Talk:Florence Littauer

Famous examples ??
I find it hard to accept that there can be "famous examples" of something that is at best subjective and at worst is pseudoscience. Some of these people are dead. Who makes these classifications?. Have any of the listed people self-identified as such?. Is there a test for these levels?. I was tempted to remove the entire section on the different types as this article is about a person and not her system, but thought we should discuss here. Perhaps a different article for the system would be best, and let it stand up to scrutiny on its own.--Dmol (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I would assume that the one making the classification is Littauer herself. Or else the article contains original research. Her system is actually presented here without any context, so I am not even certain which of her books is the intended source.

As for pseudoscience, pay less attention to the famous names and pay more attention to the vagueness of the descriptions. "They love interacting with others and play the role of the entertainer"

This could probably include any professional actor and singer. They live to entertain. This tells us very little about their personality and what kind of person they are. Littauer's system sounds as "useful" as the average astrologer's ramblings about human personality types. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

-as for famous examples, I would wonder if anyone commenting on this page has read her material. Once you have you would easily understand the specific criteria used, and how easy it would be to categorize certain individuals according to those simple and straight forwards guidelines.

-As far as pseudo-science and vague astrology type descriptions, I came to this page as a bunny trail from a few hours of researching peer reviewed academic psych articles on EBSCO. compared to phrases like "openness to experience" and "conscientiousness" (Big 5 personality), not to even mention some of the extremely abstract and vague titles of peer reviewed psychological studies published in Psych journals, which also can apply to just about everyone when taken at the surface apart from reading the entire study or paper thoroughly to ascertain the author's meaning. This type of language and phrasing isn't that vague or ambiguous at all for the field personality theory and research. The field of Personality theory, for the simple reason that it studies something that can not be manipulated for experimentation (personalities) is universally considered pseudo-science, because you can't actually do "experiments" in the strictest sense on personality as you can't manipulate the independent Variable. That said, there are many who consider psychology itself Pseudo-science. Not only is that term vague and obtuse, but it is most often just used to describe anything not properly referenced, universally agreed upon, or not "peer reviewed". "Peer review" itself is a necessary but far from perfect system. But without digressing further, I believe that since this work isn't asserted as scientific in the first place, but rather experience based, and since personality theory is a field of psychology that even it's practitioners refer to as "quasi-scientific" that a discussion about it's pseudo-science classification is a moot point.

-and, if you are interested in the field and not offended by occasional blatant religious references I recommend checking out Wired That Way (daughter Marita), or Personality Plus, both good reads giving an easy to understand presentation of her theory. Which is an adaptation of a very old theory based on observation and ridiculous not even pseudo science. So although her specific insights are beneficial, I imagine that is why she doesn't have a page for her theory. But one couldn't hurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:4000:C404:0:0:0:FDDD (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)