I developed a theory called the quadrant model that I think offers a comprehensive amount of evidence for intelligent design. I discovered it when my Grandpa told me a personality model my sophomore year of college that described four types of people, thinkers, feelers, doers, and dreamers. I thought there should only be three types of people and that dreamers didn’t belong. I recognized that thinking and emotion was a duality. Thoughts impact emotions and emotions influence thoughts. Doing created a triad. Thoughts emotions and doing were interlinked in that emotions cause you to do things and your thoughts modify what you do and what you do affects thoughts. All of these were sort of a trinity, interlinked and one. Then I had the realization that dreaming was separate and transcendent, in that you are paralyzed physically while you dream so you do not act out your dreams, but you still have thoughts and emotions and do things, but there is just a different quality to it.
So I noticed the fourth part was different yet contained the previous three. Then I realized the four gospels were the same pattern, with John being the different fourth. I remembered that there were four forces of nature, and gravity was the different fourth. I recalled that there was four blood types and the O type was the transcendent fourth that kind of contained the previous three in that O blood can be given to people of the other three types. I kept searching for the pattern and saw it everywhere and realized that it was intelligent design through what I call the quadrant pattern. If you have more questions please ask. I want you to hopefully see that this truly is the theory of everything.
Not really. There are two antigens in the ABO system, A and B. You get one or the other (type A and Type B blood) neither (type O), or both (AB) ( phenotypically- you can be heterozygous or homozygous for A or B) Of course it really is not that simple as there are many other blood type antigens, but the ABO and Rh systems are the most clinically important. Rh is either there or not there. And it too is not that simple, as there are a lot of Rh antigens, but only the D antigen has major clinical impact.
I have a question jpm why do you seem to be antagonistic towards me? Or have I misinterpreted it. You deleted my first post where I posted a website that explains the quadrant model and now you are trying to disagree with me right off the bat. It doesn’t even appear you looked into the theory or even have a desire to, you just immediately tried to be negative towards it and find disagree. It seems like you want to immediately dismiss it. Or maybe my interpretation is incorrect, am I correct? Here is an article on the blood types
It was subsequently found that the Czech serologist Jan Janský had independently pioneered the classification of human blood into four groups in 1907,[9] but Landsteiner’s independent discovery had been accepted by the scientific world while Janský remained then in relative obscurity. However, in 1921 an American medical commission acknowledged Janský’s classification. Jan Janský is nowadays credited with the first classification of blood into the four types (I, II, III, IV).
“Janský’s classification remains in use today. In Russia and states of the former USSR, blood types O, A, B, and AB are respectively designated I, II, III, and IV.[10] The designation A and B with reference to blood groups was proposed by Ludwik Hirszfeld.”
By the way I have a question. Is it ok if I post a website on the quadrant model so that I don’t have to post you that quote there, because that quote is on the website?
When moderators delete threads without warning, even when several people have participated in them, it’s generally a message meaning “You’re not allowed to discuss that here”. You have to read between the lines on this forum.
I am not antagonistic, just deleted the first post because it violated standards of posting, and then just pointed out that your statement about blood types and the nature of type O was incorrect. Terminology can be confusing, but if you tell someone your blood type is “III” no one will know what you are talking about, as it is not currently standard terminology. It is generally fine to post a website in the discussion of a post, so long as it is relevant to ideas expressed in the discussion, and the post is not just click bait. Carry on.
Yes, you can post a website in the comments. Here is the rule:
[quote]Links to Outside Content
Any thread that begins with a post intended to direct traffic away to a different website will be deleted as spam. The point of this Forum is to foster conversation here, not point to other conversations or content elsewhere. Please do not put a link to your own blog or website in the first post in a new thread. It is acceptable within the course of a discussion to include links to support your claims, document your sources, provide more detailed information, or alert other people to content of interest. These will be evaluated by the moderators on an individual basis.[/quote]
You know how many times we actually end up discussing the intersection of science and faith (the purpose of this forum) when people show up claiming to have discovered the true theory of everything? Not very often. Usually such people are not all that informed about either science or faith. So that might explain something about your perceived reception. Feel free to prove all such stereotypes to be unjustified.
Here is the website Christy. I was pretty informed on both science and faith in my opinion. You’ll see if you look at the evidence I provide on the website and keep in mind there is a lot more I’ve seen than what I posted here. https://www.quadrantmodel.com
Material on the bloodtypes is on the first page of the summary page on quadrantmodel.com if you would like to look at that. I posted pictures as well. It might seem hard to believe but I think I provided a lot of evidence substantiating that reality has been organized around the quadrant pattern
If reality is organized around the quadrant, so what? How does this explain anything? What significance is there in this observation that will help me be a better person? How does it impact life?
I have been thinking along similar lines. As you know people think of humans as a combination of mind and body, although some people think of them as only mental and other as only physical. On the other hand I think that the spirit is not subsumed in the mind, but is a separate aspect of a human being, so we are body, mind, and spirit, or body, mind, and will.
This corresponds to people who are doers, thinkers, and feelers on that most people emphasize one aspect of their personality. The emotions are the most difficult to categorize. Our society deems to reflect the Greek bias against emotions, which however are very important and basic to our being. Feelers are often artists and as I have indicated spiritual leaders.
Your fourth dimension has been the biggest problem. Without getting into the blood thing which may or may not be a good model fro what you are saying, all humans are doers, thinkers, and feelers. We are all physical doing persons, mental thinking persons, and spiritual feeling persons. This Trinitarian model of what it means to be human is much better than the mind/body view, which satisfies no one. This is how God created humans (male and female) in God’s own Image through evolution.
Thanks or reading what I wrote. That thinker emoter doer dreamer model is just describing how I discovered the three plus one pattern in the first place. So that particular example is kind of rudimentary and may not even be that accurate. But the important stuff is the quadrant pattern. If you want to see what I mean check out quadrantmodel.com and there is thousands of examples. Ultimately there is actually 16 squares in the quadrant model. Thanks again for reading what I wrote.
Intelligent design is through the quadrant pattern which defines reality. Thinker emoter doer dreamer was just how I discovered it and one particular example of the quadrant pattern.
I think you are going to find that your 4-Quadrant theory is a bit of an “island” in the middle of a sea of science.
One of the oldest of naturalist world views is the 4 Humor Model, which was then used to devise 4 models of temperatments or personality. The Wiki article refers to this theory as a “proto-psychological theory”.
In its discussion, we read the following:
"The Greek physician Hippocrates (c. 460 – c. 370 BC) incorporated the four temperaments into his medical theories as part of the ancient medical concept of Humorism, that four bodily fluids affect human personality traits and behaviors. "
And most crucially: “Later discoveries in biochemistry have led modern medical science to reject the theory of the four temperaments, although some personality type systems of varying scientific acceptance continue to use four or more categories of a similar nature.”
Being an island is not the same as being untrue. But I think you would find greater interest in your “theory of everything” if made a little effort to explain how your theory has to do with Creation (either Evolutionary Creation or Special Creation).
You need some bridges off that island of yours… so there’s no point in investing excruciating levels of detail about your island … until you have proved to people there is a way off of it .
The next step I have to do is go back into the stuff that I posted online a long time ago and put it on the website. But you will see that I’m not stuck on “outmoded” models like the four temperaments. All of the modern models the big ones from physics to biology to everything is the quadrant model. Once I go back in what I posted a long time ago online hopefully soon and start putting that stuff on the website you’ll see
I should mention that I found the Enneagram, a 9 “bucket” model, provides more predictive power than Myers Briggs or any other tool that divides people into Quadrants.