How Socionics can uncover the truth of the fabric of reality

[Singu]

I think that Socionics is a revolutionary theory which will help us uncover the very truth about the very existence of reality itself. This may sound ambitious, but how can it not be? You would only need to look to see how many things can be applied and analyzed in terms of Socionics.

For example, even by analyzing this very sentence that I'm writing, you could probably see that they are of certain functions, and therefore, PROVE that I am of a certain type, and hence it would validate the overall correctness of the Socionics theory. This means that I AM of a certain type, because I HAVE TO be. There can be nothing else.

I think that to be able to prove the correctness and the truthiness of the Socionics theory, we must take the theory seriously, for that it is very real indeed. It is a REAL phenonemon that we're describing.

For instance, you would only need to LOOK, to see that there are confirmations of the theory everywhere, whether it be your own thoughts and emotions, to human interations, to personalities, to sociological and historical phenomena, to see that the THEORY often fits the REALITY of the situation, by APPLYING the functions or types or quadras etc., to those situations. These are the proofs and confirmations, of the overall correctness of the Socionics theory, because they are DESCRIBING the reality that we are observing. We MUST take the theory seriously, because these phenomenons are real, and that they exist.

Thank you.

[Bertrand]

you're just mad cause socionics encroaches on your territory

[lavos]

It seems you believe that Socionics is in no way verifiable; that anyone who engages in it must be stupid, mad, or deluded. You are are starting to sound like a crackpot (well, actually, you've been sounding like this for days now). What are you trying to accomplish?

[Pallas]

It seems you believe that Socionics is in no way verifiable; that anyone who engages in it must be stupid, mad, or deluded. You are are starting to sound like a crackpot (well, actually, you've been sounding like this for days now). What are you trying to accomplish?

He's trying to be Socionics Colbert and it's not working

Or he escaped the nuthouse and really believes it like he did for 9 years

[strangeling]

LOL, I love how Singu is obsessed with us.

[Singu]

It seems you believe that Socionics is in no way verifiable; that anyone who engages in it must be stupid, mad, or deluded. You are are starting to sound like a crackpot (well, actually, you've been sounding like this for days now). What are you trying to accomplish?

Well actually my point is... nothing is verifiable, and that justificationism is wrong. If you take justificationism seriously, then you will reach this conclusion.

So if you approach Socionics from the point of justificationism, then you'd be wrong.

And really, do you really believe that people who discuss esoteric subjects like Socionics and astrology on some corner of the internet, are not crackpots? Do you really go around to people saying, "Hey I'm a Te valuer, therefore I must be more factual than you", etc? I don't mean to offend, but I must point out certain ironies of the situation.

I'm actually kind of surprised that some people were offended by the OP, but ok.

[Tigerfadder]

Well actually my point is... nothing is verifiable, and that justificationism is wrong. If you take justificationism seriously, then you will reach this conclusion.

So if you approach Socionics from the point of justificationism, then you'd be wrong.

And really, do you really believe that people who discuss esoteric subjects like Socionics and astrology on some corner of the internet, are not crackpots? Do you really go around to people saying, "Hey I'm a Te valuer, therefore I must be more factual than you", etc? I don't mean to offend, but I must point out certain ironies of the situation.

I'm actually kind of surprised that some people were offended by the OP, but ok.

What do you want? xd

[strangeling]

Okay, Singu is extrovert and doesn't value Ni, probably values Te. LSE-Te CONFIRMED

I said CONFIRMED

[Singu]

To be honest... I just want to figure out why Socionics doesn't work the way it does, because it has been bugging me. But I think that I am getting pretty good clues as to why. Now I think, that the whole approach is wrong, as in its philosophy is wrong.

Okay, Singu is extrovert and doesn't value Ni, probably values Te. LSE-Te CONFIRMED

I said CONFIRMED

Justificationist.

You cannot confirm, or verify, or prove, or anything of that sort. You can only CRITICIZE and IMPROVE!

[Tigerfadder]

To be honest... I just want to figure out why Socionics doesn't work the way it does, because it has been bugging me. But I think that I am getting pretty good clues as to why. Now I think, that the whole approach is wrong, as in its philosophy is wrong.

I can somewhat understand that. Most of the other personality tools are usually something that looks like some small group which could probably be derived out from Socionics. Big 5 and other phycological tools have the same trouble areas I think even when Big 5 do not really have types. Its a lot of talking, diagnosis from what the person is telling you etc. Medical doctors might use what the person say aswell when making diagnosis. Clearly people have personalities and many people have found, on their own observations, that you meet a lot of people and after a while you see the same typ of personalities over and over in other people.

Going in a Socionics forum and saying Socionics are shit and the people are crackheads are really trolly of you.

[Singu]

I think that about the only way to fully understand a person, is to fully understand *every* one of his values and ideas. Every one of them. Because the values and the ideas of a person is what makes a person, in general. So you can reasonably predict what he's going to do next with that knowledge. (You cannot extrapolate information from observation, nor you can "project" values onto the person from a theory, so to speak.)

But then you can't predict what kind of values he's going to adopt next, so there is an inherent unpredictability in human beings.

But we CAN predict, that if he adopts a certain value, then he might do this, etc. That is, after we have studied and understood carefully how those values lead to this or that. So in essence, what we might need is a study of every single values that exist in a society.

A good value to adopt is, "I could be wrong. In fact, I AM likely wrong. But it can be improved".

[Tigerfadder]

People are not static, that is probably the biggest reason why it is not fully explained. There are too many variations.

[Tigerfadder]

230 values for ya: https://scottjeffrey.com/core-values-list/

[Singu]

230 values for ya: https://scottjeffrey.com/core-values-list/

Well yes, but also like social values, like a lot of the "isms". I think these ideas are expressed as "memes" or "memetics" in biology. Memes are like "evolution of ideas", they survive for no other reason that they survive and are replicated in people. Obviously, good ideas survive for that they have survived all the criticisms. Maybe someone could explain how is it possible that these ideas are created. In evolution, we don't ask why something is there, but rather, we ask how was it possible and through what processes can cause something to be there.

I think I will have to read Richard Dawkins.

[idontgiveaf]

Troll 🤣

[Exodus]

[falsehope]

https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-test
http://illnessquiz.com/schizophrenia-test/ - longer one

Don't get me wrong, it's in good faith. I think in crackpot threads it's good to post it.

By the way any answer yes in first test indicates serious issue.

[Bertrand]

I get mild indicator of schizophrenia on the first one

[Aylen]

https://www.psycom.net/schizophrenia-test
http://illnessquiz.com/schizophrenia-test/ - longer one

Don't get me wrong, it's in good faith. I think in crackpot threads it's good to post it.

By the way any answer yes in first test indicates serious issue.

Not much different from a socionics test.

Do you ever hear or see things that others cannot?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do you struggle to trust that what you are thinking is real?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do you get the sense that others are controlling your thoughts and emotions?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do you struggle to keep up with daily living tasks such as showering, changing clothes, paying bills, cleaning, cooking, etc.?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do you feel that you have powers that other people cannot understand or appreciate?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do you find it difficult to organize or keep track of your thinking?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do other people say that it is difficult for you to stay on subject or for them to understand you?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do you feel that you have little in common with family and friends?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do you feel that you are being tracked, followed, or watched at home or outside?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

Do other people have a difficult time guessing your emotions by your facial expressions?

Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Very Often

[Aylen]

I get mild indicator of schizophrenia on the first one

Same

[Pallas]

And really, do you really believe that people who discuss esoteric subjects like Socionics and astrology on some corner of the internet, are not crackpots?

Yes. I see astrology stuff whenever I go to basically any store ever and socionics is like MBTI in Slavic countries even if it's not as common in Western countries (yet, but EJArendee's going to take care of that for us, thank God.)

[Pallas]

230 values for ya: https://scottjeffrey.com/core-values-list/

It needs to get up to 420

[Pallas]

I think that about the only way to fully understand a person, is to fully understand *every* one of his values and ideas. Every one of them. Because the values and the ideas of a person is what makes a person, in general. So you can reasonably predict what he's going to do next with that knowledge. (You cannot extrapolate information from observation

People also have experiences, possessions, circumstances, abilities, constitutions, appearances, friends, acquaintances, enemies, debts, obligations, feelings, desires, resolutions, communities, habits, and an infinite number of things besides values and ideas. This leaves us having to.... extrapolate information from observation. Dun duuuuuun DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN! I advise you to get better at it instead of farting around theorizing.

[Singu]

People also have experiences, possessions, circumstances, abilities, constitutions, appearances, friends, acquaintances, enemies, debts, obligations, feelings, desires, resolutions, communities, habits, and an infinite number of things besides values and ideas.

I'm pretty sure all of those things turn into values and ideas. Of course, I'm not saying that's all a person is, but it's a good start.

This leaves us having to.... extrapolate information from observation. Dun duuuuuun DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN! I advise you to get better at it instead of farting around theorizing.

That's called inductivism, and inductivism doesn't work, because the future doesn't resemble the past. The way science works ISN'T inductivism, as in, you observe something and then you make up a theory, and the more evidence and observations that you collect to confirm the theory, the better. Please read up on "problem of induction".

[Singu]

Yes. I see astrology stuff whenever I go to basically any store ever and socionics is like MBTI in Slavic countries even if it's not as common in Western countries (yet, but EJArendee's going to take care of that for us, thank God.)

Then I'm pretty sure you'll have fun talking about how you're a "Fe valuer" or "Te valuer" or whatever.

[Pallas]

I'm pretty sure all of those things turn into values and ideas. Of course, I'm not saying that's all a person is, but it's a good start.

Actually... they don't! For example, say you're a midget. You think it's a great idea to be average height or above, but alas, you're not, because values and ideas don't actually translate to reality.

That's called inductivism, and inductivism doesn't work, because the future doesn't resemble the past. The way science works ISN'T inductivism, as in, you observe something and then you make up a theory, and the more evidence and observations that you collect to confirm the theory, the better. Please read up on "problem of induction".

...I just told you trying to figure out how people work based on science is a godawful idea, and this would be why. The future does resemble the past to human cognition ("memory" "learning,") which means everyone is anti-science by default. Muahahahahahahahahahaha

[Pallas]

Then I'm pretty sure you'll have fun talking about how you're a "Fe valuer" or "Te valuer" or whatever.

I've had all sorts of people tell me their MBTI types, enneagram types, star signs, and other people's suspected MBTI types and enneagram types and star signs and other good stuff without me having to say anything. Sometimes, I've joined in. GASP.

[Singu]

Actually... they don't! For example, say you're a midget. You think it's a great idea to be average height or above, but alas, you're not, because values and ideas don't actually translate to reality.

Right, and I think the point is to understand how the *mind* works.

...I just told you trying to figure out how people work based on science is a godawful idea, and this would be why.

If not science, then what else? Magic?

[Pallas]

Right, and I think the point is to understand how the *mind* works.

What's mind without matter?

If not science, then what else? Magic?

Step 1: Open the door. Step 2: Walk up the stairs. Step 3: Go towards the light (this appears as a strange ethereal vaprous substance ranging from coolish white to golden in color.) Step 4: Find another door near the light. Step 5: Open it. Step 6: Find a person in the vast light-filled space (you should recognize their form from the shadows you've seen on the cave walls.) Step 7: Approach the person. Step 8: Observe carefully until you become accustomed to their presence.

If that seems too intimidating, you can start by reading Dostoevsky, but remember that killing people is generally a bad idea.

[Singu]

What's mind without matter?

Yes, and that matter is called neurons or the brain. Or if you can't program it, then it doesn't work/you don't understand it.

Step 8: Observe carefully until you become accustomed to their presence.

Again, inductivism. It doesn't work that way. The person is obviously going to be doing things *creatively* (as in he will have new thoughts) which cannot be predicted.

[Pallas]

Yes, and that matter is called neurons or the brain. Or if you can't program it, then it doesn't work/you don't understand it.

Except that the brain isn't actually a computer. I meant the matter of the body and the environment, or all the things you're going to be thinking about. You can't think without thinking about something. That's just Philosophy 101. If you want to understand the mind, what you're really doing is understanding all the things you think about, which means understanding the entire Universe.

"Know thyself and thou shall know all the mysteries of the gods and of the universe." — The Oracle of Delphi

Again, inductivism. It doesn't work that way. The person is obviously going to be doing things *creatively* (as in he will have new thoughts) which cannot be predicted.

...What are people to you, weather systems?

[Singu]

The future does resemble the past to human cognition ("memory" "learning,") which means everyone is anti-science by default. Muahahahahahahahahahaha

That's why the human cognition is fallible and it doesn't work in that way (consequently, why "Ni" also does NOT *actually* predict the future [maybe you think that it does]). You can obviously, only predict the future through analysis or understanding of say, universal laws that stay the same throughout the time and space.

[Singu]

Except that the brain isn't actually a computer. I meant the matter of the body and the environment, or all the things you're going to be thinking about. You can't think without thinking about something.

If not a computer, then how do you suppose that a mind work? Again, is it just magic?

There is also such thing as a, universality of computation. Virtually every single possible computation that you can perform, is possible through the principle of Universal computation, which is basically the Turing principle, which is used in the CPU of the very computer or an iPhone that you're using right now to make this very post.

If you want to understand the mind, what you're really doing is understanding all the things you think about,

I mean that's what I said, you'd have to understand all of the values and ideas of a preson.

...What are people to you, weather systems?

Well isn't it ironic that you're into Socionics, which is all about predicting people?

[Pallas]

That's why the human cognition is fallible and it doesn't work in that way (consequently, why "Ni" also does NOT predict the future). You can obviously, only predict the future through analysis or understanding of say, universal laws that stay the same throughout the time and space.

Yeah, but those don't exist. Scientific laws are statistics. As long as there are things that haven't happened, you can't be certain about statistics. Which really means you can't scientifically predict the future at all. You can only predict it by induction, which is pretty much intuition. Why are you OK not having everything done that you want today? The Sun could blow up tomorrow, scientifically-speaking. But you know it won't. Why is that?

Human cognition über alles

[Pallas]

If not a computer, then how do you suppose that a mind work? Again, is it just magic?

Yes.

I mean that's what I said, you'd have to understand all of the values and ideas of a preson.

That's not what I said though. The Universe isn't values and ideas of people, even if you're an idealist.

Well isn't it ironic that you're into Socionics, which is all about predicting people?

...Except it's not really and I don't even have a self-type, lol.

[Singu]

Yeah, but those don't exist. Scientific laws are statistics. As long as there are things that haven't happened, you can't be certain about statistics. Whih really means you can't scientifically predict the future at all.

Physics isn't statistics, and yet it predicts the future. This is possible, because there are universal laws which can be discovered and understood.

You can only predict it by induction, which is pretty much intuition. Why are you OK not having everything done that you want today? The Sun could blow up tomorrow, scientifically-speaking. But you know it won't. Why is that?

Like I said, you *can't* predict via induction. The sun could possibly blow up tomorrow, but the probability of that happening is too small. Science says that the chance of that happening is infinitesimally small, which is consistent with what's happening in the world around us.

[Exodus]

xK1wGft.jpg

[Singu]

xK1wGft.jpg

I admit I was trying to be kind of funny/ironic in the OP, but I'm not trolling right now (if anything, Pallas Athena is trolling). And you still haven't answered my question, how *does* Socionics explain people's thoughts and behavior?

[Pallas]

Physics isn't statistics, and yet it predicts the future. This is possible, because there are universal laws which can be discovered and understood.

Then what's all the fuss about the unified field theory and whatever? The Higgs Particle is a statistic. My rocket scientist roommate (as in, an actual aerospace engineer) was skeptical.

Like I said, you *can't* predict via induction. The sun could possibly blow up tomorrow, but the probability of that happening is too small. Science says that the chance of that happening is infinitesimally small, which is consistent with what's happening in the world around us.

Wake! For the Sun, who scatter'd into flight
The Stars before him from the Field of Night,
Drives Night along with them from Heav'n, and strikes
The Sultan's Turret with a Shaft of Light.

Before the phantom of False morning died,
Methought a Voice within the Tavern cried,
"When all the Temple is prepared within,
Why nods the drowsy Worshipper outside?"

And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
The Tavern shouted--"Open then the Door!
You know how little while we have to stay,
And, once departed, may return no more."

Remember, today, we drink (literally,) because tomorrow, we die (literally)! It's Science™! Thanks, Science™!

[Singu]

Then what's all the fuss about the unified field theory and whatever? The Higgs Particle is a statistic. My rocket scientist roommate (as in, an actual aerospace engineer) was skeptical.

Right, and that's just one of the proposed theories to unify various laws of physics that at the moment seem separate and disjointed. Obviously, there are going to be disagreements in physics.

Remember, today, we drink (literally,) because tomorrow, we die (literally)! It's Science™! Thanks, Science™!

Well apparently you're anti-science, but do you not benefit from science?