Revolutionary Socionics Concept

[Nexus]

I would like to announce my contribution to the field of socionics: The SSS (or Socionically Stable Strategy, modeled after the similar concept introduced by geneticist John Maynard Smith). The SSS acts as a chaotic attractor for certain behaviors, and justifies how each type (no matter how functionally unbalanced) may have a set of absolutely exclusive behaviors (expressed idiosyncratically) rather than a continuous divergence in tendency. This new tool will allow future practitioners to devise theories of cognitive ætiology much in the same way that modern evolutionary biologists often speculate with regard to the possible ultimate pressures that lead to the the development of proximate responses in the field of Genetic Neuroethology.

[FDG]

Let's hear it.

[Nexus]

Let's hear it.

It basically says that the order of each information element is the most efficient solution for the constraints of any particular niche (type), and that each type has unique motivations (ultimate) that are independent of the ordering of functions (proximate); it accounts for the way sensing acts differently if introverted or extroverted, if it is leading or creative, or if it is paired with thinking or feeling. In fact, it suggests a framework by which each type can be characterized according to it's own particular motivations (somewhat analogous to Nick's 'basic fixation' formulation of enneagram) rather than the effects of the combined IM elements which are really only in the order they are in order to to satisfy an SSS for that niche, where the subtypes account for multiple but equally valid SSS's.

This seems like it's already an assumption in many type descriptions for specific descriptors. It's an assumption in the popular approach to socionics on this forum in many ways as well. But I do like the theoretical angle.

Thank you. You are right that it is just an innovation to an already prominent methodology, however I feel that if it is to be applied behaviorally it should be used in situations where the outcome is failure and not death (evolutionary psychology, for instance, is highly speculative and usually not falsifiable). Socionics seems like a very unique and relevant application whose potential has been only subconsciously realized and otherwise overlooked. I am not proposing a trend in developing individual hypotheses, but rather an entire reworking of the characterization of forces affecting the socion (possibly leading to type and subtype adjustments in the theory itself due to multiplicity and similarity among SSS's; socionics is perfect for this - the built-in structure of intertype relations already incorporates a foundation by which to juxtapose both the types themselves and the sources of significant change in society to which all types must somehow adjust internally and so provides a platform on which to test each SSS). This covers the ground not covered by my epistemological theorem of socionics; IM Elements that are not primarily chosen to suit the most efficient disposition promoted by contextual circumstances (SSS) are likely to represent personal inferential biases (that are either reasoned or conditioned). The structure will resemble this crude simulation:

Common Social Force -> Unique Internal Conflict -> Interpersonal Interaction Imbalance (III) -> Socionically Stable Strategy (SSS) -> Model A

This idea (unlike MBTI) is in line with socionics trend of delegating only cognitive rather than behavioral significance to the dichotomies - this is good because conflictors do not necessarily have an opposite SSS (IJ and EP are opposites, but they are both static). The way that each IM element supports the SSS is not polarized along a functional spectrum, it plays a unique role in every SSS and every type and socionics is well aware of this. The number of unique, significant forces affecting the socion is certainly larger than the number of personality types; for this reason, it is likely that a number of subfields of socionics may spring up with reference to these different circumstances (just as physics uses Relativity Theory for large objects and Quantum Mechanics for small objects). While exhausting, for typing purposes the consistent and unambiguous isolation and defense of a significant SSS is far more reliable than the highly speculative nature of the circumstantial inductive observations that commonly float among the type descriptions.

[Nexus]

A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood:

A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood: The undeveloped id awakens and begins to explore the environment. Upon encountering others, the most pleasing IM elements expressed by people (perhaps the ones used by the others to convey understanding and communication or for comforting a baby) are reinforced and become the superid, which is essentially receptive and attentive to the wants of others as the id learns behaviors by imitation and identification (for static types the id learns to associate the extroverted judging of others with itself because it is directed at the id, and becomes an introverted judger; likewise the id associates introverted perceiving in others with extroverted perceiving in itself and becomes an extroverted perceiver); when the id is reproached for not being 'better' at the quasi-identical functions of the superid (which are suppressed in order to give more attentive power to the superid) then the id, which has only IM elements with which to relate and organize, associates the consistently negative functions in itself with inferiority and they collectively become the superego (which begins to take precedence over the superid during the Oedipus Complex). These are constantly accommodated by ego functions, which are used to exploit perceived weaknesses in the superego that eventually accumulate with use. The remaining unused IM elements remain in the id, where they are available at the 'desire' of the id but are not used continuously or systematically. Thus the Primary SSS focuses on the most efficient fixation of the attention on others (which happens to involve dual-seeking functions that are both least resistant and most reinforcing of continuous attention), and the Auxiliary SSS is the exploitation of the superid by the ego. One might ask, 'Why then does not seek ?' This has to do with selfish exploitation. Obviously one extreme in any dichotomy is best exploited by the other (it is not so easy to hide an element-specific SSS from someone who already understands its subtleties and advantages). This tendency is present even in the DNA, where the X chromosome is constantly trying to manipulate the weaker Y chromosome for its own selfish benefit. There is also a symbiotic benefit in complement functions, where positive long-term relations (requiring functional territory as personal space) are naturally selected over others. In a sexually reproducing, socially interacting species as ours, it is not surprising that fitness trends are replicated in the psyche (culminating perhaps in genetic dual-seeking predispositions to aid in sexual selection and conspecific diversity). I hope that from this discussion that it has become conspicuously evident that the superid is ultimately the most important factor in early type determination, because it dictates which IM elements will be used for understanding other people (which is the most important behavior for both young children and for social relations in general, and is also powerful factor in the manifestation of learning preferences and disabilities), and subsequently for adapting to social constraints.

[tcaudilllg]

It basically says that the order of each information element is the most efficient solution for the constraints of any particular niche (type), and that each type has unique motivations (ultimate) that are independent of the ordering of functions (proximate);

This sounds to me like you're saying that:
1) the function order is irrelevant.
2) Motivation is determined by socionics type (as defined by Augusta)
3) niche equates with socionics type, suggesting that type arises from the external environment and finding one's place in it. Either that, or niche arises from the innate disposition of type. Which is it?
4) The order of IM elements is independent of the ordering of functions.

I agree with 4. I don't think type determines motivation; I think those are seperate. Type is the way of self-confidence and therefore, the tool by which motivation is obtained. A function order in which one does not have confidence does not define a type the way Augusta described it. Augusta's, like Jung's, was a theory of confidence of operation.

[Gilly]

...So what is it?

[Park]

Catchy thread title.

[Park]

...So what is it?

It might not necessarily exist.

[Nexus]

This sounds to me like you're saying that:
1) the function order is irrelevant.
2) Motivation is determined by socionics type (as defined by Augusta)
3) niche equates with socionics type, suggesting that type arises from the external environment and finding one's place in it. Either that, or niche arises from the innate disposition of type. Which is it?
4) The order of IM elements is independent of the ordering of functions.

I agree with 4. I don't think type determines motivation; I think those are seperate. Type is the way of self-confidence and therefore, the tool by which motivation is obtained. A function order in which one does not have confidence does not define a type the way Augusta described it. Augusta's, like Jung's, was a theory of confidence of operation.

I am saying that function order is irrelevant to type, but type is relevant to SSS and SSS is relevant to function order (likewise type does not determine motivation, but SSS determines motivation and motivation determines type). If you are suggesting that motivation can be derived from functions outside of the ego block, you are correct: different activities may require the activation of different IM elements (paying attention to other people involves use of the dual-seeking functions). However, most excess energy is derived from the creative and PoLR functions.

...So what is it?

I just explained it...what do you mean?

Catchy thread title.

Thanks.

[tcaudilllg]

Epic fail. Get back on track with Augusta and start over. Type is inborn and everybody knows it. An ISTj may indeed process another person's Fe (when it is so described) and acknowledge it in all its complexity. However, when he tries on the Fe himself, he will have only a vague understanding of what he is dealing with.

Important point though: so long as he doesn't rely on his own Fe production, he can be Fe capable. This is a meaningful point because it suggests people can passively benefit merely from knowledge of socionics, without trying to expand upon it themselves. Knowledge of socionics can reshape their relationship to society.

[tcaudilllg]

My advice to you, sir, is this: play the conservative, not the liberal. Let the Left shape the changes, and put your energy toward grappling with what those changes mean for the long haul. That's your talent. The Left is very concerned about how their changes play out; so long as you don't demonize us and think we actually intend for those worst-case scenarios to happen, we won't have even the slightest interest in confronting you or whatever. Do consider both the rosy, ideal outcomes and the roads to hell with equal prejudice.

I think you're on the right track asking how people grapple with type; but you're giving way too much weight to the nuture side for it to be balanced. Offering a viewpoint like that you will absolutely trigger the "he's dead wrong" response in the majority and make it easier for them to identify the correct "middle ground" answer... but where does that leave you?

[Phaedrus]

You have no say in this matter, tcaudilllg, because you are deluded. You are the king of mumbo jumbo of course, but that can hardly be considered a merit. You have proven that what you think you know about the types is not worth a shit. What shall we do about that fact that you are deluded? You seem incapable of understanding the types correctly, so you should strongly consider chosing another field as your profession. If you don't stop spreading bullshit about the types -- including your own -- you will be evil personified. I condemn your lack of understanding.

[crazedrat]

You are talking about two different ids . The id of socionics is the awareness of a potential logical resolution in light of a specific ego dilemma. the ego is a particular point of view on reality. As views on reality develop from the ground up they gradually become complexities, & imply a self-perpetuating organization. the id of a baby is a chaotic form of behavior derived from simplicity of thought. it has no longing for resolution. the socionics id is the desire for simplicity of thought in light of complexity; & the insistence this complexity at hand IS the only true simplicity; where this implies a denial of certain aspects of the superego. the superego is the awareness of the imperatives of this complexity. The babys id is adapted with the world, the adults id is adapted to their personal views. The cementing of a person into a specific information processing type develops as a persons mind develops out of simplicity into complexity. This development is a gradual process. As we try to balance an ever the more confusing view of the world, things become tilted . You can put an INTj & an ESFp in a room and ask them something about the environment they are in, and they will reply to you the same .. then you can ask them about life and get something way different.

...I don't know how you are thinking you're ENFj now, Tcaud, but i'd sure like to hear about it.
Also, your dual-type theory needs to be expanded to include the subtypes, as different subtypes have different function notations . Perhaps this explains why you are confused ? not sure . anyway ... ENFj is absurd

[Nexus]

Epic fail. Get back on track with Augusta and start over. Type is inborn and everybody knows it. An ISTj may indeed process another person's Fe (when it is so described) and acknowledge it in all its complexity. However, when he tries on the Fe himself, he will have only a vague understanding of what he is dealing with.

Important point though: so long as he doesn't rely on his own Fe production, he can be Fe capable. This is a meaningful point because it suggests people can passively benefit merely from knowledge of socionics, without trying to expand upon it themselves. Knowledge of socionics can reshape their relationship to society.

That is exactly what I said - dual-seeking functions are used to receive communication from others. In a more general description, it is activated by the outsider, and represents some information to the listener, which is effectively communication. I never said that the listener expressed dual-seeking functions, I said that the listener used them to be more receptive to the speaker.

My advice to you, sir, is this: play the conservative, not the liberal. Let the Left shape the changes, and put your energy toward grappling with what those changes mean for the long haul. That's your talent. The Left is very concerned about how their changes play out; so long as you don't demonize us and think we actually intend for those worst-case scenarios to happen, we won't have even the slightest interest in confronting you or whatever. Do consider both the rosy, ideal outcomes and the roads to hell with equal prejudice.

I think you're on the right track asking how people grapple with type; but you're giving way too much weight to the nuture side for it to be balanced. Offering a viewpoint like that you will absolutely trigger the "he's dead wrong" response in the majority and make it easier for them to identify the correct "middle ground" answer... but where does that leave you?

You are talking about two different ids . The id of socionics is the awareness of a potential logical resolution in light of a specific ego dilemma. the ego is a particular point of view on reality. As views on reality develop from the ground up they gradually become complexities, & imply a self-perpetuating organization. the id of a baby is a chaotic form of behavior derived from simplicity of thought. it has no longing for resolution. the socionics id is the desire for simplicity of thought in light of complexity; & the insistence this complexity at hand IS the only true simplicity; where this implies a denial of certain aspects of the superego. the superego is the awareness of the imperatives of this complexity. The babys id is adapted with the world, the adults id is adapted to their personal views. The cementing of a person into a specific information processing type develops as a persons mind develops out of simplicity into complexity. This development is a gradual process. As we try to balance an ever the more confusing view of the world, things become tilted . You can put an INTj & an ESFp in a room and ask them something about the environment they are in, and they will reply to you the same .. then you can ask them about life and get something way different.

...I don't know how you are thinking you're ENFj now, Tcaud, but i'd sure like to hear about it.
Also, your dual-type theory needs to be expanded to include the subtypes, as different subtypes have different function notations . Perhaps this explains why you are confused ? not sure . anyway ... ENFj is absurd

The id has no longing for resolution? I have never heard that before (even babies cry when they are hungry). I also have trouble understanding what you mean by 'this complexity at hand IS the only true simplicity'. I agree that the type is determined as the id develops, and I noted that specifically in my example. However I believe that the superid is ultimately the most important factor in early type determination, because it dictates which IM elements will be used for understanding other people (which is the most important function for small children and social relations in general), and specifically how one will be educated to adapt to social constraints; it is the first step towards complexity from a completely chaotic id containing all eight functions in no particular order.

[Phaedrus]

What's your excuse for being deluded, Tcaudilllg? No person is ever allowed to be so wrong as you now have turned out to be. It's impossible to accept such idiocy, such bottomless ignorance, such imbecile stupidity. To change from a belief that you are an INTj to a belief that you are an ENFj ... such a mistake is unimaginable, it's impossible. So you are necessarily deluded, and you are so deluded that you are not only the king of mumbo jumbo but also the king of delusion.

[crazedrat]

this is the process of the baby developing its adult ego / superid / superego / id ... the baby realizes it cannot get what it wants exactly when it wants it , & that it must develop a system of complexity for achieving its ends . The adult / socionics version of id is the longing to achieve these ends in a particular way , with the emphasis placed on the process of achievement , & not on the objects of achievement . The baby ids desires , which are simple , are thwarted and undermined by the world / society, & this plunges the baby mind into complexity . The particular objects of desire are common to all human beings, & are not deterministic to the process of achieving these desires . In light of the surrounding world there develops an ideal process of achievement , but this is not something intrinsic to desire itself , but rather a response to the social order surrounding the desire . Hence it develops as a response to 1: fundamental human desire 2: limitations imposed onto the baby by the world 3: the baby's fundamental ability to manipulate worldly variables (this 3rd part of the equation you ignore) . There is an effective mean between these two processes which creates an ideal path of action toward achievement . For the adult , the idea of the superid is a resolution of the ego back into simplicity . It's the idea of dissolving the ego , dismissing worldly constraints, dissolving the complexity we're discussing , & returning to a baby mode of behavior . The development of a system of complexity for achieving ends is the development of an information processing type , an ego . The key point in all this , is that socionics "id" is different than babys "id" or our bodies desires of "id" . The id of a baby is a fundamental set of needs , socionics id is a process for achieving these needs ; and this process is variant from person to person , & developmental , unlike the child id - which is constant, and biological .
The ego developing out of constraints imposed onto it by reality is an awareness of a superego which implies an ideal socionics process of id resolution . The baby's fundamental abilities constrain the extent to which this process of id can exist in light of the perceived superego . I think , if anything , I.M. will develop out of an awareness of a superego within the surrounding world , & an id contained in the baby's ability to manipulate the world ; & a union between these processes , superid being the drive behind all this - the baby's original, primordeal mode of behavior . The extent to which these mechanisms achieve proper synergy relative to one another is called exertion type .

[Nexus]

this is the process of the baby developing its adult ego / superid / superego / id ... the baby realizes it cannot get what it wants exactly when it wants it , & that it must develop a system of complexity for achieving its ends . The adult / socionics version of id is the longing to achieve these ends in a particular way , with the emphasis placed on the process of achievement , & not on the objects of achievement . The baby ids desires , which are simple , are thwarted and undermined by the world / society, & this plunges the baby mind into complexity . The particular objects of desire are common to all human beings, & are not deterministic to the process of achieving these desires . In light of the surrounding world there develops an ideal process of achievement , but this is not something intrinsic to desire itself , but rather a response to the social order surrounding the desire...The extent to which these mechanisms achieve proper synergy relative to one another is called exertion type .

It is different for process/result, tactical/strategic, etc. Your model is only valid for a few of the types, if at all. And type is determined long before adulthood. Your model also fails to explain Function Blocks and Intertype Relations, preferring to make the theory unnecessarily more complex by introducing exertions without explaining the original types themselves.

Hence it develops as a response to 1: fundamental human desire 2: limitations imposed onto the baby by the world 3: the baby's fundamental ability to manipulate worldly variables (this 3rd part of the equation you ignore) . There is an effective mean between these two processes which creates an ideal path of action toward achievement . For the adult , the idea of the superid is a resolution of the ego back into simplicity . It's the idea of dissolving the ego , dismissing worldly constraints, dissolving the complexity we're discussing , & returning to a baby mode of behavior .

I did not ignore the baby's ability to manipulate the world, it is in fact implicit; every one of the eight functions has the ability to help the baby directly manipulate the world - that is what functions are. You also seem to imply that children do not have a superid, but I believe that the superid is expressed differently in children by such behaviors as 'playing'.

The development of a system of complexity for achieving ends is the development of an information processing type , an ego . The key point in all this , is that socionics "id" is different than babys "id" or our bodies desires of "id" . The id of a baby is a fundamental set of needs , socionics id is a process for achieving these needs ; and this process is variant from person to person , & developmental , unlike the child id - which is constant, and biological .

The ego developing out of constraints imposed onto it by reality is an awareness of a superego which implies an ideal socionics process of id resolution . The baby's fundamental abilities constrain the extent to which this process of id can exist in light of the perceived superego . I think , if anything , I.M. will develop out of an awareness of a superego within the surrounding world , & an id contained in the baby's ability to manipulate the world ; & a union between these processes , superid being the drive behind all this - the baby's original, primordeal mode of behavior .

If socionics is the the study of behavior, and you cannot correlate socionics to what you call the 'child's id' (which controls the child's behavior), then you have a lot of work to do. The functions are as constant and biological as the desires of the id (which is why everyone has eight functions), but you do not know that dual-seeking preferences (and so type) are not also genetically predetermined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection) rather than conditioned. You also do not consider that most babies with average abilities in most respects widely vary in terms of type (you seem to think that type is a way to deal with physical impediments, but I think this is incorrect; a deaf person is not necessarily intuitive and might even have to rely more heavily on other senses). The only statement you have made thus far with which I can even vaguely agree is: The ego developing out of constraints imposed onto it by reality is an awareness of a superego which implies an ideal socionics process of id resolution

[Mariano Rajoy]

You seem incapable of understanding the types correctly, so you should strongly consider chosing another field as your profession.

Profession?

Srsly lol

Quote: "The term profession thus refers to an occupation, vocation or high-status career, usually involving prolonged academic training, formal qualifications and membership of a professional or regulatory body."

[crazedrat]

i dont think you said anything valid in that response so i am going to tell you to fuck off .

[Mariano Rajoy]

i dont think you said anything valid in that response so i am going to tell you to fuck off .

Hey Mr. Grumpy Gills. When life gets you down, you know what you gotta do? Just keep swimming.

[crazedrat]

i think that fish is your dual

[Suomea]

Hey Mr. Grumpy Gills. When life gets you down, you know what you gotta do? Just keep swimming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmyUk...eature=related

LOL

[Nexus]

Another SSS is one that is already probably pretty obvious - extroverts like to interact and introverts do not. Because extroverted IM elements encourage cognitive states whose products are more generally acceptable for interpersonal sharing, the inclination to use functions in an appropriate manner for either hoarding or sharing is directly related to the preference for an incorporated social orientation in an IM element (where typical characteristics of the introverted and extroverted uses of the IM element each represent the most general SSS that is likely to emerge from continuous use of that function in either disposition; however, since element choice itself does not expressly indicate either orientation and only a preference to utilize a certain SSS, and because everyone must express both introverted and extroverted information metabolism, element preference is not related to extroversion, which is more adequately expressed in the ordering of mirror functions and subtype inclinations). Since both introverted and extroverted systems are necessary for successful development and assimilation, the creative function must help to supplement the dominant function by processing contextual developments that are not conducive to the dominant action.

- multiply-applicable data
- system-specific axioms
- external communication of emotions
- internal framework of judgments
- general potentials and alternatives
- personal insights and predictions
- objective endeavors for social organization
- subjective preferences for self comfort

[Nexus]

From this argument directly follows another SSS which describes the relation of the temperament to the static/dynamic Reinin trait. While dynamic types notice significant changes as focused concrete information with general applicability, static types notice stationary trends as complicated abstract structures pertaining to specific qualities. The temperament asymmetry is often considered among the most confusing in socionics. Because judging is what permits decision, types with introverted judging will be most confident in manipulating themselves while types with extroverted judging will be most confident in manipulating others. Extroverted perceiving accommodates introverted judging by seeking large, abstract, organizational propensities externally that are relevant to the internal structure that has been generated by introverted judging. Introverted perceiving accommodates extroverted judging by seeking small, concrete, communicable indicators internally that may signify in the self what is isolated for immediate notice by extroverted judging. Because indicators (measurements) document changing and propensities (dimensions) document unchanging, EJ/IP is dynamic while IJ/EP is static. Immediately, since one trait over time is best exploited or supplemented by the other, duality is incorporated - each dual judges different things so there is no common ground for conflict.

[crazedrat]

when you start rambling to the voice inside your head , no one is listening but you .

[Nexus]

when you start rambling to the voice inside your head , no one is listening but you .

You are very rude and incorrect. Please speak for yourself.

[tcaudilllg]

OK, now you're giving the elements some primacy. This is good, because that is indeed the situation. We do not shape our elements; our elements shape us. (from a phemenological vantagepoint).

[Nexus]

Element Axis => SSS => Reinin Trait => Quadrant Value

Judicious
- dynamic perception of present changes that occur
- static initiative to exploit abstract potentials
Focus on optimizing short-term by intuitive means

Decisive
- dynamic perception of future changes that occur
- static initiative to exploit concrete phenomena
Focus on optimizing long-term by sensory means

Serious
- dynamic judgment of logical states
- static representation of relations
Focus on ideological objectivity and social formality

Merry
- dynamic judgment of emotional states
- static representation of principles
Focus on ideological subjectivity and social informality

Autocratic
ST - sense is thought upon (concrete is relevant)
NF - intuition is felt upon (abstract is significant)
Focus on making order top-down

Democratic
SF - sense is felt upon (concrete is significant)
NT - intuition is thought upon (abstract is relevant)
Focus on making order bottom-up

[tcaudilllg]

Element Axis => SSS => Reinin Trait => Quadrant Value

Judicious
- dynamic perception of present changes that occur
- static initiative to exploit abstract potentials
Focus on optimizing short-term by intuitive means

Decisive
- dynamic perception of future changes that occur
- static initiative to exploit concrete phenomena
Focus on optimizing long-term by sensory means

Serious
- dynamic judgment of logical states
- static representation of relations
Focus on ideological objectivity and social formality

Merry
- dynamic judgment of emotional states
- static representation of principles
Focus on ideological subjectivity and social informality

Autocratic
ST - sense is thought upon (concrete is relevant)
NF - intuition is felt upon (abstract is significant)
Focus on making order top-down

Democratic
SF - sense is felt upon (concrete is significant)
NT - intuition is thought upon (abstract is relevant)
Focus on making order bottom-up

That reminds me of some stuff labcoat hypothesized a while back....

These are good starting points, but there is a problem of the change aspect not being explored. Some of these are also excessively mechanistic. That said, I've always struggled with the mechanistic end myself.

[Nexus]

OK, now you're giving the elements some primacy. This is good, because that is indeed the situation. We do not shape our elements; our elements shape us. (from a phemenological vantagepoint).

That reminds me of some stuff labcoat hypothesized a while back....

These are good starting points, but there is a problem of the change aspect not being explored. Some of these are also excessively mechanistic. That said, I've always struggled with the mechanistic end myself.

The point of a mechanistic analysis is to support a phenomenological vantage point.

[tcaudilllg]

The point of a mechanistic analysis is to support a phenomenological vantage point.

I guess you could say the same thing about phemenology, in that it explains mechanics. (or tries to). If you think about it, Einstein and Newton were on two sides of the same coin: one observed gravity as a mechanic and asked what phenomenon could underlie it; the other observed it as a phenomenon and asked what were the mechanics which underlied it.

[FDG]

when you start rambling to the voice inside your head , no one is listening but you .

rotflllllllllllllllll

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You are very rude and incorrect. Please speak for yourself.

Pot kettle black