General > General Discussion

Four Temperaments

<< < (2/3) > >>

Guye:
Saying your not perfect is no defense against criticism. Yes the article does make mention of its weaknesses. It even occasionally defends them. But more often than not it just reiterates that its, at its core, just a bland categorization system, taking broadly defined categories and given them arbitrary labels. It doesn't attempt to quantify anything. It merely gives a name to things we already know. It doesn't attempt to explain anything. It just states what it already obvious. I'm not saying that it's bad. Just saying that your insinuation that I simply didn't read the article is somewhat presumptuous and that my criticisms of the article are, in fact, valid.

In retrospect, I realize that came off a bit harsh. I apologize, but I do not retract it. I STAND BY MY WORDS!

As a way of apologizing I will attempt to categorize... SET! Hmmmm ... ... ... Phlegmatic/Sanguine!!! ... maybe Phlegmatic/Melancholic? ... Choleric/Phlegmatic? Ehh... screw it.

Chocobo_Fan:

--- Quote ---Saying you're not perfect is no defense against criticism.

--- End quote ---

It is when your argument is that it claims to or should be perfect:


--- Quote from: Guye on May 10, 2010, 11:32:51 PM ---There have been dozens of different attempts at categorizing personality. I prefer the Myers-Briggs typology. Of course with the handful of concrete knowledge we have on human thought and personality, none of them are going to be as accurate as you might like. That being said, I think the "Temperaments" setup is a bit too... unrefined. Its just taking a few broad categories and saying they exist and how they can be combined to explain each other. It doesn't really use any true scientific reasoning. Just a kind of, "Hey have you guys noticed" approach that has evolved over hundreds of years. That's not to say that broad observation isn't a useful tool in evolving a theory.

--- End quote ---

Your argument was that it wasn't perfect. My response was that of course it isn't; otherwise there would be millions or possibly billions of different temperaments, since everyone has a unique personality. The reason I thought you hadn't read the article is because it says it very clearly in the introduction and "general misconceptions" section.

I'm sorry if I sound angry or rude, but I've seen similar criticisms against the temperaments that the article tries to address, and I just wanted to clear that up, since so many people seem to instantly dismiss them.

Honestly, I feel like the best way to understand the temperaments (or any horoscope-type thing) is to see how it applies to real life. Seeing what you'd read, I'd encourage you to try and recognize it in people you know, or in media characters. (Set, for example, is Phlegmatic/Melancholic -- very submissive, peaceful, kind, and meek. If you read the Phlegmatic/Melancholic blurb I think you'll see that it fits. And Rahel, for example, seems to be Choleric/Melancholic -- dominant, stubborn, hard to get along with, analytical, and rational)

It's all your decision in the end, though, so if you really think that the temperaments are hogwash, then whatever, I won't try to convince you. I'm not very good at that anyway.

Ertxiem:
Chocobo_Fan, you could make a pool with the 16 combinations of temperaments (4 "pure" + 12 pairs). And what is your temperament?

I read thought the page you referred (by the way, that page isn't finished). I think the categories are broad and somewhat vague. So, I think that the temperaments have a limited ability to explain people.

Anyway, I tried to apply it to what I think I am and I had a lot of doubts. I was only able to leave out one category...

CraigStern:
The problem with personality categorizations is that no one behaves the same way at all times. Different parts of the brain with different priorities take over running the show based on outside circumstances. I strongly recommend reading this book if you're interested in this sort of thing. :)

Chocobo_Fan:
Hm...I think people think I'm talking about something else.

Craig, it's true that people act differently depending on moods or situations, but isn't it also true that they tend to have a "default" state that they are most of the time? That's what the article is trying to say, I think. Thanks for the book recommendation.

@ Ertxiem: According to the article, there aren't any "pure" temperaments -- everyone has a primary and a secondary. I'm Melancholic/Phlegmatic, or at least I think so. And yes, the page isn't finished, but it is very close. (The only thing the author still needs to do is the Sanguine blends) That page has actually gone through quite a few renovations as the author learned more about the temperaments.

If you're confused about what you are, that's okay. Most people are; you have to be very good at introspection. Try to keep in mind the general explanation things, like the introduction and "General Misconceptions" section. If you're Melancholic/Sanguine or Choleric/Phlegmatic, you might feel like "all" or "none" of the temperaments apply to you, due to being a blend of opposites and therefore well-rounded.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version