Sponsor | |
|
Sponsor |  jenjen1352 | Apr 24, 1:47pm | I would be Phlegmatic and a bit Sanguine!
nice illustrations, T-J :) |
|
|
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | Apr 24, 1:50pm | | Thanks. I wouldn't want people to obsess over which "type" of humor they were (they likely have less validity and reliability than even myers-briggs ;), but it is fun to think about how the ancients viewed history. |
|
|
Sponsor | | jenjen1352 | Apr 24, 3:07pm | | do you mean how the ancients saw things in their own times, or how they viewed stuff that had happened previously? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | Apr 24, 8:12pm | | I actually didn't mean history, it was a Freudian slip ;) I meant to say "personality". |
|
|
Sponsor | | jenjen1352 | Apr 25, 12:05am | damn, you got me going on the history thing :)
I think most of them did pretty well considering the information available at the time. observation hasn't changed much and reasoning skills existed then. interpretation is as varied as it ever was... |
|
|
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | Apr 25, 10:10am | true, but bleeding was a rather bad idea and it had roots in humorism.
also I don't like the idea of "types" as much as "traits". Traits make it clear we can change, while types sometimes give us an excuse not to...
As for history I assume it is one of the poorest understood of subjects. It isn't really a science, is it? It's a "humanity"... |
|
|
Sponsor | | MJ-Brutus | Apr 25, 11:22am | | "Bloodletting it used today in the treatment of a few diseases, including hemochromatosis and polycythemia; however these rare diseases were unknown and undiagnosable before the advent of scientific medicine." -wikipedia |
|
|
Sponsor | |
|
Sponsor |
|
|
|
Personality → Discussion