"Dan Bolser"  wrote in message
>
> Ever met someone and known how they would think in general given a > few
specific examples of their thoughts?
>
I know what you mean here. Of course you can't predict exact actions, but
you can have a good idea what sort of guy you are dealing with.
>
> Given the massive number of variables underlying 'psychology', do a
> few stable psychotypes emerge out of the chaos?
>
This is a good question. Everyman and his dog from astrologers to Jesuits
(nonagrams) tries to define some sort of psychological system.
>
> Can we look at these attractors as self reproducing, self reinforcing,
> co-evolving entities in a psycological ecosystem?
>
Only if they show Mendelian inheritance, which isn't likely.
>
> Does the 'systematic metaphor' make sense in this case? For example > can
we look at a well armoured beatle - and see its analogue in certain
> human psycotypes?
>
The first question is, can you define the psycotype? Eg, can you and your
assistant assign unseen subjects to the same categories with any degree of
reliability?
>
> Are cultures ecosystems?
>
Not for organisms, but maybe for memes.
>
> Does it make any sense to ask these questions?
>
It makes sense. However you should be aware that hundreds of attempts have
been made to classify psychological types. Unless your particular scheme has
some merit that makes it stand out from the crowd, you will just be adding
to the heap of speculation.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 2/3/04 8:41:02 AM