Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Your not the exception

  1. #1
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Your not the exception

    GIVEN) You understand the relationships between entities in a clearly defined system.

    IF) In a defined system where all involved entities have a clearly defined relationship with all other entities you think one, some, or all of those relationships don't apply to you.

    THEN) Your personal definitions of the entities involved in the system do not coincide with those provided in the explanation of the theory involving those entities.

    OTHERWISE) Shit would line up like it's supposed to. If it doesn't; re-evaluate your understanding of the system and the entities involved therein or re-asses your labeling of the phenomena the theory describes.
    Easy Day

  2. #2
    <something> Wynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a Hill
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A tip of my hat to you Joseph.
    ILE
    7w8 so/sp

    Very busy with work. Only kind of around.

  3. #3
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,724
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wrong form of you're.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  4. #4
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well-said.

  5. #5
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    GIVEN) You understand the relationships between entities in a clearly defined system.

    IF) In a defined system where all involved entities have a clearly defined relationship with all other entities you think one, some, or all of those relationships don't apply to you.

    THEN) Your personal definitions of the entities involved in the system do not coincide with those provided in the explanation of the theory involving those entities.

    OTHERWISE) Shit would line up like it's supposed to. If it doesn't; re-evaluate your understanding of the system and the entities involved therein or re-asses your labeling of the phenomena the theory describes.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  6. #6
    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

    Pithy.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  7. #7
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    GIVEN) You understand the relationships between entities in a clearly defined system.

    IF) In a defined system where all involved entities have a clearly defined relationship with all other entities you think one, some, or all of those relationships don't apply to you.

    THEN) Your personal definitions of the entities involved in the system do not coincide with those provided in the explanation of the theory involving those entities.

    OTHERWISE) Shit would line up like it's supposed to. If it doesn't; re-evaluate your understanding of the system and the entities involved therein or re-asses your labeling of the phenomena the theory describes.
    While logically consistent, this can result in "when theory doesn't match reality, go with theory." A definition system is completely unassailable when there are no redundancies (which could result in inconsistencies) or references to other systems that add redundancies to the overall system (which could result in the system being incorrect relative to those other systems). When a theory attempts to make claims about reality? That theory becomes vulnerable to the criticism that it doesn't match reality.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  8. #8
    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

    I think it was saying, "when your theoretical ideas don't line up with reality, reevaluate them" – which directly implies "going with reality."
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  9. #9
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    I think it was saying, "when your theoretical ideas don't line up with reality, reevaluate them" – which directly implies "going with reality."
    that's what I thought too.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  10. #10
    The Soul Happy-er JWC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    While logically consistent, this can result in "when theory doesn't match reality, go with theory." A definition system is completely unassailable when there are no redundancies (which could result in inconsistencies) or references to other systems that add redundancies to the overall system (which could result in the system being incorrect relative to those other systems). When a theory attempts to make claims about reality? That theory becomes vulnerable to the criticism that it doesn't match reality.
    Slightly correct, what I'm saying isn't "When theory doesn't match reality, go with theory." I'm saying "When theory doesn't match reality, check your understanding and application of theory."
    Easy Day

  11. #11
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  12. #12
    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

    Scratching the theory is just another way of going with reality; another realignment is basically inevitable, unless the reality at hand simply can't be described theoretically. But, given that socionics is not a fundamentally flawed theory, there's no need to scratch it.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  13. #13
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWC3 View Post
    Slightly correct, what I'm saying isn't "When theory doesn't match reality, go with theory." I'm saying "When theory doesn't match reality, check your understanding and application of theory."
    How do you know which theory is correct? Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity, for instance? For more, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis

  14. #14
    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

    I dig it.

  15. #15
    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

    Oh god, that. I think most things can be theoretically tested by cultivating the kind of skepticism that asks why we hold even the most basic assumptions vis a vis any particular realm of knowledge. Granted, that leads into a lot of self searching doubt that is rarely productive, but sometimes going after the truth requires that kind of willingness to question and reject even something held as obvious or apparent. On this basis, various theoretical constructs or explanations can be derived and tested (if falsifiable) to see in what ways the empirical results match up with the predictions of theory. This is, like most human endeavors, a gross oversimplification.

  16. #16
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    I think that when theory doesn't match reality, scrap the theory.

    No amount of tweaking, adjusting, re-evaluating, and checking of understanding is going to be able to stretch a bad theory around reality. Your mind is more flexible though, and it'll make even the most bizarrely wrong things fit if you're determined enough.
    ah, Popper; he too preferred to scrap theories rather than adjust them;
    his fatal flaw was to acknowledge that all theories build on the shoulders of earlier theorists
    it is unthinkable to think that any novice in the field could possibly test his innovation against countless past experiments
    in Conjectures and Refutations, Popper once outlined his own 'non-pseudoscientific' theory of personality: dogmatic vs critical types
    I take it you are critical rather than dogmatic? pity, I was hoping to posit all sensors as dogmatic, but perhaps that is more fitting for tactical types instead

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Oh god, that. I think most things can be theoretically tested by cultivating the kind of skepticism that asks why we hold even the most basic assumptions vis a vis any particular realm of knowledge. Granted, that leads into a lot of self searching doubt that is rarely productive, but sometimes going after the truth requires that kind of willingness to question and reject even something held as obvious or apparent. On this basis, various theoretical constructs or explanations can be derived and tested (if falsifiable) to see in what ways the empirical results match up with the predictions of theory. This is, like most human endeavors, a gross oversimplification.
    Popper again, and his falsifiability; as for criteria, I tend to follow coherentism rather than foundationalism myself, but in order not become a pyrrhonist I justify reliabilism rather than infallibilism
    Last edited by Nexus; 11-29-2009 at 05:39 AM.

  17. #17
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thread title just pissed off all E4s
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  18. #18
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  19. #19
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    I didn't say you need to reinvent the wheel every time, only that sometimes the more you work with something, and try to get it to cover all bases, the less it makes any coherent sense. At those times, it's better to toss out the mess you've made of it, and start fresh. Then you can examine all the pieces you originally accepted as a package deal, and sort out which are good to keep, and which are garbage. And if they're all garbage, then they all go.

    Like building a machine, and it keeps getting more and more complex, so you tack on a fix here, and a fix there, and you're building a bigger monstrosity by the minute. It's better to strip the whole thing down, and find the essentials, make them work first. The machine becomes simpler, more elegant, and better functioning without all the extra junk.

    But yes, I'd rather fit critical than dogmatic, although I've been dogmatic at times as well.
    there is no way you are -leading

  20. #20
    <something> Wynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a Hill
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is what was trying to say:

    If someone decides that they are LIE (I choose this type at random) in socionics and redefines the system to fit that typing, that doesn't hold. You can't redefine socionics to fit a type that you have chosen for yourself. Your self-typing is not a reality. It comes from the theory itself so if it doesn't hold with the theory then it simply isn't reality. You can claim the theory is wrong, but not on the basis that your self-typing doesn't fit with the theory because a type is an arbitrary term. In linguistics you call that a signifier. The signifier is arbitrary, the signified is what's important. Socionics is simply a language to describe a certain set of traits in people.

    If you are looking at a chair, you can't call it refrigerator. It may occasionally be cold, in which case it may share something in common with a refrigerator, but it is not, by definition, a refrigerator. A chair has a set definition and a refrigerator has a set definition. If you don't like the names given to those objects, that's nice, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're speaking the English language, those are the names for them. Now, it's possible that you can look at something and mistake it's characteristics with something else, but you can't recreate the entire English language based on that mistake. You can try, but then you're not speaking English anymore. You're making up your own dialect which resembles English but has a completely different meaning.

    In otherwords, stop trying to rewrite the English language. It's just a language. Replace English with socionics at will.
    ILE
    7w8 so/sp

    Very busy with work. Only kind of around.

  21. #21
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mn0good View Post
    I think this is what was trying to say:

    If someone decides that they are LIE (I choose this type at random) in socionics and redefines the system to fit that typing, that doesn't hold. You can't redefine socionics to fit a type that you have chosen for yourself. Your self-typing is not a reality. It comes from the theory itself so if it doesn't hold with the theory then it simply isn't reality. You can claim the theory is wrong, but not on the basis that your self-typing doesn't fit with the theory because a type is an arbitrary term. In linguistics you call that a signifier. The signifier is arbitrary, the signified is what's important. Socionics is simply a language to describe a certain set of traits in people.

    If you are looking at a chair, you can't call it refrigerator. It may occasionally be cold, in which case it may share something in common with a refrigerator, but it is not, by definition, a refrigerator. A chair has a set definition and a refrigerator has a set definition. If you don't like the names given to those objects, that's nice, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're speaking the English language, those are the names for them. Now, it's possible that you can look at something and mistake it's characteristics with something else, but you can't recreate the entire English language based on that mistake. You can try, but then you're not speaking English anymore. You're making up your own dialect which resembles English but has a completely different meaning.

    In otherwords, stop trying to rewrite the English language. It's just a language. Replace English with socionics at will.
    Perhaps a better word than definition is theory; there is a theory of chairs, and a theory of refrigerators, and a theory of chairs and refrigerators...

    BTW, any patron of linguistics will realize that linguistics evolve over time in order to reflect the users and their own modern conditions, or they die out, becoming dead languages like Latin...

  22. #22
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  23. #23
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hate Karl Popper and falsifiability. But then I don't believe in science in general. What are these alternatives to falsifiability? Coherentism sounds pretty (although there are philosophies, such as Nietzche's, that appear to approach coherence but fail to correspond to reality, if you believe in correspondence as a test for truth). Also I am somewhat interested to know what all those other isms are, but also somewhat... perplexed by their sheer quantity and syllable count.

    Anyway, yes, as an E4w3-I-think, I know that I *am* the exception, but for all regular mortals this is a very true post. (I'm kidding. I'm not the exception. And that makes me cry all night long.)
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  24. #24
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    there is no way you are -leading
    I dunno, I agree with everything she said in that block of text.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  25. #25
    constant change electric sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,296
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think I'm the exception to socionics. I just think socionics does a poor job of covering the kind of LII that I am.
    The saddest ESFj

    ...

  26. #26
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by electric sheep View Post
    I don't think I'm the exception to socionics. I just think socionics does a poor job of covering the kind of LII that I am.
    I like your avatar, very LII

  27. #27
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Trying too hard at Ti.

  28. #28
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I want to take a moment to talk about my not the exception.

    My not the exception is rooted in the idea that someone, somewhere in the world is asleep. Right this moment.
    INFj

    9w1 sp/sx

  29. #29
    constant change electric sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,296
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    I like your avatar, very LII
    Yep, that's why I picked it
    The saddest ESFj

    ...

  30. #30
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lollll
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  31. #31
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by electric sheep View Post
    I don't think I'm the exception to socionics. I just think socionics does a poor job of covering the kind of LII that I am.
    That is the exact thing Joe is talking about. If you think that you don't apply to certain things, then SOMETHING is wrong. I don't mean to call you out or challenge your self-typing, but if you think that you're a "different kind" of LII, then you're either mistaken about the LII description itself, your own self-typing, or you think socionics should define your individual personality. There are subtypes for a reason, but even as someone with a noticeable subtype virtually everything in your main type should apply. Granted, the type descriptions are all just observations, so there are certain details that will apply to some and not to others, and some descriptions are plain shitty. But the functions and relationships should match up. If they don't, reevaluate.
    Stan is not my real name.

  32. #32
    constant change electric sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,296
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
    the functions and relationships should match up. If they don't, reevaluate.
    But they do. It all checks out. Neither Ne or Ti subtypes really fit me though, so I'll stay subtypeless. The "Dominant" subtype from the DCNH model seems to fit better than anything else though, so I'm happy that someone somewhere has taken care to realize that not all LIIs are totally weak and socially inept.
    The saddest ESFj

    ...

  33. #33
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by electric sheep View Post
    But they do. It all checks out. Neither Ne or Ti subtypes really fit me though, so I'll stay subtypeless. The "Dominant" subtype from the DCNH model seems to fit better than anything else though, so I'm happy that someone somewhere has taken care to realize that not all LIIs are totally weak and socially inept.
    IMO you are just like every other LII in that you don't want to be anything like any other LII

  34. #34
    constant change electric sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,296
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    IMO you are just like every other LII in that you don't want to be anything like any other LII
    but I AM different! I swear! I'm not even that intellectual!

    lol





    The saddest ESFj

    ...

  35. #35
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by electric sheep View Post
    but I AM different! I swear! I'm not even that intellectual!

    lol





    yeah right...

    I am not even that extroverted intuitive

  36. #36
    constant change electric sheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,296
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yea I'm just kidding around.
    I guess if I'm a pretty normal LII, then people should stop correlating LII with Enneagram 5, and rewrite the profiles accordingly. I wish they wouldn't stress the intellectual stuff so much.
    The saddest ESFj

    ...

  37. #37
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    why the heck is this stickied...?

  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

    I stickied it before it was derailed, because I felt JWC3's ideas captured an important principle of socionics – and any theory, really – in very succinct terms. It could serve as an effective introductory post to beginners, or a reminder to those experienced.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

Posting Permissions

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