on a scale is 1-3, you are fairly well balanced on the two dimensions of that scale.
• If your score on a scale is 5-7, you have a moderate preference for one dimension of the scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favors that dimension.
• If your score on a scale is 9-11, you have a very strong preference for one dimension of the scale. You may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that preference.

Reflective: 3
Intuitive: 11
Visual: 9
Global: 3

Code:

      ACT                              X                    REF
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->
 
      SEN                                              X    INT
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->
 
      VIS      X                                            VRB
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->
 
      SEQ                              X                    GLO
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

I guess I need to worry about the intutive and visual styles, and let the rest fend for itself.

Reflective: 5
Sensory: 1
Visual: 3
Global: 5

Code:

      ACT                                  X                REF
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      SEN                      X                            INT
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      VIS                  X                                VRB
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11
                              <-- -->

      SEQ                                  X                GLO
           11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

This was hard for me, because its been aeons since I've been in school. However, here are the results:

Weak preference for active rather than reflective learning (1).
Moderately strong preference for sensing rather than inuitive learning (7).
Moderately strong preference for visual rather than verbal learning (7).
Weak perference for sequential rather than global learning (1).

The test results makes sense to me. I always had trouble getting more than a "B" in math courses in high school and college, even though I'm pretty quantitative, because I would zone out when it came to proofs, which seemed to be a huge part of math. However, in my public policy class, which dealt with specific case studies, I shone because I could get my hands on the data and figure out what it meant.

Also, if someone fires a bunch of words at me, they don't make sense unless I take notes.

Results for: Eric Alan Meece


ACT / REF 5 reflective
SEN / INT 5 intuitive
VIS / VRB 5 Visual
SEQ / GLO 2 global

Originally Posted by Odin

Here's an interesting personality test.

"Benevolent Visionary" here.

Results for: Alex Porter


ACT X REF
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->

SEN X INT
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->

VIS X VRB
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->

SEQ X GLO
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->

Very visual, slightly sensory - others mixed.

Originally Posted by Odin

Here's an interesting personality test.

Faithful Architect

70 Confidence
20 Openness
20 Extroversion
70 Empathy
74 Trust in Others
62 Agency
52 Masculinity
4 Femininity
12 Spontaneity
82 Attention to Style
70 Authoritarianism
52 Earthy
92 Aesthetic

Funny personality test.

Find Your Warped Personality
this quiz was made by mysti

Your test results indicate that you may be an INTP - but don't hold us to that.