Approximations work pretty well even in the hard sciences. in fact, science chugs along merrily for hundreds of years with inaccurate models, making real progress, before more accurate models come along -- and as a bonus, you don't have to trash all the progress you have made.
Outside of the physical sciences - in the social sciences, humanities and the arts -- exactitude is not even an available option; approximation is all you that can attain. And in fact, any attempt to be exact is not only sisyphean, but completely counterproductive because meaning is actually generated holistically, at the level of approximations. Perfectly accurate descriptions are reductionist and necessarily wrong. -m (ENFP btw -- but you might have guessed that already! ;-)) On Jan 27, 2008 1:51 AM, Troy Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RE: Extraverted and Introverted. > > I feel these are badly defined terms, social > introversion/extroversion, introverted/extroverted thinking and > problem solving, and introspection and empathy of others are very > different, and very context dependent. > > RE: MBTI > Trying to capture the vast world of human behaviors into 16 boxes is > at best a gross approximation. > > But if you're talking to a person, and need to approximately describe > them it has utility...at least more predictive utility than > astrological signs. > > Troy (INTX btw) > -- murli nagasundaram, ph.d. | www.murli.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | +91 99 02 69 69 20 ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
