4 ms·
You make a good point, yes the ideas are useful. However, the way they are still used as labelled buinary opposites make may people think they are undividable i
by triplesec 11y ago
You make a good point, yes the ideas are useful. However, the way they are still used as labelled buinary opposites make may people think they are undividable ideas. The replacements use them, but go further, rather than rely on them as originally created. They sometimes sophisticate the originals, which is good. The basic idea is interesting, but it is the simple binary condition of the original that is problematic, not capturing all of the differences. Unfortunately, the hardest thing in psychology is variable construction and testing, so it's taking a while to move beyond these too-broad constructs.
I agree old ideas are not necessarily terrbile at all. Euclid, for example, had some rather good theorems. However, psychology is rather different.
- timwaagh 11y agothis seems interesting, perhaps you could explain your more sophisticated concept.
- gerbilly 11y agoI think they never were intended as binary opposites, but as a spectrum with Introversion on one end and Extroversion on the other. The fact that the public or the mainstream media polarize the two does not render the concepts useless.
- triplesec 11y agoEven at the ends of a spectrum, they remain imperfect and problematic constructs. When I said binary, I intended to continue to imply that they are as pointed out, said to be opposites on one semantic axis. This may have misled you as to my position, laid out in my previous parent^2 comment. At no point did I call them useless. to timwaagh below, if I had done the research to create coherent enough new constructs I'd be publishing a paper on them, rather than writing a chat answer.
- gerbilly 11y agoOh sure, these constructs are broad brush strokes, I agree.