socionics and jung

[Ezra]

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.

You're a fucking idiot, tcaudilllg. People like you characterise everything I despise about Ti.

[strrrng]

phenomena is independent of theory. So, when ppl split hairs over who said what in what theory, it is essentially meaningless, as the phenomena remains the same. That being said, there is one accurate conception of functions, which can be gained through reading multiple theorists.

[strrrng]

contexts don't mean shit. we're talking about actualities. And the reason I said to read multiple theorists was not because they are all correct, but because they all offer viewpoints that can help guide the person to accuracy (like having multiple flashlights instead of one in a dark room).

[Ezra]

als;dkjga;haiwha;iwdg;kd

Agreed. My, my, you are intelligent.

[tcaudilllg]

controlled behavior studies, digital imaging of the brain will be less controversial judges. Relying instead on qualitative historicism -- where you are heavily extrapolating from macro effects rather than experimenting with the source -- may lead you to something like Soviet genetics. I find that historicism is more common in +Fe/-Ni thinkers btw (a lot of continental philosophy in the vein of Nietzsche, Hegel). Although admittedly there were alpha NT's engaged in historicism too (e.g. Marx)

And that is the problem: that you would conjoin yourself with skepticism that either socionics or Jung attests to something real in a way that is at least partially competant. The same is an argument not to test it all or offer the funding for the same. Ask yourself this: if digital imaging of the brain would indeed clarify whether or not the functions exist, then why hasn't it already been done? Why is it that the same has been done on basis of liberalism-conservatism... and yet the results were greeted with caution, even skepticism? Such a correlate has been proven, and yet the person who demonstrated such has not been given the accolades -- even the acknowledgement -- that his theory is of significant importance. Why is this? Is it so because of your own fatal disability, that you cannot dismiss possibilities entertained by any point of view.... Of course I see why -- it is because of your Ne transcended with Ni... but you must submit that some possibilities, although subjectively real, can never be objectively real any more than subjective truths can be more than the "whole" truth.

Brain research is not cheap. Why is it that the West is looking into the differences between men and women as more important than type? Why is it that we still "prove" sonmething is effective only when it proves relevant to a bare majority of cases? By such means the deeper subjective differences are impossible to discern, because they are lost in the "cloud" of being unrepresentative of a majority or generality. This is the crucial flaw of western cultural approach to medicine and to psychology, the same that condemns it.

You do not see how your own bias, which you share with others on a mass scale, is the source of the controversy. The INTp who agrees with you will see enough uncertainty as to close up his wallet... and those who trust him will do the same. It is not because socionics-brain correlation is unlikely that it has not been conducted outside of the East... it is because it is unpopular. And it is unpopular because of your own ideosyncratic denial of a reality that is not completely, utterly malleable. You want so much to deny the existence of permanence that you will defend your ideal in spite of its cost to your own knowledge. For that, you are truly contemptable.

I gave your analysis some serious consideration in the past, but at this point I'd trust the dice as much.

Such stupidity is unbecoming a rational.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here but -- if my argument is being used to deprive socionics of the rigorous study which might resolve the issue, that doesn't indicate necessarily that my argument is flawed. i wouldn't necessarily use the argument to deprive socionics of funding. perhaps those who do have additional flaws in their reasoning. A lot of funding gets turned down over individual conflicts of interest too.



i think i remember what you are referring to. Virginia Commonwealth University? the study did get coverage in the national press. (i remember reading it on MSNBC, if that's what you're referring to.) there were on the other hand a number of social scientists who dismissed it as fundamentally unsound -- the very notion of biological basis of politics. you and i would probably both agree -- those social scientists are unsound. there does seem to be a bias among a lot of academics in this way. (interesting to note however -- their argument is often based upon historicism – rather than anything direct.)

but even if there are biological influences rather than just chaotic environment, they may not be strong enough to systematize to the extent you are trying. at VCU, they did identical twin studies demonstrating greater similarity between the identicle twins versus the fraternal twins to some significance level. but to "topologize" this you'd have to test applicable predictions in a working environment of some sort. as of the VCU study, prediction was limited to the self-report of genetic identicles. presumably you want to go beyond that.

for a socionics "working environment", you might test intertype relationships eventually. the alternative of course is to study the brain itself. but in either case, experiment with the machine more directly. (the VCU study is at least a start in that direction.) there is less room for interpretation here than historicism.

For the rest of your post, I don't think reality is entirely malleable and I do think there are truth values worth considering beneath the highest level of objectivity. It may be worth presenting new theories such as yours and considering them as possibilities and speculation. Investing time into socionics rather than some more established psychology is an exercise in this on my part. but you have begun to assert the speculative as if it were certain. why you do this instead of investing more time doing more of the appropriate research (after which it might be worth making strong assertions) - i do not know. but it calls your ability to evaluate uncertainty in general into question.

Because I can conduct the same research informally, and I have. I often use pointed questions toward people who I suspect to be of one specialization or another; most of the time my speculations are affirmed. Obviously asking ILIs about such is a problem (because I'm an LII)... so my tests do not acheive 100% success even when testing what I believe to be an accurate concept.

I distinguish easily between conditions related primarily to the surrounding environment, and conditions intrinsic to a person. I don't pay much attention to the environmental conditions; just enough that I can say definitively whether or not something is or is not dependent on them. I figure that people like you who specialize in the same will take care of those like as not. I only give your concerns serious thought when asking what understanding of the intrinsic conditions I have observed means for the way forward; specifically, I assert that the existing culture is more or less unaware of the intrinsic condition as an understood phenomena, and has instead left the same to either random chance or broad platitudes such as "respect every person's point of view". Understanding of intrinsic conditions in people can be the basis for the reformulation of culture to better deal with those conditions in a manner that is psychologically healthy for both the individual and those who interact with them. These days the tendency has been for therapists to throw drugs at psychological conditions which seem maladaptive, without asking how the actual culture itself interacts with the psychology of the person. We need more of the latter. People have two sides, a social consciousness and a spectrum of reactive instincts. We need to understand the instincts better, so as to study the relationship between the instincts and the social consciousness. There are two ways to study the instincts to my knowledge: 1) random sampling and query 2) study of gene traits. The study of gene traits takes intuition and immense knowledge, much of which is still out of reach. (we need more powerful computers, especially). Random sampling relies on the response of the people being questioned, and takes a lot of careful phrasing and a lot of other details.... On the other hand, people's powers of differentiation are very strong, so they can often report solidly about their own natures when asked to differentiate between two extremes. Ultimately the validity of genome data itself rests with the competence of the researcher, therefore I would argue that genome research is fundamentally unnecessary to the study of personality. Knowledge of the genome does offer the capacity for treatment via medical agents of intrinsic conditions that cultural change cannot appreciably influence. For that reason such understanding is needed. We don't need it to "prove" our theories of personality. Statistical, pointed sampling will suffice.

We would like though, to achieve understanding of the nature of personality apart from the distinguishment of its phenomena, and for that we will need neurological studies. However, neurology is intimidating with regard to how it produces personality. Without assuming correlations between statistically consistent traits and neurological functions, it would take us still centuries more to figure out... only to find that those innate traits did exist all along.

The real problem though as I see it, is that you've got people like Phaedrus -- except of even more problematic argument -- who would deny those traits even then. Their denial is a delimma of epic scope. The only way to prove they exist -- and to demonstrate the profundity of their denial and to argue that they should be (mostly) ignored -- is to postulate the existence of an innate trait and to test for the same. That they would deny things so consistently and profoundly... it just doesn't follow how we're going to progress while treating them as people who can objectively reckon with reality. It just creates confusion.

[tcaudilllg]

@imfd95:
I take back my earlier statements about you. I know from first hand experience that it is easy to get waylaid by the false promises of idealism. I'm not apologizing because you were making extreme arguments at the time, and I had no way to discern if the same was not your true character. I know better now, thanks to your outreach in the face of my dismissal. Thank you.