|
Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive Re: here's a link to my last reply, in case you missed it...Posted by Mikko on November 12, 2001 at 03:47:24: In Reply to: here's a link to my last reply, in case you missed it... posted by pork on November 11, 2001 at 20:49:30: After reading that reply, it's funny to see how after realizing that the theory wasn't mine but something already used and rather uniformly accepted, you started backing up on your tracks. What was earlier a "bullshit theory," "quack theory," "ludicrous," and about as serious as anything in the Mad magazine suddenly grasped your attention and had time to start pondering the theory. But there are two points I'd like to answer to. First is "If anything, tertiary and inferior functions seemed associated more with little quirks during normal functioning than they did with stress." I don't know about you, but typically little quirks differing from normal functioning but which can still be considered 'normal' are the first signs of stress in people. Anyway, if you read the book you'll find a more detailed explanation. The second point is "One red flag was the "brain hemisphere" idea - now, this was obviously dreamed up. My point in my last post (which I may not have clarified enough) was that since real scientists have discredited the entire pop-psychology concept of psychological trait distinctions based on brain hemisphere divisions, it seems appallingly unlikely that some author could have found some way in which it truly does work. In any case, how did they figure out the hemispherical distinctions? Did they conduct EEG scans on all their testees?" I was expecting this to pop up. First of all, you don't measure the locations of brain activity with EEG, you use a CAT scan. And if you did, I don't care where the brain activity occurs according to one when people are using 'left brain' or 'right brain' functions. I simply am not interested if the physiological reality reflects those abstract categories. What I know is that there are categorial differences between the ways how the functions work and that old split, when appropriately revised, explains them best. This reminds me of the Father/Mother thing Riso used in the original Personality Types. People kept screaming foul at that until Hudson revised them to more appropriate 'protective figure' and 'nurturing figure'. (I'm not talking about that theory now, I'm just using those terms as an example of how the validity of the same idea seems to change according to what terms are used.
|
|