Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 47

Thread: socionics and jung

  1. #1
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default socionics and jung

    .
    Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 02:37 AM.

  2. #2
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They're different, but they have some overlap. I like Jung personally, though his descriptions tend to be more formal than I'd like. What he describes in his book about types are more abstractions than what an actual person would be like (they are shown merely from the perspective of the dominant function).
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  3. #3
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Er... basically, if Jung hadn't come up with his personality typology, there'd be no socionics. Jung's functions are largely the basis of socionics, like it or not people.

    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  4. #4
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    there's no point in a dichotomy. First of all, as already mentioned, there would be no concept of functions without Jung. But more so, it's irrelevant to use one or the others' definition, because functions only have one true essence, regardless of how many people like to skew them.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung attested to the existence of phenomena he called "functions". Socionics sought to model human relational patterns by presuming them to be contingent on the dynamics between those phenomena. This is where Model A comes from.

    Leading socionists (Bukalov, Gulenko, Filitova, etc.) continue to look to Jung for inspiration when better trying to understand human relational phenomena. I should add, too, that the concept of duality was first pioneered by Jung.

  6. #6
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Basically, from what I understand of it all, Jung was the first person to publish any literature on the concept of psychological types, where he simply defined the 8 functions and had each type based around those 8 functions. Various people have done various things with this as a starting point (MBTI being a famous example) and, from what I understand, Augusta whateverhernameis was basically influenced by Jung and a few other sources which I'm not really aware of when formulating Socionics. So from what I understand, Socionics isn't derived from or inspired by Jung as such, but it was influenced by it. Bear in mind though I haven't studied this subject extensively, so I've just picked this up from reading bits and pieces over time on this forum and possibly a few other places. I'm sure some other members will have a more comprehensive understanding of it all. Heh, interesting...I could simply delete this all with a simple click of a mouse button and nobody would ever know I had typed this. But I won't. Not this time.
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  7. #7
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaullidg
    Jung attested to the existence of phenomena he called "functions". Socionics sought to model human relational patterns by presuming them to be contingent on the dynamics between those phenomena.
    yea, I think this is very important to note.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Refer to what strrrng said: the functions are phenomena. Whether or not anyone knows about them, they are still there. Aushra's definitions were more accurate than Jung's because she had the benefit of Kepinsky's IM theory. Jung didn't; the IM theory was created after Jung created his typology. (and besides, Jung was more interested in how the functions worked, not their orientations). Jung saw himself as laying the groundwork for people like Augusta, who came later.
    Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 02:38 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)

  9. #9
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just because she used them to expand on and create a theory doesn't mean she "revised" them. Like I said, there is only one accurate definition for the functions at their essence, and it doesn't matter who it comes from.
    Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 02:38 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  10. #10
    aka-kitsune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    966
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An analogy:

    Freud is to Jung as Jung is to socionics & MBTI
    socio: INFp - IEI
    ennea: 4w5 sp/sx

    **********

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Twain
    Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung defined the functions as "preferred selves" (my term, not his); Augusta called them "information metabolizers" that process aspects of information shared between people. Augusta considered IM aspects as having an a priori existence apart from human observation, something she borrowed from Ayn Rand's objectivism. (Rick's words) To Augusta, IM elements are everywhere: in the stars, in the ocean waves... they are the attributes of the objects and fields we observe. (and those we not yet have)

    I think a lot of people have trouble with Augusta's theory for just this reason. If you don't buy into the objectivism part, then you're really not understanding what it was Augusta talked about. There is more to socionics, also, but it the philosophy which is the "meat" of the theory.

    When people speak of Jung when referring to socionics, they are looking for information which they suspect Augusta may have felt was implied by basing her theory on Jung. This is an Alpha theory, after all.

  12. #12
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLauritson View Post
    Heh, interesting...I could simply delete this all with a simple click of a mouse button and nobody would ever know I had typed this. But I won't. Not this time.
    Awwww, BL doesn't think people care about what he says!

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    Like I said, there is only one accurate definition for the functions at their essence, and it doesn't matter who it comes from.
    I don't know how you can come up with a conclusion like that.



    No it isn't. strrrng is suggesting that there is only one set of functions (and probably that socionics has it more right than Myers-Briggs or Keirsey). You're saying that you thought Jung's functions weren't the same as Augusta's. And you're right. But strrng is wrong in that he thinks there are "correct" ways of interpreting the functions. In actuality, they are two different systems. In fact, Jung didn't even have a fucking system.
    Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 02:39 AM. Reason: removing my quotes ;)

  13. #13
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    I don't know how you can come up with a conclusion like that.
    because functions exist as themselves, despite peoples' bullshit interpretations of them. I'm not saying there is only one accurate way to articulate what a function is; I'm saying that a function is what it is at its essence, regardless.

    And so what if Jung didn't have a system? That's probably a good thing. He established the ground work so that systems could be built.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  14. #14
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    because functions exist as themselves, despite peoples' bullshit interpretations of them. I'm not saying there is only one accurate way to articulate what a function is; I'm saying that a function is what it is at its essence, regardless.
    Right, okay, but within a system the functions exist, not without. There are many systems. Hence, there are many interpretations of socionics.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Right, okay, but within a system the functions exist, not without. There are many systems. Hence, there are many interpretations of socionics.
    That's ridiculous. That's like saying death, disease, hunger, etc. do not exist unless people have systems for them. Absurd.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLauritson View Post
    Basically, from what I understand of it all, Jung was the first person to publish any literature on the concept of psychological types, where he simply defined the 8 functions and had each type based around those 8 functions.
    Not at all. Many typologies were created before Jung's Psychological Types (1921), for example the six types of Eduard Spranger (1914) Economic, Esthetic, Political, Religious, Social, and Theoretic, the four types of Erich Adickes (1907) Innovative, Traditional, Doctrinaire, and Skeptical, the two temperaments of William James (1907) Rationalists and Empiricists, and the two types of Wilhelm Ostwald (1910) Classicists and Romanticists. Hundreds of years before that we have Galen's four temperaments Choleric, Melancholic, Phlegmatic, and Sanguine. And six hundred years before Galen we have Plato's four main characters dianoethic, iconic, noetic, and pistic.

    What is very important to keep in mind here is that all of these different typologies are describing the same reality, and that of course includes Jung, Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. They are all talking about the same basic differences between persons in slightly different ways, but they agree on what we can observe. The types always come first. Functions are not primary -- types are.

    So of course strrrng and tcaudilllg are right, and Ezra is completely wrong. He hasn't understood what a typology is.

  17. #17
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Right, okay, but within a system the functions exist, not without. There are many systems. Hence, there are many interpretations of socionics.
    umm no...did jung have a "system"? no. but he had the most accurate understanding of the functions.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  18. #18
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrxtes
    That really depends on which functions you mean. Socionics has different functions from both mbti and jung. Whether they're describing the same unknown empirical phenomenon is a seperate question I won't get into now... but taken theoretically, socionics functions are a completely different set of phenomena from jungian ones.
    functions exist independent of interpretations.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  19. #19
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    That's ridiculous. That's like saying death, disease, hunger, etc. do not exist unless people have systems for them. Absurd.
    Fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    umm no...did jung have a "system"? no. but he had the most accurate understanding of the functions.
    Then study MBTI instead. It's more faithful to Jung's original understanding than socionics.

  20. #20
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Then study MBTI instead. It's more faithful to Jung's original understanding than socionics.
    lol, way to miss the point.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    eh? Jung's functions are different theoretical constructions from socionics ones. Each type is only hypothetical.

    Empiricial content exists in an objective medium that is independent of interpretation... the functions are only a loose means to that interpretation.
    Functions -- if they exist at all -- exist independent of interpretations. Functions are hypothetical, but types are not hypothetical. In contrast to functions, types are clearly observable entities.

  22. #22
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    i disagree with Ezra's statement that you quoted too. but i also think it's important to point out that many diseases and their effects are much more empirically demonstratable than the functions and their effects. at least that seems to be the case presently.

    the functions could exist as something precise enough for us to say they exist independently of the different systems which attempt to describe them. and that the variation in the systems is but error on our part, as we strive to reveal the greater precision.
    Good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    lol, way to miss the point.
    Which is?

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    eh? Jung's functions are different theoretical constructions from socionics ones. Each type is only hypothetical.

    Empiricial content exists in an objective medium that is independent of interpretation... the functions are only a loose means to that interpretation.
    The evidence is in the pudding, man. All who deny the existence of socionics deny the existence of their own thoughts. (though they may not realize it).

    That said, your young age precludes you from using -Te with -Ti effectively. There is a mountain of evidence in support of socionics, yet you are blind to it for now....

    ...Or, you can take my word for it, which I suggest you do. After all, the real issue with typology at this point is not how it works, but what can be done with it.

  24. #24
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng
    Which is?
    the functions at their essence.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    i disagree with Ezra's statement that you quoted too. but i also think it's important to point out that many diseases and their effects are much more empirically demonstratable than the functions and their effects. at least that seems to be the case presently.

    the functions could exist as something precise enough for us to say they exist independently of the different systems which attempt to describe them. and that the variation in the systems is but error on our part, as we strive to reveal the greater precision.

    but it's also possible that there is no greater precision. and that what we have with the different systems are nothing but lines of best fit through a cloud of points. general tendencies that happen in a chaotic system. and so general that there may be families of best-fit lines, where it's impossible to say one line is more truthful than the other.

    and so in this case, they each become uniquely different tools, unified not by an independent, more precise representation we just haven't discovered yet. but instead by nothing more than their usefulness in making predictions in a common area of interest.
    +1 (as usual it seems)

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Yes.



    Of course.



    And I think you thought right.
    No, no, no.

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    +1 (as usual it seems)
    Both can be satisfied. The phemenology of the functions in the brain could be created by the work of any massively parallel information system, therefore the functions themselves have a transcendent existence.

    But in any case, we can identify them as neuron processing algorithms... eventually. First we need to know what about the neurons themselves leads to the specialization.

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    I meant "types of function systems" (eg. Jungian functions vs. model A) are hypothetical not the "types" themselves.



    When does the transcendent functions begin to kick in?
    It's a conscious decision -- a change in attitude -- that cannot even be physically made until a certain age it reached. On the one hand, you need the experience required to justify the decision; on the other, you need the physiological basis to make it with confidence.

    For me, it was a decision that I needed as many facts about other people's vantagepoints as possible before I could claim a right to judge them morally. This entailed setting functions of similar sign but opposite attitude alongside one another in the same function -- however, it also triggered a displacement fight between my background IM functions both internally and externally. (externally because I began thinking in terms of aspects themselves that sought to displace other aspects) It's also called "growing up" into a mature adult. (which does not just "happen" at 18)

    Amongst other things, transcendence implies subjective moralism; subjective historical interpretation; subjective idealism; subjective logic; ...pretty much everything opinionated about the personality you can imagine.

    For me it kicked in a few months before my 23rd birthday. The subjectivism is actually a trade-off, because in exchange you also get concrete objectivism as regards your base function. This is very useful because it can accept possibilities implied by one's own personal experiences and observations... one's life becomes one's laboratory. Prior to this, INTj personal experiences are only used to dismiss other's ideas as irrelevant, and are so consumed in that "duty" that concrete creativity is impossible. You seem to be experiencing now Cartesian doubt. With +Ni as a crutch, you could guide +Ne toward the creation of empirically validated logic which is consistent with factual observation. There will be criticism of your methods, however; but you can use the subjective moralism to blunt that.

    People think being a scientist is just working in a lab all day, theorizing and testing, etc.. This is hardly the case: becoming a leading scientist means having to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and competition of any sort becomes a nasty business....
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 05-17-2008 at 10:52 PM.

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Then phaedrus' constant search for "objectivity" in everything is a different kind of type related transcendence (since he claims he was extremely relativistic before)? Or has he not transcended yet?

    ehh, sorry for the vague question... you don't have to answer it.
    His Ni was relativistic in that it entertained belief. Phaedrus' term for subjective renditions of information is belief, but I think they are more concrete than something as esoteric -- and general -- as belief is. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with the 1st trancendent function at least -- they do apparently with the 2nd, which he has himself recently undergone. The 2nd trancendent function is an exchange between the 3rd and 5th functions, because as Jung says the soul of a thinker is feeling, the soul of a feeler thinking. The point of the 2nd transcendent function is to master duality and integrate it, learning to harness it even across different subjective beliefs. It's a great deal more complex than the 1st transcendent function and I know little about it. It'd be worth quizzing Phaedrus over it.

    Phaedrus wants to harness his peace with others' points of view in search of absolute truth. He wants the entire world to join him in his quest for empirical purity. The problem is, these still disparate beliefs are facing different challenges, so cooperation is not always possible. Jung called this the "syzygy" stage, and its defining challenge is the mobilization of society in defense against a common enemy. That enemy is +Fi for INTp... how fitting. I do wonder though, what form Phaedrus would argue +Fi takes that so threatens -Fi equity.

  30. #30
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's pretty much how I see it.

    Augusta's interpretations of the functions are the ones that make sense within the context of model A. That is to say, any interpretation of, say, that only describes why it's SLE's and SEE's base function but not why it should be the dual-seeking function of IEIs and ILIs (and PoLR of EIIs and LIIs etc) is already lacking; and I think that's precisely the case if you try to use Jung's Extraverted Sensing.

    That is indeed, as you say, a different matter from whether or not Jung's Extraverted Sensing description is "correct" in another context.
    Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 02:45 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    That's pretty much how I see it.

    Augusta's interpretations of the functions are the ones that make sense within the context of model A. That is to say, any interpretation of, say, that only describes why it's SLE's and SEE's base function but not why it should be the dual-seeking function of IEIs and ILIs (and PoLR of EIIs and LIIs etc) is already lacking; and I think that's precisely the case if you try to use Jung's Extraverted Sensing.

    That is indeed, as you say, a different matter from whether or not Jung's Extraverted Sensing description is "correct" in another context.
    I see you've made up your minds. Your grasp of persistent phenomena is indeed quite poor.

    That's fine. imfd95, expat, glamorama... I'm done with talking to you. No use in it anyway because you're far too dense to explain anything to.

    If only you understood that the mere fact that either of those theories pointed to phenomena that you have indeed observed in your own experience, and offered explainations thereto which offered at least some sensibility, suggests that either spoke of something true, and correctly apprehended its traits despite limited understanding of them, we and those who agree with me would not have to embark, now, on a completely seperate path. But you cannot see that which we see... or you will not see it.... It makes no difference. We've decided and it will be by your overture that our relations are re-established... if ever they are at all.

  32. #32
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *shrugs* what you just wrote sounds just bizarre to me, but ok -- another addition to my ignore list.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    *shrugs* what you just wrote sounds just bizarre to me, but ok -- another addition to my ignore list.
    The usual idiotic denial-of-reality-and-keeping-my-eyes-wide-shut behaviour of a very narrow-minded extraverted thinker.

  34. #34
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Don't be ridiculous, Phaedrus. When I put people on ignore, it's because I have decided that they are contemptible human beings; your presence, as people, has a sort of stench that I can do without. Quite a few people here say things I disagree with, and they are not on ignore, because I respect them as human beings.

    I don't respect you as a human being, so I keep you on ignore (even as, on occasion, curiosity makes me peek at what you write), and tcaudilllg's idiotic post has made him qualify as well. He was the one who said the thing about "severing relations" and "stopping communication"; I suggest you apply your crap to him.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  35. #35
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I see you've made up your minds. Your grasp of persistent phenomena is indeed quite poor.

    That's fine. imfd95, expat, glamorama... I'm done with talking to you. No use in it anyway because you're far too dense to explain anything to.

    If only you understood that the mere fact that either of those theories pointed to phenomena that you have indeed observed in your own experience, and offered explainations thereto which offered at least some sensibility, suggests that either spoke of something true, and correctly apprehended its traits despite limited understanding of them, we and those who agree with me would not have to embark, now, on a completely seperate path. But you cannot see that which we see... or you will not see it.... It makes no difference. We've decided and it will be by your overture that our relations are re-established... if ever they are at all.
    What on earth are you talking about?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  36. #36
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    actually, it's the crux of the argument.
    Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 02:45 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  37. #37
    JRiddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indian Territory
    TIM
    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This thread is like a telenovela. And I'm glued to the screen.

    JRiddy
    —————King of Socionics—————

    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so

  38. #38
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    If only you understood that the mere fact that either of those theories pointed to phenomena that you have indeed observed in your own experience, and offered explainations thereto which offered at least some sensibility, suggests that either spoke of something true, and correctly apprehended its traits despite limited understanding of them, we and those who agree with me would not have to embark, now, on a completely seperate path. But you cannot see that which we see... or you will not see it.... It makes no difference. We've decided and it will be by your overture that our relations are re-established... if ever they are at all.
    I get exactly what you are saying.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    I get exactly what you are saying.
    It's the same tomfoolery that leads people to doubt the theory of relativity even today. The belief that humans cannot fathom the "true nature" of the universe, and that therefore no "human" can claim to truly understand it even in part... is an exercise in futility. It is a leap of total faith with no demonstrable basis in reality. One does not need to be an extremist to endorse such... incomplete awareness, but one does need to subscribe to the ideas of one.

  40. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    if i conclude fair dice aren't predictable beyond a uniform distribution -- that may be different from not understanding the dice's "true nature". the true nature of some things may be that they are systematizable only at lower levels (say physics and chemistry) and otherwise are unpredictable interaction of the many smaller parts. I think there is more to personality than gray matter and fair dice -- hence why i bother posting here. but perhaps not so much to justify your paragraphs of systematic extensions.
    Or perhaps not. History is the judge of such matters, and if indeed you understood in the slightest bit the human side of history, you would know there to be more to those systematic extensions than meets the eye.

    On that note, your -Fe is showing.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •