>Well, congrats, you have defined what a personality is.
That's still worth it, especially if people think personality can't be defined, or needs tons more subtly to define (whereas I did it at a specific abstraction level) or that people are unpredictable, so there's no "static personality" etc.
Against all of those approaches, I make a statement that personality exists, and there are certain types of people, and that it's still worth it to classify them in a few simplistic inflexible groups personality-wise -- subtlety is not necessary for many purposes.
>The whole point is that the colors thing is BS. Humans are much more complex than that.
Which is neither here nor there. Complexity is only relevant based on the abstraction level on wants to work with, and what they want to use the model for.
Same way that real-world physics are also much more complex than Newtonian model, but for tons of purposes the Newtonian calculations are just fine (and we can even use vastly simplified constants, like PI with just 4-5 digits) in our calculations and still do fine.
>That can easily happen, depends on the context.
Depends on how often it happens. If it can happen, but 9/10 times it doesn't it still totally worth abstracting someone as "analytic, careful, meticulous" for predictive purposes -- you'll be right 9 times out of 10, which can give a huge advantage over other approaches...
That's still worth it, especially if people think personality can't be defined, or needs tons more subtly to define (whereas I did it at a specific abstraction level) or that people are unpredictable, so there's no "static personality" etc.
Against all of those approaches, I make a statement that personality exists, and there are certain types of people, and that it's still worth it to classify them in a few simplistic inflexible groups personality-wise -- subtlety is not necessary for many purposes.
>The whole point is that the colors thing is BS. Humans are much more complex than that.
Which is neither here nor there. Complexity is only relevant based on the abstraction level on wants to work with, and what they want to use the model for.
Same way that real-world physics are also much more complex than Newtonian model, but for tons of purposes the Newtonian calculations are just fine (and we can even use vastly simplified constants, like PI with just 4-5 digits) in our calculations and still do fine.
>That can easily happen, depends on the context.
Depends on how often it happens. If it can happen, but 9/10 times it doesn't it still totally worth abstracting someone as "analytic, careful, meticulous" for predictive purposes -- you'll be right 9 times out of 10, which can give a huge advantage over other approaches...