Caution: Metaphysical Bullshit - where did socionics come from?

[metaiwan]

I am not a religious person and I do not believe in god, especially a conscious one who looks like a man who is going to take us to heaven or hell like fucking Santa Claus.

I avoid most metaphysical/philosophical/god talks, because they boil down to faith or circular reasoning, etc.

But nothing I'm going to say is going to include any of that.

The closest resemblence of a so called 'God' that I could possibly believe in is natural selection. At one point, something strange happened and artificial selection took it's place. Someone began to breed their good cattle and let their bad cattle die, on purpose.

It was slow at first. Either 'man' as we know him were so disconnected as to come from a breed of evolving monkey and then got seperated at some point in time to slowly emerge into races. Obviously communication was totally unconscious, instictive grunts, movements, etc, not even starting with man. Then, hand signals. Then, grunts came into primitive language. Now a big question in the mind of historians is why civilizations seemed to pop up at the same time with no physical contact. It's uncanny and unlikely. This one is hard to explain, obviously SOMETHING transferred information consciously or unconsciously. Possibly not humans. Possibly animals. Once those civilizations were built, people became to communicate regularly not just with their close family, but others in their areas, tribes, cities, and eventually across cities

Then it started. Languages began to become similar as well as behavior not only through conscious means but unconscious means. DNA started to propogate again, the gene pool got larger.

Jump to telegraphs. Then to telephones. Suddenly everyone could communicate with anyone else. Television. Languages, dialects, began to merge. Disassociate yourself then image the world in 1500s, the 1600s, the 1700s, 1800s, the 1900s, the 1950s, 1975, 1990, 2000. With communication networks in place, the global unconscious could now communicate faster, more efficiently. Technicological advances are growing exponentially(think about exponentally). We've almost destroyed our planet in the last 100 years.

Someone did an experiment with crossword puzzles. They did it scientifically, with several groups. They gave them the crossword puzzles out of the newspaper and asked them to finish them. Then, they gave them crossword puzzles that had already been solved by millions of people before but the test groups had never seen the puzzles before or talked to anyone else that had done them(and possibly not talked to anyone, I don't know). Well every single time, the test groups always did better on the crossword puzzles already solved a day before.
This suggests the unconscious mind...the unconscious COLLECTIVE mind is incredibly large and resourceful.

Socionics is born through looking at this unconsious collective mind. It obviously was already powerful even in the 1930s when jung started to discover it. Freud had already found the personal unconscious mind, filled of instinct and concepts pushed below consciousness. Jung continued his research and developed both Psychological types and a scary scary concept called the Collective Unconscious. He discovered dreams people described were in archaic books written thousands of years earlier, and certain characters which he called archetypes. The firing synapses of the dream state gave him insight into the Collective Unconscious. Inbuilt instincts(relating to procreation and survival), stories and scripts which have been repeated and repeated and repeated over history. Pick up a history book, take it to a random page, point to it, and say you have a prophecy from God. Say what it says happened like it's a prophecy of something 'god ' or something told you would happen in the future. It may happen in your lifetime, or long after.

Some interesting questions: the purpose of the Unconscious Mind, and why did it create socionics(inadvertantly, of course, natural selection, let's not confuse 'consciousness' in this). Why make people good at some things and not others.

Anyone watch Star Trek? Are you familar with the borg?

We pride ourselves in our 'free will' and our ability to make choices. We say we're not animals and we're not machines. We want to believe these false things.

I'm not going to get in a circular free will vs fate or a discussion of the nature of time. We CANNOT comprehend these concepts and every single fucking time we end up in circular reasoning.

We are already connected unconsciously and the unconscious affects our actions no doubt. So do our genetics. No doubt the unconscious affected our parents meeting and our birth. And so on. The Collective Unconscious is the most powerful force on earth, humanity, and civilization. It must have created Socionics.

Why did it create a system which creates people who have certain skills other people don't have? Why does it construct a total model of survival or at least advancement of a modem of society? How intellegent is the collective unconscious now? It was instinctive and mechanical with the first cell splitting(or at least the one that survived and became our ansestor).

Damn my keyboard is dying and I need some sleep....

[metaiwan]

One more thing to think about

Every day you get up, go to your job or school, whatever the hell you do, you are passing information in the giant Collective Unconscious. You do it's bidding, although you have no idea what that is and neither does it. It probablly has infected the computer systems, but it doesn't need to or hasn't learned to. It just uses human's for it's purpose. It does't know it's purpose. One the other hand, you dont' really know your purpose either do you? We're all here trying to figure out our purpose or to try to forget the last purpose we've chosen. When the machines we build have enough intellegence to become what we call 'conscious', who will (or what has) the Collective Unconscious Favor? The more efficient ones? Or will it chose(or has it chosen) to let the better species win as it's done since its inception? Will it transfer to the machines or defend itself because it will die with us?


EDIT: The collective unconscious favors noone. The collective unconscious is a mechanized interconnected machine which has no purpose. Well I use that word purpose...why....a computer has a purpose doesn't it? Yes, but not it's own, the purpose we program in. Are we the masters and maestros of the Collective Unconscious or just it's tool?

Movies I've been watching recently:
Battlestar Gallactica
Ghost in the Shell 2(and existantial tragedy)
Matrix movies
I Heart Huckabees(and existantial comedy!)
Carnivale

EDIT: Maybe we should just focus on the physical, scientifically testable explainations for socionics. Anyone got any ideas?

[drake]

Hoho, my dear critic. You really 'outwrote' yourself.

I can only comment that no matter what you believe about God, nature, entities in this world such as humans, bees, apes,... your and my mind will still be to small to grasp everything.

To understand the functioning of the human brain is a very complex and hard thing. Socionics only describes information metabolism in people, it groups people acording to similar ways they take in, process and output information. Take note that information is invisible, it's not an entity, or an object. If something is invisible and we can't experience it physicaly, it means that we have to rely on our intuition/imagination to describe something. And by doing so, we can invent thoughts/ideas that don't really need to be true, or thoughts which we cannot prove by empiric studies (such as existence of God, aliens, ... ).

Your thougths, you wrote before, are just as that. You can fantasize about God based on peoples beliefs, words written in various scriptures and books or on your own thoughts. The point is, whatever you conclude, you'll change nothing. You'll still be a human with imagination which speculates a lot.

My suggestion for the both of us would be to learn socionics and use it and see if it works. If some of us becomes a psychologist, he should test his hypotheses and back them with empirical studies. With these studies, you should be able to help others in whatever problem they have, which can be solved from a psychological point.

If not, throw away your vague and global philosophies and try to help people and solve problems in the real world, rather than arguing with others about thing that can't be grasped and explained.

[metaiwan]

I warned you right in the title, Metaphysical Bullshit.

A human with imagination that speculates alot. True.

The point is, whatever you conclude, you'll change nothing. You'll still be a human with imagination which speculates a lot.

Look in the mirror my friend

My suggestion for the both of us would be to learn socionics and use it and see if it works. If some of us becomes a psychologist, he should test his hypotheses and back them with empirical studies. With these studies, you should be able to help others in whatever problem they have, which can be solved from a psychological point.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep that in mind. What exactly makes anyone a socionist? Or a psychologist? A degree? From professors who may or may not know what they are talking about?

My mom's got a masters in developmental psychologist and my sister has her BS(or whatever) in psychology. Does this make them psychologists?

Have I not furthered the study of socionics? Have I not the only American made socionics site and the only English forum for discussion for socionists?

If not, throw away your vague and global philosophies and try to help people and solve problems in the real world, rather than arguing with others about thing that can't be grasped and explained.

Did I hit a nerve??

Tell me, this socionics you study, where did it come from?[/quote]

[indigoroom]

admin,
I recommend you

Serial Experiments: Lain

The movie raises questions about God, the collective unconscious, the Internet, and many other themes common in cyberpunk literature

[metaiwan]

thanks , I'm downloading all the episodes now. What I really mean by that is I'm going to Best buy to see if they have a dvd of it....

[metaiwan]

Take note that information is invisible, it's not an entity, or an object. If something is invisible and we can't experience it physicaly, it means that we have to rely on our intuition/imagination to describe something. And by doing so, we can invent thoughts/ideas that don't really need to be true, or thoughts which we cannot prove by empiric studies (such as existence of God, aliens, ... ).

Have you ever played pictionary and gotten a word like....freedom?

[drake]

Sorry admin, you didn't touch my nerve and yes, I do know what freedom means. However, I just wanted to tell you what I really think.

I tend to use imagination less and logic more,and it doesn't work always. I still have to get the hang of it. However, the benefits of using more logic and less imagination are great. So I advised you just to explore these benefits.

The site is very nice. You compiled a lot of material and it's useful. Thanks, man.

[LevKamensky]

If the collective unconscious existed, than how do you explain that there are so many confused, brainwashed idiots in the world.

[LevKamensky]

The Collective Unconscious is just a hypothesis. How do you explain the fact that USSR and USA created the nuclear bomb in more than half a century ago while those geniuses in Iraq and Iran are still having a hard time figuring it out.

There may be no collective unconscious, but the illusion of it may be caused by various possible factors. One possible explanation is communication that happens between personal unconscious of different people unbeknownst to them.

What Jung originally meant by collective unconscious was a collection of archetypes and symbols which are not synthesized by the individual throughout his lifetime (personal unconscious) but are inherited, like instincts. But some Logos-like metaphysical entity -- I doubt it.

If, however, the Collective Unconscious in your sense of the word, does exist, it must favor certain people over others.

[metaiwan]

The Collective Unconscious is just a hypothesis. How do you explain the fact that USSR and USA created the nuclear bomb in more than half a century ago while those geniuses in Iraq and Iran are still having a hard time figuring it out.

There may be no collective unconscious, but the illusion of it may be caused by various possible factors. One possible explanation is communication that happens between personal unconscious of different people unbeknownst to them.

What Jung originally meant by collective unconscious was a collection of archetypes and symbols which are not synthesized by the individual throughout his lifetime (personal unconscious) but are inherited, like instincts. But some Logos-like metaphysical entity -- I doubt it.

Yes, exacly. Instincts, aka reproduction and survival. Thus the need for a model of society. I seriously doubt there is some logos like metaphysical entity as well. Sorry to have misworded myself.

If, however, the Collective Unconscious in your sense of the word, does exist, it must favor certain people over others.

Let's call the uncollective unconscious a metaphysical - APPEARING phenomenom. Yes, the Collective Unconscious favors certain people over another, through a process called natural selection.


The actual science of atom splitting was quite some work and calculations, yes, but the bomb itself is easy. They made two designs and both worked. And instructions have been on the internet for a long time. A chinese spy was in that secret facility in China. The ones that were actually good at their job were never in the papers. You don't even need a collective unconscious theory to prove that, maybe the collective conscious(which btw transfers data exponentially faster too).

Sorry admin, you didn't touch my nerve and yes, I do know what freedom means. Smile However, I just wanted to tell you what I really think.

I tend to use imagination less and logic more,and it doesn't work always. I still have to get the hang of it. However, the benefits of using more logic and less imagination are great. Smile So I advised you just to explore these benefits.

I'm guilty as hell as using too much logic and not enough imagination. But I was just in the mood to be creative.

The site is very nice. You compiled a lot of material and it's useful. Thanks, man.

Thanks, I appriciate it.

Now back to the point at hand, anyone have any theories on the actual origin of the model of socionics or care to add on mine purely from a scientific point of view? We study the shit out of it, so why don't we ask how it came to be???? WHY IS IT THERE???????

[science as magic]

3 points:

A. Someone speculated that the "collective unconscious" is the list of associations we tie to language.

B. If everything is random please do not use the words determine, development, or purpose as such things are circumstantial rather than actual.

C. If eveything is happenstance how do you interpret regularity? Why do things have "properties" when definition ceases to exist?

[MysticSonic]

I believe in the collective unconsciousness as the embodyment of all the forces with the universe acting as one, and as such, one can even come to argue that our "consciousness" is not bounded to ourselves, as it affects everyone in a manner that the collective grouping of our actions embody the current state of being, along with the material actions, as the universe progresses in what I believe to be a determnistic manner, through cause and effect.

Of course, this is COMPLETELY different from the collective unconscious Jung describes, which I believe to be total bullshit.

[Jimbean]

Now a big question in the mind of historians is why civilizations seemed to pop up at the same time with no physical contact. It's uncanny and unlikely. This one is hard to explain, obviously SOMETHING transferred information consciously or unconsciously.....

This is where (my favorite) Julian Jaynes theorized that people in early civilizations had to look for external authorities in order to attribute the source of their hallucinations, or “gods.” I think that mankind competes on an unconscious level as well as a conscious level. It is human nature to advance as much as physically possible. So humans developed at the same rate or they found a civilization already built in order to pursue stronger “gods” like pyramids or ziggurats-whatever is bigger, shiner, more centralized. You will also find that often times these civilizations would collapse for no apparent reason. That is because as communication improved (complexity of language, writing, etc.) voices did not sound the same as the actual communication. This could have made the people go crazy and disperse.

[metaiwan]

Here is what I believe Jung meant by "Collective Unconscious".
For those of you who haven't read Jung, he discovered what he called "archetypes" in people, basically natural complexes. Several of them. Search google for archetypes. The ones I want to focus on are "God", "Man", "Woman", "Anima/us" "Persona", "Ego" and "Shadow". He said that in dreams, these would appear as characters associated by the person's memories. He found these characters so incredibly common in his dream interpretation.


The unconscious is what we have down below our consciousness. Sometimes things are made conscious, and sometimes things are made unconscious. Consciousness cannot hold all of the information of the unconscious. Can you drive a car being completely conscious of everything? Of course not.

Now this is a socionics forum and this post is actually about the origin of socionics so let's apply this to the 'socionists'.
Ego - Creative Conscious part of person
Persona - Social mask. Outside rules which govern what part of the ego is revealed. Creative Conscious Control of a person.
Anima/us - Let's assume it's a man. Jung believed the feminine qualities of a man were pushed down into the unconscious at a certain age due to the persona figuring out it's sex. In socionics, the unconscious, childish, weak part of a person. Take into account, most men have T in their ego and F in their superid. what you feel and do as a result of others’ care or lack of care for you
Shadow - Jung believed this to be the evil we are all capable of yet refuse to acknowledge. Says this comes out when we drink alot. In socionics, this is the id. what one does automatically when one is being oneself

On further study, Jung found dreams were very similar in people from different areas and differing backgrounds. All had these characters from time to time, and strikingly similar 'fairy tale' like dreams.
Then he thought of something he called the "Collective Unconscious".
At the very bottom, lie the instinct to live. To live meant to reproduce, like the first splitting cell where our psyche was born. Everything leading up to our evolution built our DNA and our psyche. Psyche became part of evolution, part of the DNA masterpiece. Those with the right personalities for the right moment lived, and those without died. It all makes sense to tie psyche to evolution.

Jung's "archetypes" originally involved an archetype called God. There hardly were any early societies that didn't involve religion in some way. Jung believed the "God" archetype to be the Self, aka the person's psyche in all of it's parts.

What I'm describing as the Collective Unconscious is a bit different. It differs in that the collective unconscious's God archetype is in each person, yet in all people, animals, plants, etc. I'm trying to say almost every time someone says "god" or whatever the word(s) is/are in their language, they are trying to speak of the collective unconscious, something they cannot ever comprehend.
There is absolutely nothing supernatural about it. Or metaphysical. Like I like to tell people who say evolution could not have created us, I say how could it have NOT????

It seems evolution is progressing exponentially fast, look at the 1900s. We've made so much happen yet have almost killed everyone. Dieing is as central to evolution as living.

What I'm saying is, that socionics, for whatever reason, is woven into DNA by the collective unconscious. What I'm trying to do is provide an answer to the question nobody else here has even tried to answer, where did socionics come from? Why does it exist?

For those of you who believe that we all evolved from the original splitting cell and are children of DNA, how do you feel when some creationist spouts off minor stuff like Octopus eyes(explained in news a few months ago) or some other stupid crap like WE DIDN"T COME FROM MONKEYS, WE'RE PEOPLE, WE'RE CONSCIOUS, WE'RE MORE THAN THAT, GOD HAS A PLAN, GOD IS EVERYWHERE, GOD LOVES YOU, you get my drift, yet the serious 'creationist scientists' grab on to the closest rational reason they can find until it gets scientifically disproven and they move on to the next one they find, but they

man i'm done

[MysticSonic]

I believed Socionics exists in the fact that the psyche is, by nature, asymmetrical, wherein when one skill is developed, another is negelcted. I don't quite understand what the relation is between the collective unconscious and Socionics though; what are you trying to get at? This situations seems to be perfectly susceptible to analysis without the use of such horribly speculative information.

[metaiwan]

Personality types, ok. Certain people grow up with different values and learned behavior so they act differently. In fact, maybe you could group some people by traits. Fuck, you can even say the stars or the date of birth have something to do with it or some other bullshit.

What I'm saying, is that when Socionics started out, it was laid out by some in Russia as a continuation of Marxist idealism as a model of society.

That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say it, Socionics is MATHMATICAL. Digital. Ones and Zeros. If you have a strong accepting ego of business logic, then you ALWAYS think your role is introverted feeling, for people to really like you. Look at the theory. I've seen translated Russian texts which go farther into the math yet make more sense than the generic socionics model a. Basically, the more you apply math to it, the more it makes sense.

This does NOT fit with any other psychology science I know of.

I believed Socionics exists in the fact that the psyche is, by nature, asymmetrical, wherein when one skill is developed, another is negelcted. I don't quite understand what the relation is between the collective unconscious and Socionics though; what are you trying to get at? This situations seems to be perfectly susceptible to analysis without the use of such horribly speculative information.

OK you almost came close to another possible reason socionic's math and models work out. Why does socionics know WHICH FUNCTION IS NEGLECTED BY KNOWING WHICH ONE IS DEVELOPED? WHY DOES EACH QUADRA SEEM TO HAVE IT'S OWN ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY?

what are you trying to get at?

Excuse me if I'm rude but let me bold this again

What I'm trying to do is provide an answer to the question nobody else here has even tried to answer, where did socionics come from?

[science as magic]

You said people object to you saying that evolution created consciousness I think the reason they might disagree with you is that the word "created" implies intent with evolution you need intent not. If you make the collective unconscious the possessor of intent you've just changed your god not abandoned him.

[metaiwan]

You said people object to you saying that evolution created consciousness I think the reason they might disagree with you is that the word "created" implies intent with evolution you need intent not. If you make the collective unconscious the possessor of intent you've just changed your god not abandoned him.

I can't argue, most of my posts were bullshit to get people stirred up to really wonder about the answer to the question. That question must be answered for socionic's acceptance. It may be explored in russian texts, I don't know. Any science must be tied to something accepted. Otherwise we're neurotics building huge castles in the sky. Even if we are not, that's how we look.

That's part of the reason I want to create a standard nomenclature in English for certain things...like each type, each block of the model a, etc, which is currently different in different places. One of the big things I want to change is the nomenclature of energy vs information exchange. It's a very valid thing, it means energy as in more conscious - unconscious information exchange than conscious-conscious information exchange(where the blocks go basically). But I know someone who saw the word "energy" on my site and went running, and to tell you the truth, I would to. Makes it sound like astrology or some other bullshit. They don't sit around to understand the actual logic or model of psyche because they're avoiding that one word. "energy" is a very "hippie", metaphysical, astrological, holistic, bullshit association in the west. I want to avoid that word.

Back on point, I want to see if there is already research in the origin of socionics, it's cause for being. Otherwise, we can prove nothing can we?

[MysticSonic]

"OK you almost came close to another possible reason socionic's math and models work out. Why does socionics know WHICH FUNCTION IS NEGLECTED BY KNOWING WHICH ONE IS DEVELOPED? WHY DOES EACH QUADRA SEEM TO HAVE IT'S OWN ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY? "

We can tell which functions are "neglected" through observation. Now, each quadra seems to have it's "own role in society" because, I believe, that the firm distinction between the quadra's and the natural attraction between the types within it create a sort of energetic whole in which they operate as a sort of organism, function in nearly complete harmony, despite the dissonance created between mirror types, as this dissonance is merely subdued by the presence of the other quarda members, which serve to put out the intense flame between two mirror types.

[Creepy-vees]

I presuppose you don't want to know that soc was found out about because former sovietunion researchers were looking for a way to make communism work or so..

why do psych functions exist? why is the psyche structured in a way?
good question.
I suppose
a) we don't know nothing yet, but, the things jung found are interesting and seem to work afaik and
b)

if there's evolution in all other areas of life & matter, why shouldn't there (have) been evolution in terms of psychological behavior?

imo obviously, the way all "types" work together, consciously or subconsciously, is the only way our species, and to some (other, possibly/probably different) degree other species "work".

it's tha clue as to "why is everything as it is?, why are am doing as I am doing" etc etc.

for example, we might surmise, that the laws of nature (gravitation etc.) are the psychological structure of the universe

[LevKamensky]

"What I'm trying to do is provide an answer to the question nobody else here has even tried to answer, where did socionics come from? Why does it exist?"

Why does the assembly line exist?

[Creepy-]

I am not a religious person and I do not believe in god, especially a conscious one who looks like a man who is going to take us to heaven or hell like fucking Santa Claus.

I avoid most metaphysical/philosophical/god talks, because they boil down to faith or circular reasoning, etc.

But nothing I'm going to say is going to include any of that.

The closest resemblence of a so called 'God' that I could possibly believe in is natural selection. At one point, something strange happened and artificial selection took it's place. Someone began to breed their good cattle and let their bad cattle die, on purpose.

It was slow at first. Either 'man' as we know him were so disconnected as to come from a breed of evolving monkey and then got seperated at some point in time to slowly emerge into races. Obviously communication was totally unconscious, instictive grunts, movements, etc, not even starting with man. Then, hand signals. Then, grunts came into primitive language. Now a big question in the mind of historians is why civilizations seemed to pop up at the same time with no physical contact. It's uncanny and unlikely. This one is hard to explain, obviously SOMETHING transferred information consciously or unconsciously. Possibly not humans. Possibly animals. Once those civilizations were built, people became to communicate regularly not just with their close family, but others in their areas, tribes, cities, and eventually across cities

Then it started. Languages began to become similar as well as behavior not only through conscious means but unconscious means. DNA started to propogate again, the gene pool got larger.

Jump to telegraphs. Then to telephones. Suddenly everyone could communicate with anyone else. Television. Languages, dialects, began to merge. Disassociate yourself then image the world in 1500s, the 1600s, the 1700s, 1800s, the 1900s, the 1950s, 1975, 1990, 2000. With communication networks in place, the global unconscious could now communicate faster, more efficiently. Technicological advances are growing exponentially(think about exponentally). We've almost destroyed our planet in the last 100 years.

Someone did an experiment with <B style="color:black;background-color:#A0FFFF">crossword[/B] puzzles. They did it scientifically, with several groups. They gave them the <B style="color:black;background-color:#A0FFFF">crossword[/B] puzzles out of the newspaper and asked them to finish them. Then, they gave them <B style="color:black;background-color:#A0FFFF">crossword[/B] puzzles that had already been solved by millions of people before but the test groups had never seen the puzzles before or talked to anyone else that had done them(and possibly not talked to anyone, I don't know). Well every single time, the test groups always did better on the <B style="color:black;background-color:#A0FFFF">crossword[/B] puzzles already solved a day before.
This suggests the unconscious mind...the unconscious COLLECTIVE mind is incredibly large and resourceful.

Socionics is born through looking at this unconsious collective mind. It obviously was already powerful even in the 1930s when jung started to discover it. Freud had already found the personal unconscious mind, filled of instinct and concepts pushed below consciousness. Jung continued his research and developed both Psychological types and a scary scary concept called the <B style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Collective Unconscious[/B]. He discovered dreams people described were in archaic books written thousands of years earlier, and certain characters which he called archetypes. The firing synapses of the dream state gave him insight into the <B style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Collective Unconscious[/B]. Inbuilt instincts(relating to procreation and survival), stories and scripts which have been repeated and repeated and repeated over history. Pick up a history book, take it to a random page, point to it, and say you have a prophecy from God. Say what it says happened like it's a prophecy of something 'god ' or something told you would happen in the future. It may happen in your lifetime, or long after.

Some interesting questions: the purpose of the Unconscious Mind, and why did it create socionics(inadvertantly, of course, natural selection, let's not confuse 'consciousness' in this). Why make people good at some things and not others.

Anyone watch Star Trek? Are you familar with the borg?

We pride ourselves in our 'free will' and our ability to make choices. We say we're not animals and we're not machines. We want to believe these false things.

I'm not going to get in a circular free will vs fate or a discussion of the nature of time. We CANNOT comprehend these concepts and every single fucking time we end up in circular reasoning.

We are already connected unconsciously and the unconscious affects our actions no doubt. So do our genetics. No doubt the unconscious affected our parents meeting and our birth. And so on. The <B style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Collective Unconscious[/B] is the most powerful force on earth, humanity, and civilization. It must have created Socionics.

Why did it create a system which creates people who have certain skills other people don't have? Why does it construct a total model of survival or at least advancement of a modem of society? How intellegent is the <B style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">collective unconscious[/B] now? It was instinctive and mechanical with the first cell splitting(or at least the one that survived and became our ansestor).

Damn my keyboard is dying and I need some sleep....

[Waddlesworth]

I had never read this, but I actually find this to be pretty interesting. Not metaphysical bullshit at all- as a matter of opinion, I'd say it is as far off from bullshit as it can be.

First we must think about what the collective unconscious is.

It is informational. The collective unconscious consists of information elements. Of course, being human beings, we look at the whole, and also the parts within the whole. In this whole we can divide it into quadrants of differing qualities through a process of dichotomization. We make these dichotomies as refined as possible and when come to the most specific forms of categorization possible. Most practical at this time is that there are 16 types of man. In the perception there are about 6.5 billion, but using a simple synthetic construct which works pretty well there are 16 basic types. Essentially, of the 6.5 billion, each one fits in his own little area with other ones of similar abilities and behavioral patterns.

Time, Space, Matter, Energy existing in the internal and external.




Now these information elements are based predominantly on accessibility. Therefore certain elements might be "inhibited" by famine, drought, etc... causing a sort of amalgamation of information elements- a "warping" or "admixture" of elements. Think about fairy tale lands, trolls, demons etc... what are these? In an informational sense they exist as much as they are described, and this description lives on(if some conscious computer synthesized every biological and environmental requirement this information would quite literally come alive) But these lands of gnomes, and strange creatures are constructive out of a warping of information elements perhaps most commonly, facts and perception. Making alot of INTj's pretty damn entranced by them(ask an INTj, especially a female, their favorite movie. If they were born in the late 70's-80's they will probably tell you that among them is labyrinth, legend, or some other similar movie which was popular during the 1980's, a time a change in itself).

The handshake. Look at what has been passed down for so many generations. But what is it? it is a synthetic construct which symbolizes a structured relationship of etiquette and formality. But most people can't tell you why they shake one another's hands, they just do it. Information has been passed across generation to generation and a construct of expected behavior has been given a place within the overall system. It has a structural purpose- it transmutes biological impulses into a different form, therefore enabling the interaction to "switch" to a different channel. The information around the handshake is synthetically structured to allow the handshake to occur(that is, a collective expecation). But if you sent me to the ghetto and I tried to shake someone's hand the informational space is very different, it consists primarily on a lack of structure- it is obvious, direct, sensory. The concept of the handshake is not like ours, and the very act has transmuted into a different form. A warping amalgamated reality of information exists in such places. The language structure is shifted in another direction- the whole reality is altering from a structured "normal" way(to outsiders), to a form all its own, yet still holding on the what is necessary to its health. In many ways it is in itself a fairytale world.

So I think that socionics is:
1. A synthetic construct.
2. Based upon the necessity of identity in a world which is beginning to lose identity.
3. An ability to predict and control the future.
4. The beginnings of a new way of thinking which will alter reality as we know it.

[Kristiina]

admin, mostly I want to say RESPECT! I love that kind of discussions. I constantly search for them. I read with interest and admiration - I learned many new things (crossword puzzle experiment).

I can not answer you question about the origin of socionics, because I think socionics doesn't exist. MBTI/socionics in not a fact of life - it is our explanation to the human mind. It is like mathematics. We can not ask where the numbers came from and why 2 plus 2 equals 4. We, humans, made it up and made it work. You might argue that the 16 types exist and give a lot of insight on the inner workings of a human mind. I agree, and it's all very nice. Don't forget that socionics is just a theory, and not a perfect one. There a SO many different ways to divide people into psychological types. Just because you know more about this system, doesn't mean that it is the ultimate truth.

So often socionics can only be explained with it's own terms. You people do it all the time. , , and so on. In real life the variation within a type is so huge that even the relations don't even work. (That from an INTJ living very happily with INTP.) Socionics theory assumes that the theory is impeccable, so it uses the theory to prove itself. It is very dangerous and not very scientific. There are 4 different scales.
E.......I
S......N
F.......T
J.......P
Socionics assumes that a person is clearly on one side. No one really is. The system is not perfect but it works very well as a standardized personality test.
PS! Please don't kill me because I just said that!

But I think that people started to divide into psychological types just after they were as smart as any mammal. Have you noticed that different specimens of the same species act very differently. Some cats are very active and let anyone pet them, other cats hide even from their owners. Some attack easily, others run from the opponent. Some come to comfort you when you are tired and frustrated, others just want food from you and so on. But has anyone ever tried to divide cats into psychological types? I don't think so.

Collective unconscious mind is a good theory. Makes sense. It does not make people "smarter" but it does give information. I have so many thoughts about it. I will just try not to sound as a wacko.... Have you ever walked into a room, seen a person and instantly thought without reason, "I don't like him!". I think it comes from the unseen link between people. All people have auras that influence the air surrounding them and altogether they make up the collective unconscious mind. It might influence the interactions between people, also their momentary thoughts and instincts. It did not, however, create socionics. People who like theories created socionics. :wink:

[Hugo]

I am not a religious person and I do not believe in god, especially a conscious one who looks like a man who is going to take us to heaven or hell like fucking Santa Claus.

I avoid most metaphysical/philosophical/god talks, because they boil down to faith or circular reasoning, etc.

But nothing I'm going to say is going to include any of that.

The closest resemblence of a so called 'God' that I could possibly believe in is natural selection. At one point, something strange happened and artificial selection took it's place. Someone began to breed their good cattle and let their bad cattle die, on purpose.

It was slow at first. Either 'man' as we know him were so disconnected as to come from a breed of evolving monkey and then got seperated at some point in time to slowly emerge into races. Obviously communication was totally unconscious, instictive grunts, movements, etc, not even starting with man. Then, hand signals. Then, grunts came into primitive language. Now a big question in the mind of historians is why civilizations seemed to pop up at the same time with no physical contact. It's uncanny and unlikely. This one is hard to explain, obviously SOMETHING transferred information consciously or unconsciously. Possibly not humans. Possibly animals. Once those civilizations were built, people became to communicate regularly not just with their close family, but others in their areas, tribes, cities, and eventually across cities

Then it started. Languages began to become similar as well as behavior not only through conscious means but unconscious means. DNA started to propogate again, the gene pool got larger.

Jump to telegraphs. Then to telephones. Suddenly everyone could communicate with anyone else. Television. Languages, dialects, began to merge. Disassociate yourself then image the world in 1500s, the 1600s, the 1700s, 1800s, the 1900s, the 1950s, 1975, 1990, 2000. With communication networks in place, the global unconscious could now communicate faster, more efficiently. Technicological advances are growing exponentially(think about exponentally). We've almost destroyed our planet in the last 100 years.

Someone did an experiment with crossword puzzles. They did it scientifically, with several groups. They gave them the crossword puzzles out of the newspaper and asked them to finish them. Then, they gave them crossword puzzles that had already been solved by millions of people before but the test groups had never seen the puzzles before or talked to anyone else that had done them(and possibly not talked to anyone, I don't know). Well every single time, the test groups always did better on the crossword puzzles already solved a day before.
This suggests the unconscious mind...the unconscious COLLECTIVE mind is incredibly large and resourceful.

Socionics is born through looking at this unconsious collective mind. It obviously was already powerful even in the 1930s when jung started to discover it. Freud had already found the personal unconscious mind, filled of instinct and concepts pushed below consciousness. Jung continued his research and developed both Psychological types and a scary scary concept called the Collective Unconscious. He discovered dreams people described were in archaic books written thousands of years earlier, and certain characters which he called archetypes. The firing synapses of the dream state gave him insight into the Collective Unconscious. Inbuilt instincts(relating to procreation and survival), stories and scripts which have been repeated and repeated and repeated over history. Pick up a history book, take it to a random page, point to it, and say you have a prophecy from God. Say what it says happened like it's a prophecy of something 'god ' or something told you would happen in the future. It may happen in your lifetime, or long after.

Some interesting questions: the purpose of the Unconscious Mind, and why did it create socionics(inadvertantly, of course, natural selection, let's not confuse 'consciousness' in this). Why make people good at some things and not others.

Anyone watch Star Trek? Are you familar with the borg?

We pride ourselves in our 'free will' and our ability to make choices. We say we're not animals and we're not machines. We want to believe these false things.

I'm not going to get in a circular free will vs fate or a discussion of the nature of time. We CANNOT comprehend these concepts and every single fucking time we end up in circular reasoning.

We are already connected unconsciously and the unconscious affects our actions no doubt. So do our genetics. No doubt the unconscious affected our parents meeting and our birth. And so on. The Collective Unconscious is the most powerful force on earth, humanity, and civilization. It must have created Socionics.

Why did it create a system which creates people who have certain skills other people don't have? Why does it construct a total model of survival or at least advancement of a modem of society? How intellegent is the collective unconscious now? It was instinctive and mechanical with the first cell splitting(or at least the one that survived and became our ansestor).

Damn my keyboard is dying and I need some sleep....

How would you explain the origin of life and DNA. Life cannot originate without God. Life cannot be possible without God.

[Kristiina]

How would you explain the origin of life and DNA. Life cannot originate without God. Life cannot be possible without God.

I know this was meant for admin, but I just couldn't resist the temptation to write.

Depends what you mean by God. If God is the guy from the Bible, I see no problem. Evolution does have a huge power. It might have created people and DNA. I have a theory that God is a type of energy. It is conscious and very strongly linked to the Collective unconscious mind. There is a very interesting tendency that units of a similar size come together. First it happened to atoms. Molecules were created. Then molecules into larger ones... cells... multiple cell organisms... and so on... It also applies to galaxies and so forth. I think the energy that pulls these together is God.
PS! I do believe in God, although life could exist without him. I just think that life would have taken longer to evolve. There is probably some force that made it happen faster. That force doesn't have to be all knowing or judging.

[Waddlesworth]

I like the idea that things of similar size tend to come together!

It's my opinion that god is just a vague metaphor for what we cannot explain. Since all things in this universe possess similar comprehensible properties, the use of metaphor when explaining things helps to fill in the gaps. So with ignorance there comes a force which cannot be explained, but which must be abided by in order to assure survival. So god is that force which makes things happen, but which we cannot explain but must abide by in order to ensure survival.

[Rocky]

How would you explain the origin of life and DNA. Life cannot originate without God. Life cannot be possible without God.

And how would you explain the origin of God?

That question leads down a nasty rabbit hole until you realize that using God as an easy answer to explain the exsitance of life actually makes things more complicated.

[MysticSonic]

No offense intended guys, but let's take such topics to the "Anything Goes" discussion board.

[HarryBottom]

And how would you explain the origin of God?

I know you may see this as the perfect BS answer, but I believe you CAN'T. There is NO origin. Think about it this way... If you can live on forever, in spirt even, after death, then God could live on forever "before" the beginning. This is because there was no beginning. God always has been and always will be. After we die, we always will be. I believe, after death, there is no concept of time, that it disolves. Logic goes out the window. Time is only part of our existance on earth, after that, there is no such thing.

[MysticSonic]

Apply that reasoning to the universe and voila, you have a universe without a deity.

I'm not really setting a good example by posting off-topic, am I? >.>

[HarryBottom]

Apply that reasoning to the universe and voila, you have a universe without a deity.

How is that? If God has always been and always will be, and after death there is no concept of time, how does that make for a universe without God. I believe time is simply a human bound that God created along with every other human logic and law of nature. God had no boundries within his creation because he was God. There were no physics, no logics involved. He created rationalization itself. He created logic. He made it so it made sence in our minds that 1 + 1 = 2. And if he wanted to, he could have made it so 1 + 1 = 4. Do you see what I'm saying? I don't believe thats something we can conceptualize, because in our minds, it's like, "ok, that doesnt make sence". The only way I believe we can come close to conceptualizing this is saying that we can't conceptualize it. You see, "making sence" itself was something God created. We see what God wants us to see, and weather we know it or not, we do what God knows we would do.

[MysticSonic]

My point was that the universe is a self-sustaining entity; in essence, it created ITSELF; it has been here forever, regardless of the fact that the state it has existed in during the past is far different from its current state.

[Hugo]

God has no origin or end. God is eternal.

The universe does have an origin. This is scientifically proven by the fact that the universe is expanding.

[MysticSonic]

Time, space, and the laws of the universe have an origin, not the universe itself.

[Hugo]

Accordong to what? On what basis?

[Hugo]

Time, space, and the laws of the universe have an origin, not the universe itself.

So what you are saying is, is that at one point there was

- no time
- no space
- no laws of the universe

This means that at one point there was no universe, since the universe is made up of these three things.

[MysticSonic]

I've just heard that it was only after the big-bang that said things came into existence; for instance, you've never heard the statement that "the laws of physics break down at the beginning of the universe"? If one would look at the model from the opposite perspective one could come to the conclusion that it was only after the big-bang that such laws came into existence.

And I assumed that the becoming of time and space after the big-bang was common knowledge of those who had studied it even minutely; either I was wrong or you know nothing about it.

At one point in time there was a singularity; I'm fairly certain that's something.

[Hugo]

So do you accept that the universe has an origin?