Dan+Probert

//**Geofery Chauncer**// Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote The droughte of March hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licour Of which vertu engendred is the flour; Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth Inspired hath in every holt and heeth The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne Hath in the Ram his half cours yronne, And smale foweles maken melodye, That slepen al the nyght with open ye (so priketh hem nature in hir corages), Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages, And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes, To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes; And specially from every shires ende Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende, The hooly blisful martir for to seke, That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke. When April with his sweet showers, The drought of March has pierced to the root, And bathed every vein in such liquid By its virtue engendered is the flower; When Zephirus (West Wind) also with is sweet breath Has inspired in every grove and field The tender shoots, and the young sun Has the half course of ther Ram (Aries), And little birds maken music, That sleep lightly all the night (So much does Anture prick their hearts) Then people long to go on pilgrimages, And pilgrims seek foreign shores, To foreign halls, in the know to the sundry lands; And especially from every country's end Of England, to Canterbury they went, The holy, blissful martyr (Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury) there to seek, That helped them when they were sick.
 * The Canterbury Tales - Introduction**
 * Modern English Translation**

It looks like I sit on the fence between INTJ and INTP, I read both descritptions, and either can apply to me. The Judging/Perceiving dichotomie dictates your preference between the Sensing/iNtuition and Feeling/Thinking dichotomies. As an INTJ I would use Thinking over iNtuition, but as an INTP the reverse would apply. Comparing the two types, I think that I actually behave more like an INTP at home, by myself; whilst at school, I act more like an INTJ. This could be explained by the fact that the Thinking preference, with it factual based rationalism, would be of more use in school environment; whilst at home, when my thinking can be based more on gut instincts, and where I do not need to provide evidence to others to support my theories. One of the interesting notes about the Judging/Perceiving dichotomie is that apparently 'Judgers' are, neat, ordered and structured, whilst 'Perceivers' are less so, being more comfortable in a chaotic environment. An aspect that reinforces my 'fence-sitting' position, is my belief in what I call 'organised chaos.' My room at home is regarded as messy by my Father, and often he will 'tidy things up.' But when he does so, that is when I loose things. I left my USB at home today, and strangely enough I now recall that it was 'tidied up' along with a lot of my possesions, by my Father before a visitor came on the weekend. My locker too is 'messy,' but my work itself at school, and my thought patterns, are neat and ordered (although once again, the order can be confusing to outsiders). Judgers apparently always have a plan, whilst Perceivers 'go with the flow.' I make plans, very regularly; but plans rarely go 'to plan'. Often I have to improvise, and I am happy to improvise. Maybe my Judging/Perceiving dichotomie is just very well developed, unlike my Thinking/Feeling and Extraversion/Introversion... The evidence suggests that although people do have set prefernences which develop during their life, continued work can allow us to develop the ability to work comfortably using a different set of preferences. As a 'Rational', this is something I am already having to work on. I have a beautiful girlfriend who I care very deeply about, but in typical 'Rational' form, I often have trouble showing it. We've been together for over a year now, and I have only just got to the stage where I am comfortable sharing everything with her. I still can't do it much in front of other people. The Wikipeadia article on INTJs says this: "They generally withhold strong emotion and do not like to waste time with what they consider irrational social rituals. This may cause non-INTJs to perceive them as distant and reserved..." That's me through and through, and I know, in social situations, i.e. a party, etc, other people worry that I am uncomfortable, or being neglected. If I am at a party, it is usually because I want to be there, however I will not actively seek out company, especially not to make small talk, which probably goes against the purpose of parties, whatever. What is the purpose of small talk anyway?
 * My Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: INTJ (67%, 75%, 88%, 56%)**


 * Knowledge:**

Dictionary.com has five different definitions of the word knowledge. Although this is significantly less that the word ‘set’, which apparently has close to //two hundred// definitions (Dictionary.com has only one hundred and eighteen listed), the fact that there are five still indicates that the question ‘what is knowledge?’ is quite difficult to answer. It is as much a question of the philosophical as of the literal; some philosophers have debated as to whether we can actually //know// anything at all; for some much of our knowledge comes from our senses and perception of the world around us, and how do we know we can even trust our senses? How do we know that the order in the world that we see around is not just a thin veil created by our subconscious? to protect us from the harsh and inconceivable truth: that all of nature is just chaos.

Even the Great Sage and Father of Philosophy, who has been called the wisest man in the entire world, weighted into the debate: “I know one thing,” said Socrates, “I know that I know nothing.” Indeed the question ‘what is knowledge?’ is considered so fundamental, that it has its own sub-branch within philosophy as a whole: Epistemology, meaning, ‘the study of knowledge.’ Epistemology attempts to analyse knowledge logically, and tries to create a definition based on theory that knowledge is made of three fundamental parts: truth, belief and justification. Apparently Epistemologists have even been able to classify three fundamental //types// of knowledge (not corresponding to the three parts), ‘knowledge that’, ‘knowledge how’, and ‘acquaintance-knowledge’. An example used on Wikipedia is that can know //that// 2+2=4, but we must also know //how// to add the two numbers together.

In our own work, in Student Directed Inquiry, we have looked at various ways of //knowing//, namely: logically, empirically, authority, memory, faith, moral belief, introspection, empathy, conscience, practice, acquaintance and instinctively. However it is possible to argue that some of these ‘ways of knowing’ are not necessarily knowledge. Logic, for example, is the use of previously acquired ‘knowledge’ to infer a new piece of knowledge. So, in logic, you //know that//, several things are true, and so you //believe// that you know a further thing, hence //justifying// it to yourself. Logic is usually a very good way of working things out, but until you //prove// that your logical assumption is correct, can you really //know// it? Until it is proved, then technically, you don’t //know// something, instead, you //correctly believe// it. One of the problems of Epistemology is making a distinction between ‘knowledge’, and ‘true beliefs’.’ Socrates, in a dialogue recorded by Plato called ‘Meno’, touches upon the difference between knowledge and true beliefs. He discusses how True Beliefs can often be just as useful as Knowledge, however, if there is no reasoning behind a True Belief, it can then easily be assailed by incorrect beliefs with more forceful rhetoric.

**Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Methodologies** In essence, qualitative and quantitative differ in their focus on the people involved. Qualitative research takes people and tries to delve deep into what they really think, and also what they feel. Qualitative research focuses on emotions and ideas; it tries to understand not just what somebody thinks, but why they think what they do. The research is undertaken on a more personal level, and no doubt a sense of report is developed between the researcher and the subjects. As a result, fewer people are involved, but each subject is able to contribute more to the total result. In Quantitative research, however, the contact time between Researcher and subjects is usually much shorter and more impersonal. A subject is not so much treated like a person, but merely a source of raw data (no negative connotations intended). The data also more narrow, participants in quantitative research usually answer yes/no. One could even derive from the very entomology of the two words a sort of definition: //quanti//tative research creates a greater //quantity// of data; whilst //qualit//ative research produces data of greater //quality//. This isn’t to say that one type is better than the other, quality, in this sense, does not mean superior, but more focused. Quantitative research generates a large, broad picture of things; it gives general attitudes and trends. Qualitative research, however, creates a very precise picture of a very small cross section. Qualitative research, for example, would not be useful for gauging the general mindset of a countries people. Voting in an election is actually a form of quantitative research; although looking at the aftermath of the 2010 Federal and Tasmanian State Elections, it is research that is ignored wherever possible. The impersonal nature of Quantitative research can potentially cause problems, however, because the results can often be used to make blanket statements about issues that are not necessarily cut and dry. A survey of 1000 people might come back saying that an overwhelming number of people support Kevin Rudd as the Prime Minister of Australia, but, even if people are chosen at random, a survey of a different 1000 people could potentially return Julia Gillard as the strong favourite, because their will invariably be people in either camp. The results of Quantitative research can also be strategically ‘skewed’ to present a more favourable outcome. Imagine I was doing a survey on the attitudes of Australians towards Homosexual marriage. I could perform a survey on 1000 ‘random’ people, and my results might say that over 60% favoured legalisation of Homosexual marriage. But I might get my 1000 people by going to the Madi Gra and asking random people for their opinion. Sure, I might make sure I cover a lot of different demographics, young and old, man and woman, etc, etc., but I would know that the fact they were at the Madi Gra would mean they were //probably// more inclined to be pro-legalisation. In reverse, I could attend an anti-abortion rally and ask the same question, and I would have reason to believe that, although once again I might tick the demographic boxes, these people would probably be less inclined to support legalisation of homosexual marriage. In both cases, I cannot be certain, but if I have a bias I can certainly do my utmost to weight the results and still have it look like ‘credible results.’ Qualitative could have a similar shortcoming in that it only examines a very small cross section of the population. If I was to study a group of five people in depth, and try and find out exactly why they do or do not support homosexual marriage, it is quite possible that I could pick, completely by accident, five people who all strongly believe in the cause, but for various reasons. I could even purposely choose five people who I had reason to believe would be supportive. Basically, each method has its advantages and drawbacks…