Either SBC is wrong (which I suspect he is about extrapolations to autism and evil, but probably not simply a victim of sampling error in his S-E division) or this blog tends to provide a balance of empathizable experience and intelligible systematic thinking. And maybe there are a lot of crossover posts where you emapthize with systems and systematize rules for managing how everyone feels (school holidays). Your post about Christianity having a feminine feel was appealing to systematizers to understand the feeling of exclusion, but also a reasonable point in the language of the system you were questioning. Your posts about how you get through (and get what you want from) meetings would make good examples too. Because it feels like X, we need to understand it as Y.
And the missing part of this thought: people who find themselves a bit unusual have a heightened interest in reconciling the two approaches (S,E), and so the pre-occupation of the blog is of particular interest. Orrr... something else.
Yep. I'll accept those reasons.
In my experience, the strongly S guys are all hanging out on theology or atheist blogs having arguments with each other.
Jo, that's a classic. So true.
I found this EQ questions interesting as it involved a lot of questions that was dependent on how you perceived yourself. It nearly needs someone who knows you well to fill it in.
Thoughts.1. The theory seems slightly suspect. I couldn't really wade through all that psycho-statistical jargon in the article but like all those typologies it is based on statistical trends across a population or statistically valid sample thereof, so individuals don't necessarily fit it.2. Birds of a feather...?3. Something pithily affirming about us being a unique and special group of people, you are so lucky to have such an outstanding group of readers/participants, etc etc.