Post by skuagrey on Oct 31, 2014 13:48:32 GMT -5
Hello. I have created this thread to get something off my mind, something which has been bugging me for quite a while.
Everyone knows that any good theory is testable, and therefore falsifiable (I believe Erifrail created a post about this very topic, but I cannot find it, partly thanks to the main website being down). I've no doubt that at least some possible criticisms will be addressed in the upcoming book, and that some have already been addressed in various posts across this forum. However, we don't yet know what criticisms the book will discuss, and it can be time-consuming (even difficult) to sift through thousands upon thousands of threads in search of the answers to the questions you have. And so I would like to propose that we have a single thread (maybe even an entire sub-board) where all possible criticisms of CT can be voiced and (hopefully) responded to. You know, just to have them where they can be readily accessed.
Here is how I believe this hypothetical sub-board should work: every (category of) possible (or existing) question concerning the validity of CT will get its own thread, where they can be discussed. Participants may choose to provide links to relevant threads which exist elsewhere on the forum, but while this action would be much appreciated, they do not have to. This here is all I have of this idea so far; I would appreciate any suggestions for further developing it.
Which brings me to the next thing I'd like to discuss: if any of you would like to share any possible criticisms you have right now, please do not hesitate to do so! It might help us to better organize my proposed sub-board later on! In fact, I am going to share a few questions I have right now:
*How could the various concepts in CT (the functions, types, movements, etc.) be objectively defined? Experimental data is kind of useless if nobody knows what on earth you're talking about.
*What about conflicting signals? Say, for example, there is someone who displays a whole host of signals that would indicate the presence of Se/Ni...and who suddenly furrows their brow in a way that sure looks an awful lot like an Si scowl. How could this be objectively explained (emphasis on objectively, since our abilities of rationalization can explain away anything)?
*How can we prove that the functions which occur in the brain are reflected by facial cues? (This problem, I understand, could be solved using brain-scanning technology, but is there any way to objectively interpret what shows up on the monitor?)
I have a whole bunch of others, but most of them can be boiled down to "how exactly do we define this shit?", and so I am going to keep this simple. That doesn't mean you guys have to, though; if you have any sort of question, no matter if you feel it has been explained up here, please ask away!
Welp, that's all I have to say, for now. So...what are your thoughts?
Everyone knows that any good theory is testable, and therefore falsifiable (I believe Erifrail created a post about this very topic, but I cannot find it, partly thanks to the main website being down). I've no doubt that at least some possible criticisms will be addressed in the upcoming book, and that some have already been addressed in various posts across this forum. However, we don't yet know what criticisms the book will discuss, and it can be time-consuming (even difficult) to sift through thousands upon thousands of threads in search of the answers to the questions you have. And so I would like to propose that we have a single thread (maybe even an entire sub-board) where all possible criticisms of CT can be voiced and (hopefully) responded to. You know, just to have them where they can be readily accessed.
Here is how I believe this hypothetical sub-board should work: every (category of) possible (or existing) question concerning the validity of CT will get its own thread, where they can be discussed. Participants may choose to provide links to relevant threads which exist elsewhere on the forum, but while this action would be much appreciated, they do not have to. This here is all I have of this idea so far; I would appreciate any suggestions for further developing it.
Which brings me to the next thing I'd like to discuss: if any of you would like to share any possible criticisms you have right now, please do not hesitate to do so! It might help us to better organize my proposed sub-board later on! In fact, I am going to share a few questions I have right now:
*How could the various concepts in CT (the functions, types, movements, etc.) be objectively defined? Experimental data is kind of useless if nobody knows what on earth you're talking about.
*What about conflicting signals? Say, for example, there is someone who displays a whole host of signals that would indicate the presence of Se/Ni...and who suddenly furrows their brow in a way that sure looks an awful lot like an Si scowl. How could this be objectively explained (emphasis on objectively, since our abilities of rationalization can explain away anything)?
*How can we prove that the functions which occur in the brain are reflected by facial cues? (This problem, I understand, could be solved using brain-scanning technology, but is there any way to objectively interpret what shows up on the monitor?)
I have a whole bunch of others, but most of them can be boiled down to "how exactly do we define this shit?", and so I am going to keep this simple. That doesn't mean you guys have to, though; if you have any sort of question, no matter if you feel it has been explained up here, please ask away!
Welp, that's all I have to say, for now. So...what are your thoughts?