Agreed, except i couldn't astand Nana. Her character was so repulsive to me, and i found her the only thing i didn't like about DS9. Avery was a good actor, though i didn't like when they had his character not feel bad about the murder. Still OK, but at that point the character went way down on my scale.
The best was probably Terry or Andrew Robinson. But most of the actors and character were very good.
Keirsey subdivies them into four "temperments": NT, NF, SP, SJ.
That is incorrect. Keirsey has four temperaments completely separate fromt he MBTI. After a while, however, he found correlations between the two. van der Hoop hints to this in his Concious Orientation when he calls for reconciliation between the two typologies.
(Yeah, the S's are paired with a different component for some reason.)
Always wondered about that. Though, van der Hoop says clearly in Concious Oreientation that N is more judgemental than S, and thus more closely tied to T and F. He seems to indication that a true N is an NF, but i think that because he's was probably an INFJ.
The MBTI research appears to be fairly straightforward and not touchy-feely on its own merit.
Except for J/P, it is all Jung. Although J/P is her own invention, it is an indicator to the secondary type that Jung and van der Hoop mention. She just gave it extra significance.
Jung devised the types based on much observation. It has been theorized that I/E is associated with one's genes (see the Introvert Advantage, chapter three). T/F is highly noticeable, especially when anyone calls a female "not logical". About 70% of woman are not, since their preference is for value-judgements. So, i think T/F is undebatable. N/S is the shakiest one of all. Even worse, as it puts between 75 and 85% of all people in the US in one of them (S), it stands on thin ground. van der Hoop, spends a couple paragraphs on it to explain the difference, which is more evident once he retranslates S as intstinctive, as opposed to sensory.
MBTI has a fundamental flaw: it requires yes-no answers for questions which do not have yes-no answers.
That is ridiculous. Either the person is more of one than the other, or not. If not, then X. If yes, then which one.
Also, the questions are merely a way to find the person's preference. However, the prefered method is for the person to understand the ideas themselves, and make an informed decision.
Impossible. Unless you over-differentiated your T side (and are thus ill adapted towards the world) you become an ISTP over time. You can act like an ENTP., but will never become one.
I remember in the St. Louis Science Museum some time back, they had a vertical row of LEDs on the wall. There were some mirrors, that said to take one, turn around (mirror facing LEDs) and shake back and forth.
After a bit, I realized that it was the *mirror* that was to be shaken!:) And then, delightedly noticed the message. Of course, i then helped a other bewildered users.
It is kewl. I just wonder when the first law suits will come in about possible offensive LED lightings....
it does raise some interesting issues about how much 'value' society puts on certain types of harm
Yeah, for example pedophilia and "child abuse". Even when bad things do happen, they are not worse than murder, yet more people would support killing a paedophile than a murderer, perhaps even if the pedophile only raped the victim.
I don't think the "value" is on the harm. It's the association with the value itself. The western world considern children to be godly, and so what they consider to be crimes with them is so dastardly that it deserves the death penalty.
The same can be seen elsewhere as well, depending on the amount of people affected, and who it affects. Popularity allows actors to get away with various things, so much so, that before anyone would agree to pubishment, their popularity would first have to be stripped.
There are other issues as well, like people not having their own values, so they grab onto societies values. Being group think, they are not well thought out, and therefore the clarity must be made up for with fierceness. As can be seen by many religous folk who simply don't understand their own religion.
As for virii writers, i say whip 'em. Corporeal punishment has almost always worked. If the few caes where it doesn't, incarciration can be used.
I would imagine that they would know something of the studies considering many FBI agents hold degrees in psychology and routinely investigate sex crimes.
But only a minimal amount of pedophilia, compared to such crimes at large. Further, they study mostly for the end result, not the motivation behind it, and they are only called in after a crime has already been perpetrated, bad enough to warrant calling them (as opposed to the local CPS). Being the overwhelming majority of child abuse happens in the home, and with family or close friends, the FBI is rarely called in.
The reason the FBI is called in here, is that they monitor chatrooms, and alleged rings. Firstly, they are relatively new to the field, secondly, although these groups trade photos, it is only a few members that actually take the pictures.
Physicians can certainly address potential physical problems with sexual molestation.
Unless there is some form of penetration (a rare occurance amongst the plethora of pedophilia cases) there are no physical problems. And, even when there is penetration, if the child acted willingly (usually the case by boys, less so by girls) and they are past puberty (which IIRC is the case by most penetration cases) there is further no damage. The only real damage is when it is against the child's will (which is not specifically pedophilia), where the child is very young, or in girls, by young pregnancy. These constitute a miniscule amount of cases.
Experts in the field (a.k.a law enforcement) can address criminal behavior according to past experiences,
There is little of this, as most cases are in the home. The actual "experts" in these cases are usually CPS agents.
and psychologists can address motivations as well as treatment.
No, they cannot. Due to the social stigmatism, their sample of pedophiles are ones already convicted. This does not address the general group.
The harms from sexual predation have been answered by psychologists, law enforcement, physicians and so forth.
That is incorrect. Firstly, law enforcement knows nothing of the studies, they just do as they are told. Further, with the case at hand, a "protection service" is involved, not law enforcement.
Further, physicians can only speak when actual actions happened that caused damage.
Thus, the only group worthy of being asked are psycologists.
However, psycologists only see the cases where there was abuse, or where the pedophile did activities that ultimately led to his arrest. Being this is a small amount of total pedophiles (one must assume that most are not caught, and then there are still others who do not partake in such actions (which constitute the majority)) the people they have spoken to are not an accurate representation of the group.
Also, there is a social stigmatism on the matter, which impedes proper impartial study of the matter. So much so, that when Congress heard a report mentioning many adolecents recalling positive experiences with pedophiles, it was rejected out of hand.
Thus, in conclusion, the matter has not been shown at all. In fact, the fear that many people have on the matter is possibly indicative of nefarious traits in themselves. Perhaps one day we shall review the matter truthfully.
Yep. Manual is wonderful. (Except it gets annoying when driving someone else's automatic. I should take a fake clutch with me.:)
Anyway, it does seem to add about 5 miles/gallon.
Don't use air conditioning, ever. (2 to 4 mpg)
Nope. This is not true. When i got my car i decided to test this. I drove for a week (>60 miles a day) with the window open, and another week with the air on. Mostly ~70 miles/hr. They gas usage was negligible. I tried going a week with neither, but i began to feel highly uncomfortable. My result was, that window or air uses the same amount of gas, and that adds up to a loss of around 1 mile/gallon.
Considering i get between 30 and 35 miles a gallon, and my tank holds ~13 gallons, the loss per fillup is less than half a gallon. Not using the air would hardly make a difference, especially since the window would be openned.
Drive at a steady speed, about 40 mph, in top gear.
I just drove 600 miles (Detroit to New York) and averaged between 70 and 80 miles an hour. I believe i got over 400 miles on the tank. I don't see how going 40 would have been too much better.
Choose a route that doesn't involve hills.
You mean significant hills, like "the mountains" in New York where my ears pop. Standard roads are quite hilly on a small scale and hardly effect mileage.
Don't drive through snow. (It takes energy to push the snow aside.)
Duh!
Don't drive in very cold weather. (Cold makes rubber stiff, so tires absorb more power.)
And how would one avoid this?
--
Overall, there are ways to gas efficiency. But most will not help, and are probably outweighed by the convenience of not caring.
and if you give it your intellecually honest best attempt, you may be very surprised with where you end up.
Note that INTJs are dominant intuition, and further, when a normally developing INTJ hits his thirties, he'll develop his F side and act like an INFJ, which is a very religious type.
The introverted thinkers (INTP/ISTP), however, would reject most of the INJs findings as simply not logical.
The stereotypical personality type of a scientist is INTJ,
Actually, it is INTP. Especially with the INTP, Thinking is dominant. The INTJ has dominant intuition, and thus may have issues with straight research.
The creatioin of Israel was really done without thinking about the consequence
The creation of Israel came about after the Arabs rejected the UNs plan, and the British didn't exactly help. Before that, Jews had lived for hundreds of years under Arab rule, though the Zionists had this plan of making a state that the traditional Jews didn't necessarily care for.
(or just ignoring the fact the Arabs are humans too with the same want of having their land).
Considering Arab settlement of Israel didn't happen until after Jewish settlement (except for a small area in Jerusalem) i don't think that is a point worth noting.
But, the fanatics on the Israeli side (which includes Mr. Sharon), want a greater Israel
So the disengagement plan which gives up a great amount of land to the Arabs proposed and pushed by Sharon is nothing?
It's incorrect. Zionism was about for fifty years before that. But even before Zionism there were significant Jewish neiborhoods by at least 1850. Before that, there was always Jewish settelment, but it had a downturn somewhere around 1100 (i think, might be 1200).
Not true. There was continues Jewish settlement there for at least another 500 years. There was tremendous peresecution and thus a lower population between something like 400-600, but it picked up after that and flourished until at least 1100.
The diaspora began in the time when Christians had the control over that piece of land.
Also untrue.
The Diaspora began with the Roman conquest in ~68. Though many stayed. After the Bar Kochba uprising (~130) there was more dispersion. The X-tians did not gain power until Constantine converted, with happened ~200 years later. Although, after that there was tremendous persecution of Jews for a little while.
Have the teachers care about when the child learns. Not to treat the children as objects to stuff information into. I learned the most from such teachers. Keirsey would call them Idealists.
Introverts have worse short-term memory and better long term memory. Extraverts are the opposite. Would that then lead us to say that this means that extraverts are "smarter"? Introverts many time need to "sleep on it", the reason being to associate the question with long-term memory, which happens during sleep. This obviously has nothing to do with short term memory.
Even so, both Freud and Jung point out the importance of the unconcious. Especially Jung, who believed the unconcious is always at work and "helping" us, the short term memory is completely irrelevant. It's how perceptive we are to our unconcious to make use of use all our strengths (and four functions).
Meyers-Briggs noted that Ss (~75%-85% of ther US population) tend to rember things more than "understand" them, where as the rest (Ns) tend to "understand" them rather than reemmeber them. For example, a N may understand that "1 + 1 = 2" means that the quantity represented my the number one ("straight line") added again to itself equals the quantity represented by the number two (the "curved line"). The S however, may not understand that and simply remembers that "straight line plus straight line equals curved line", whether they understand what "equals" means. This then leads to Ss developing better memories to get through school. Ostensibly, however, the Ns are considered "smarter".
Further, by what means are they evaluating intelligence? Keirsey suggests there are four types of intellengence. "Strategy" (long term goals even at the cost of short term goals), "Tactics" (short term goals even at the cost of long term goals), "Logistics" (reliable, acceptable methods of fullfilling goals), and "Diplomacy" (creating harmony and understanding in between people). Strategy is the most rare, found maybe in 6% of the population (of the US). Tactics, which is just as (if not more) important (think fireman, talker, cop, salesman, etc...) is not deemed as important. Everyone is mostly the same "smart", but the distribution of the four intelligences in people is different for everyone. As such, anything that rates "intellengence" is probably ignoring the gifts that most people have.
Further, this relationship of speed to intelegence is also specious.
In the same way that a computer with a larger working memory can crank through problems more quickly, people with a greater capacity for holding images in their heads are expected to have better reasoning and problem-solving skills.
Speed has nothing to do with problem solving. It just has to do with how long it will take. It is evidence of how shallow people can be when then mix up speed with understanding. Thus the common insult "he's slow". The response should simply be "and you're shallow".
So, this report is interesting, but it's relation to intellengence is utterly ridiculous, and should simply be rejected.
Although interesting, i find this ridiculous. The crossword puzzle is solved either through association (introverts are very good at memory retrieval via association) or intuition, the "N" in the MBTI. The Aha! moment that comes from this is a feeling of superiority. At first the problem was unsolvable, and now it is solvable. Given this pleasure increases when oithers are said to have not gotten it (such as saying it is a "hard" question), the pleasure comes from superiority over others, and not from the actual insight. This is the feeding of the ego, and a mature person is much less affected.
There is a second form of pleasure one gets from a so-called insight, but that is not related. It is when the problem seems complex (i.e. cannot be easily solved with one breakdown of the question) and yet a simple principle explains it. That a _simple_ thing explained a _complex_ thing seems contradictory, and that contradiction is the basis of humor. However, this pleasure again has nothing to do with the insight, rather with the inherent humor of the situation.
There is a final pleasure associated with insight, and that is when one uses his favored function (Jung identified four) in a more complex manner. So, the introverted thinkers (INTP and ISTP) get this pleasure from applying logic, the introverted feelers (INFP and ISFP) from applying feelings and harmony, introverted sensors (ISTJ and ISFJ) from sensory impressions, and introverted intuitives (INTJ and INFJ) from intuition. This is mostly for introverts as they apply--and get get pleasure from applying--their special capabilities to the inner world of ideas rather than the outer world of people and things. It would follow though, that it is the introverted intutives that get the greatest pleasure from problem-solving insight, as they enjoy closing the issue (the compensatory judging function that deals with the outer world wants to close the issue) and they trust their intuitions for problem solving more than anyone else.
It is sad that this article completely ignored the century-old psycological data on the matter,
Slashdot Mirror
If a helmet is suspicious, howsabout a Darth Vader helmet? People will look, but laugh as well.
Also, for ATM machines, there are some now that don't eat cards, instead they simply slide through.
Agreed, except i couldn't astand Nana. Her character was so repulsive to me, and i found her the only thing i didn't like about DS9. Avery was a good actor, though i didn't like when they had his character not feel bad about the murder. Still OK, but at that point the character went way down on my scale.
The best was probably Terry or Andrew Robinson. But most of the actors and character were very good.
Keirsey subdivies them into four "temperments": NT, NF, SP, SJ.
That is incorrect. Keirsey has four temperaments completely separate fromt he MBTI. After a while, however, he found correlations between the two. van der Hoop hints to this in his Concious Orientation when he calls for reconciliation between the two typologies.
(Yeah, the S's are paired with a different component for some reason.)
Always wondered about that. Though, van der Hoop says clearly in Concious Oreientation that N is more judgemental than S, and thus more closely tied to T and F. He seems to indication that a true N is an NF, but i think that because he's was probably an INFJ.
The MBTI research appears to be fairly straightforward and not touchy-feely on its own merit.
Except for J/P, it is all Jung. Although J/P is her own invention, it is an indicator to the secondary type that Jung and van der Hoop mention. She just gave it extra significance.
Jung devised the types based on much observation. It has been theorized that I/E is associated with one's genes (see the Introvert Advantage, chapter three). T/F is highly noticeable, especially when anyone calls a female "not logical". About 70% of woman are not, since their preference is for value-judgements. So, i think T/F is undebatable. N/S is the shakiest one of all. Even worse, as it puts between 75 and 85% of all people in the US in one of them (S), it stands on thin ground. van der Hoop, spends a couple paragraphs on it to explain the difference, which is more evident once he retranslates S as intstinctive, as opposed to sensory.
I love the stuff though.
Not really. The fact that he cares is indicative of INTP. Although, it is quite clear that he is an introverted thinker.
MBTI has a fundamental flaw: it requires yes-no answers for questions which do not have yes-no answers.
That is ridiculous. Either the person is more of one than the other, or not. If not, then X. If yes, then which one.
Also, the questions are merely a way to find the person's preference. However, the prefered method is for the person to understand the ideas themselves, and make an informed decision.
grew out of my INTP and became an ENTP
Impossible. Unless you over-differentiated your T side (and are thus ill adapted towards the world) you become an ISTP over time. You can act like an ENTP., but will never become one.
I remember in the St. Louis Science Museum some time back, they had a vertical row of LEDs on the wall. There were some mirrors, that said to take one, turn around (mirror facing LEDs) and shake back and forth.
:) And then, delightedly noticed the message. Of course, i then helped a other bewildered users.
After a bit, I realized that it was the *mirror* that was to be shaken!
It is kewl. I just wonder when the first law suits will come in about possible offensive LED lightings....
They should leave good enough alone. Working on this, would be like reworking the FTP standard to bring it "up to date". Opening a can of worms.
it does raise some interesting issues about how much 'value' society puts on certain types of harm
Yeah, for example pedophilia and "child abuse". Even when bad things do happen, they are not worse than murder, yet more people would support killing a paedophile than a murderer, perhaps even if the pedophile only raped the victim.
I don't think the "value" is on the harm. It's the association with the value itself. The western world considern children to be godly, and so what they consider to be crimes with them is so dastardly that it deserves the death penalty.
The same can be seen elsewhere as well, depending on the amount of people affected, and who it affects. Popularity allows actors to get away with various things, so much so, that before anyone would agree to pubishment, their popularity would first have to be stripped.
There are other issues as well, like people not having their own values, so they grab onto societies values. Being group think, they are not well thought out, and therefore the clarity must be made up for with fierceness. As can be seen by many religous folk who simply don't understand their own religion.
As for virii writers, i say whip 'em. Corporeal punishment has almost always worked. If the few caes where it doesn't, incarciration can be used.
I would imagine that they would know something of the studies considering many FBI agents hold degrees in psychology and routinely investigate sex crimes.
But only a minimal amount of pedophilia, compared to such crimes at large. Further, they study mostly for the end result, not the motivation behind it, and they are only called in after a crime has already been perpetrated, bad enough to warrant calling them (as opposed to the local CPS). Being the overwhelming majority of child abuse happens in the home, and with family or close friends, the FBI is rarely called in.
The reason the FBI is called in here, is that they monitor chatrooms, and alleged rings. Firstly, they are relatively new to the field, secondly, although these groups trade photos, it is only a few members that actually take the pictures.
Physicians can certainly address potential physical problems with sexual molestation.
Unless there is some form of penetration (a rare occurance amongst the plethora of pedophilia cases) there are no physical problems. And, even when there is penetration, if the child acted willingly (usually the case by boys, less so by girls) and they are past puberty (which IIRC is the case by most penetration cases) there is further no damage. The only real damage is when it is against the child's will (which is not specifically pedophilia), where the child is very young, or in girls, by young pregnancy. These constitute a miniscule amount of cases.
Experts in the field (a.k.a law enforcement) can address criminal behavior according to past experiences,
There is little of this, as most cases are in the home. The actual "experts" in these cases are usually CPS agents.
and psychologists can address motivations as well as treatment.
No, they cannot. Due to the social stigmatism, their sample of pedophiles are ones already convicted. This does not address the general group.
The harms from sexual predation have been answered by psychologists, law enforcement, physicians and so forth.
That is incorrect. Firstly, law enforcement knows nothing of the studies, they just do as they are told. Further, with the case at hand, a "protection service" is involved, not law enforcement.
Further, physicians can only speak when actual actions happened that caused damage.
Thus, the only group worthy of being asked are psycologists.
However, psycologists only see the cases where there was abuse, or where the pedophile did activities that ultimately led to his arrest. Being this is a small amount of total pedophiles (one must assume that most are not caught, and then there are still others who do not partake in such actions (which constitute the majority)) the people they have spoken to are not an accurate representation of the group.
Also, there is a social stigmatism on the matter, which impedes proper impartial study of the matter. So much so, that when Congress heard a report mentioning many adolecents recalling positive experiences with pedophiles, it was rejected out of hand.
Thus, in conclusion, the matter has not been shown at all. In fact, the fear that many people have on the matter is possibly indicative of nefarious traits in themselves. Perhaps one day we shall review the matter truthfully.
Compared to my Escort....
:)
Manual transmission
Yep. Manual is wonderful. (Except it gets annoying when driving someone else's automatic. I should take a fake clutch with me.
Anyway, it does seem to add about 5 miles/gallon.
Don't use air conditioning, ever. (2 to 4 mpg)
Nope. This is not true. When i got my car i decided to test this. I drove for a week (>60 miles a day) with the window open, and another week with the air on. Mostly ~70 miles/hr. They gas usage was negligible. I tried going a week with neither, but i began to feel highly uncomfortable. My result was, that window or air uses the same amount of gas, and that adds up to a loss of around 1 mile/gallon.
Considering i get between 30 and 35 miles a gallon, and my tank holds ~13 gallons, the loss per fillup is less than half a gallon. Not using the air would hardly make a difference, especially since the window would be openned.
Drive at a steady speed, about 40 mph, in top gear.
I just drove 600 miles (Detroit to New York) and averaged between 70 and 80 miles an hour. I believe i got over 400 miles on the tank. I don't see how going 40 would have been too much better.
Choose a route that doesn't involve hills.
You mean significant hills, like "the mountains" in New York where my ears pop. Standard roads are quite hilly on a small scale and hardly effect mileage.
Don't drive through snow. (It takes energy to push the snow aside.)
Duh!
Don't drive in very cold weather. (Cold makes rubber stiff, so tires absorb more power.)
And how would one avoid this?
--
Overall, there are ways to gas efficiency. But most will not help, and are probably outweighed by the convenience of not caring.
Go! Go! Gadget Shoes!
Miss?
"Miss" implies intention to hit. It's nice to know you and Al Gore personify asteroids.
and if you give it your intellecually honest best attempt, you may be very surprised with where you end up.
Note that INTJs are dominant intuition, and further, when a normally developing INTJ hits his thirties, he'll develop his F side and act like an INFJ, which is a very religious type.
The introverted thinkers (INTP/ISTP), however, would reject most of the INJs findings as simply not logical.
The stereotypical personality type of a scientist is INTJ,
Actually, it is INTP. Especially with the INTP, Thinking is dominant. The INTJ has dominant intuition, and thus may have issues with straight research.
Yes, i'm an INTJ too.
Well, actually Palestenian movement started as secular movement back in 1948. PLO bad as it was, did not use religion as its justification.
Actually, it started in 1965, with Arafat taking contol in 1969.
The creatioin of Israel was really done without thinking about the consequence
The creation of Israel came about after the Arabs rejected the UNs plan, and the British didn't exactly help. Before that, Jews had lived for hundreds of years under Arab rule, though the Zionists had this plan of making a state that the traditional Jews didn't necessarily care for.
(or just ignoring the fact the Arabs are humans too with the same want of having their land).
Considering Arab settlement of Israel didn't happen until after Jewish settlement (except for a small area in Jerusalem) i don't think that is a point worth noting.
But, the fanatics on the Israeli side (which includes Mr. Sharon), want a greater Israel
So the disengagement plan which gives up a great amount of land to the Arabs proposed and pushed by Sharon is nothing?
It's incorrect. Zionism was about for fifty years before that. But even before Zionism there were significant Jewish neiborhoods by at least 1850. Before that, there was always Jewish settelment, but it had a downturn somewhere around 1100 (i think, might be 1200).
Jews were gone from that area before 600 AD
Not true. There was continues Jewish settlement there for at least another 500 years. There was tremendous peresecution and thus a lower population between something like 400-600, but it picked up after that and flourished until at least 1100.
The diaspora began in the time when Christians had the control over that piece of land.
Also untrue.
The Diaspora began with the Roman conquest in ~68. Though many stayed. After the Bar Kochba uprising (~130) there was more dispersion. The X-tians did not gain power until Constantine converted, with happened ~200 years later. Although, after that there was tremendous persecution of Jews for a little while.
integrated inline assembler
Assembly. The assembler "assembles" the assembly code.
Have the teachers care about when the child learns. Not to treat the children as objects to stuff information into. I learned the most from such teachers. Keirsey would call them Idealists.
Utterly ridiculous.
Introverts have worse short-term memory and better long term memory. Extraverts are the opposite. Would that then lead us to say that this means that extraverts are "smarter"? Introverts many time need to "sleep on it", the reason being to associate the question with long-term memory, which happens during sleep. This obviously has nothing to do with short term memory.
Even so, both Freud and Jung point out the importance of the unconcious. Especially Jung, who believed the unconcious is always at work and "helping" us, the short term memory is completely irrelevant. It's how perceptive we are to our unconcious to make use of use all our strengths (and four functions).
Meyers-Briggs noted that Ss (~75%-85% of ther US population) tend to rember things more than "understand" them, where as the rest (Ns) tend to "understand" them rather than reemmeber them. For example, a N may understand that "1 + 1 = 2" means that the quantity represented my the number one ("straight line") added again to itself equals the quantity represented by the number two (the "curved line"). The S however, may not understand that and simply remembers that "straight line plus straight line equals curved line", whether they understand what "equals" means. This then leads to Ss developing better memories to get through school. Ostensibly, however, the Ns are considered "smarter".
Further, by what means are they evaluating intelligence? Keirsey suggests there are four types of intellengence. "Strategy" (long term goals even at the cost of short term goals), "Tactics" (short term goals even at the cost of long term goals), "Logistics" (reliable, acceptable methods of fullfilling goals), and "Diplomacy" (creating harmony and understanding in between people). Strategy is the most rare, found maybe in 6% of the population (of the US). Tactics, which is just as (if not more) important (think fireman, talker, cop, salesman, etc...) is not deemed as important. Everyone is mostly the same "smart", but the distribution of the four intelligences in people is different for everyone. As such, anything that rates "intellengence" is probably ignoring the gifts that most people have.
Further, this relationship of speed to intelegence is also specious.
In the same way that a computer with a larger working memory can crank through problems more quickly, people with a greater capacity for holding images in their heads are expected to have better reasoning and problem-solving skills.
Speed has nothing to do with problem solving. It just has to do with how long it will take. It is evidence of how shallow people can be when then mix up speed with understanding. Thus the common insult "he's slow". The response should simply be "and you're shallow".
So, this report is interesting, but it's relation to intellengence is utterly ridiculous, and should simply be rejected.
Can't someone DoS them know by intermitantly knocking randomly?
Although interesting, i find this ridiculous. The crossword puzzle is solved either through association (introverts are very good at memory retrieval via association) or intuition, the "N" in the MBTI. The Aha! moment that comes from this is a feeling of superiority. At first the problem was unsolvable, and now it is solvable. Given this pleasure increases when oithers are said to have not gotten it (such as saying it is a "hard" question), the pleasure comes from superiority over others, and not from the actual insight. This is the feeding of the ego, and a mature person is much less affected.
There is a second form of pleasure one gets from a so-called insight, but that is not related. It is when the problem seems complex (i.e. cannot be easily solved with one breakdown of the question) and yet a simple principle explains it. That a _simple_ thing explained a _complex_ thing seems contradictory, and that contradiction is the basis of humor. However, this pleasure again has nothing to do with the insight, rather with the inherent humor of the situation.
There is a final pleasure associated with insight, and that is when one uses his favored function (Jung identified four) in a more complex manner. So, the introverted thinkers (INTP and ISTP) get this pleasure from applying logic, the introverted feelers (INFP and ISFP) from applying feelings and harmony, introverted sensors (ISTJ and ISFJ) from sensory impressions, and introverted intuitives (INTJ and INFJ) from intuition. This is mostly for introverts as they apply--and get get pleasure from applying--their special capabilities to the inner world of ideas rather than the outer world of people and things. It would follow though, that it is the introverted intutives that get the greatest pleasure from problem-solving insight, as they enjoy closing the issue (the compensatory judging function that deals with the outer world wants to close the issue) and they trust their intuitions for problem solving more than anyone else.
It is sad that this article completely ignored the century-old psycological data on the matter,