<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>It's a few years since I tested myself - I came out
INTJ, but my J answers did not exceed the Ps by all *that* great a
proportion!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Maybe there is something in David's P vs
J characterisation. But my issue is not with things being left
open-ended (in fact I believe nany mysteries in Wolfe's books probably have
no humanly accessible solution), nor is it with the exploration of
possibilities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>It is not that I want to rush to a decision.
What distresses me are endlessly proliferating trees of association and
conjecture that seem to have as many negative correlations as positive with
the works they are allegedly based on. I is not because I lack imagination that
I find these distressing - it is because I have enough imagination that I
recognise that there are infinitely many such trees of association
possible, and if no invalidation is deemed permissible, how are we to
distinguish useful trees from random ones? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>So I pull hard on the trunk to check it is securely
rooted, and shake the branches to make sure they are strong and the leaves do
not fall out. I'm not out to kill the trees; I assume any tree worth
considering is strong enough to stand up to this treatment.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>My actions may be distressing to the
gardeners. All I can say is that my ultimate goal is the same as theirs -
to produce good wood.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>- Gerry Quinn</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=crushtv@gmail.com href="mailto:crushtv@gmail.com">James Wynn</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=urth@lists.urth.net
href="mailto:urth@lists.urth.net">The Urth Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, December 09, 2010 2:48
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: (urth) Dionysus</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><FONT
size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR></DIV>On 12/8/2010 7:37 PM, David Stockhoff
wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:4D0032DD.3010007@verizon.net type="cite">---Ps tend to
seek to increase options and can analyze forever. <BR><BR>---Js tend to seek
to decrease options and move on. </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is actually pretty
perceptive (no pun intended), although it isn't the *quite* the way I learned
it. The Myers-Briggs website puts it this way:<BR><BR>"...when it comes to
dealing with the outer world, people who tend to focus on making decisions
have a preference for Judging <B>because they tend to like things decided</B>.
People who tend to focus on taking in information prefer Perceiving <B>because
they stay open to a final decision in order to get more
information</B>."<BR><A class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/judging-or-perceiving.asp">http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/judging-or-perceiving.asp</A><BR><BR>I
haven't really noted a war between these personality types. Perceivers want a
decider as long as as much time as possible was made available for
investigation. But I can see that Judgers would be distressed by an
environment where investigation is inevitably open ended, where all the
answers might never be nailed down.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>