postmodern use of fuzzy definition to reduce or illuminate falsification/contradiction.
so i was just reading that “introverison and extroversion aren’t absolute categories really, but two extremes on a spectrum.” (sic) person means dimension when saying spectrum.
how does the person know that introversion and extroversion are parts of the same thing?
if you measure extroversion, and the person scores negative, is that negative extroversion- in fact introversion?
if you measure introversion, and the person scores negative, is the expressed negative introversion representative of inherent extroversion?
my point is that saying there are two mutually exclusive categories is a spoiler stance to take than to say there is this one category which has two internal state attributes or positions. the first is tacit dogma. the later is a factual claim, so prove it.
prove that introversion when negative will always represent a ‘mirror’ effect of extroversion. prove that a personal score of +3 extroversion means the person will have a -3 introversion score. because the meat of the matter is that if they aren’t mirrors then you don’t have two orientations of teh same thing but at best two metrics measuring the same thing (like Celsius measuring cold, and Fahrenheit or Kelvin measuring heat). that is, their orientation may be reversed, but also they may have negative linear correlation, or perhaps further dis-continuity with a non-normal
also you have to prove the dimension limits. think of it like optimism and pessimism. having a negative pessimism doesn’t necessitate optimism, it could be shifting into the third state of ‘realism’.
point is you have to prove the number of dimension which protrude from 0,0,0,0,0,0… and you have to show how each dimension relates to the others. are they inherently diametrically opposed?