Can this be defined scientifically?

I'm good at defining things to the simplest degree to discover their true core elements. The same process used to decrease phlogiston to a reaction between oxygen and carbon and to reduce the elements to combinations of protons and neutrons. The concept of "simple" could be defined as an approximation which can be induced from the facts and which deduces the facts it can be induced from. A definition of scientific method.

With this in mind can you help me define these 9 supposed personality types. I believe there is some structure to these personality types and that a better more logical understanding of personality types can be generated once the underlying structure is revealed.

These is my brief synopsis, I have only defined "1" perfectly, bear in mind not everyone is 100% logical and I believe this was the element that the personality grouping had observably the strongest motivation for.

1: Logic.
2: care about their image from the external perspective?
3: care about their image from the internal perspective?
4: improved associative-creativity, criticised-emotions?
5: fear-avoidance, detached, criticised logic?
6: fear-avoidance, an apparent mix of phobic and counter-phobic, critical of outside world?
7: fear-avoidance, looks to ignore wrongs, may or may not focus on opportunities?
8: Believes physical influence is best way to rectify wrongs?
9: Apparently gives quarter to reality and only exerts influence that does not pose a challenge?

http://home.kc.rr.com/nsturr1/basics.html

There are more patterns described in the link. Since this is heavily influenced by artsy fartsy hippy crap it should be considerred a good generalisation that deserves a run through by the scientific mind.

There is nothing scientific about this ridiculously subjective arbitrary classification scheme. Psychology barely passes as a science to begin with.

>>2Psychology barely passes as a science to begin with.

lol what

>>2
HAY LOOK TOM CRUISE POSTED ON 4CHAN!

>>2
Wrong a subjective arbitrary classification would be like blaming disease on evil spirits or humours. This is merely an attempt to simplify a collection of observable personality traits in order to notice patterns. The only way you can prove facts wrong is by proving that thye are falsified. The site itself generates poor ideas based on the facts, however it has made some useful observations. Please admit whether you were just wrong (everyone makes mistakes, no big deal, it doesn't mean you are stupid) or that you were intentionally trying to blur the distinction between fact and hypothesis in order to invalidate certain facts by stating that hypothesis' are not always correct as you are a scientologist and see psychologists as a threat to your cash flow.

>>5
P.S. The purpose of this thread is to make a proper scientific analysis of the facts that the hippies who made the site failed to do.

>>5
I am not wrong. The Enneagram is a load of shit made up by a bunch of idiots who don't understand empiricism.

Load up this page and do a CTRL+F for the word science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enneagram
Then read the page on research issues and criticism. This enneagram has no basis in science.

No, I'm not Tom Cruise. Things like schizophrenia are very real neurological diseases. But this arbitrary classification of personality types? Please. Show me some biology, some neurology, some empirical basis for supporting this ridiculous "personality diagram" before you start spouting off about science.

Seriously, arts-psych are the stupidest people on earth. They're even dumber than humanities or business students.

>>7
What about he observable phenomena it is based on? I clearly stated that the site isn't 100% correct but that some observations are salvageable.

The site states since it is used to back up astrology that you can only be 1 type of enneagram, I disagree I believe that the properties the types focus on are present in all people and in different levels. One person for instance is more likely to choose logic over emotions whilst another will more easily say "But why? Why must I be logical, I am so angry, why must I tolerate this?" something we have all done.

I find this sort of examination in psychology few and far between and it is no wonder fallacies such as the enneagram are so popular.

So.. What would be a proper scientific rota of factors which affect someone's personality?

Why the hell are people listening to this obvious troll? There is no way anyone is this retarded, and if by some small chance he is, then let him be. Nothing you can do will save him now.

But seriously, let this thread die.

>>7
Neurology = serious business & real science
Psychology = bullshit

Neurology = bottom-up
Psychology = top-down

It's perfectly possible to approach both scientifically, and that's exactly what's usually done. Retarded shit like Freud is all in the past.

>>11
Yeah right, psychology is what is bringed up when our neurological understanding fails. Neurology is true physical science of human brain. Psychology is attempt to analyze human behavior from non-physical viewpoint and that's why it's inherintly flawed. Is there are psychological theory that has been clearly empirically proven? If there isn't then it's as much science as ufology or parapsychology.

Wait wait wait..

How does psychology address the patterns noticeable in determinning personality? People's personalities are not so random that there are no patterns at all, there must have been some sort of study or attempt to gather facts about how people's personalities develop.

>>13
Problem is that human brain is so complex and personality patterns are indeed not definable. It's just that everyone seems to develop personality differently than others. Ofcourse some people have totally similar patterns, but they often have had totally different life and you can't apply that to whole population. It's just that human mind is thing we can't really ever hope to understand fully, thus we should look at brain not the mind.

Is there are psychological theory that has been clearly empirically proven?
What, you mean things like the Milgram experiment? 'Most people tend to follow orders, even when they believe those are wrong.' That's just the most well-known experiment. Seriously, psychology isn't inherently unscientific, as you seem to believe.

>>15
You can't get exact results by using just handful of people. Also conditions of experiment always differ from reality. It's still just theoretical possibility not the truth.

You can't get exact results by using just handful of people.
Please, learn about statistics before saying stupid things.

Also conditions of experiment always differ from reality.
Welcome to science! This is completely unrelated to the scientifical validity of the experiment, if conducted properly.

It's still just theoretical possibility not the truth.
Science isn't about 'truth'. What you're looking for is religion.

>>16

The Milgram experiment was repeated many times over around the world with identical results. I'd say that's "truth" right there.

>>18
Yet, if you put hippies on it you would get surely odd results. Almost all human behavior is learned.

>>18
Wrong, there must be like a 0.1% chance that they are wrong and in fact people are slightly more or less likely to follow orders they disagree with than the range they stated.

>>17
Yet, science is all about proving theories right or wrong. Though sadly in modern times we have fallen and take such things as human evulution as truths, even though we lack full evidence. I don't support creationism and think human evolution is highly likely, but it's unscientific to say evolution it's true, unless you have definite proof.

>>21
No, science is about modelling the world around you. You do that by making theories, trying to find find flaws in them, and improving them. If you're looking for things like 'definite proof' of correctness, and 'full evidence', then you're not going to get anywhere.

>>20

Slightly more or less likely doesn't mean *jack fucking shit*. It's still reliably accurate.

Christ, who let the fucking fags and retards on /sci/?

>>23
/sci/ has been always filled with retards. Just look at some evolution debates.

>>24
I was thinking more along the lines of the circumcision and dickcheese debates, but yeah, evolution too.

>>10
Wrong. Word you're looking is psychiatry. It's related to psychology, but it's not psychology.