Your not the exception

[JWC3]

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.

[Wynch]

A tip of my hat to you Joseph.

[DirectorAbbie]

Wrong form of you're.

[JuJu]

Well-said.

[redbaron]

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.

[strrrng]

Pithy.

[Brilliand]

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.

[strrrng]

I think it was saying, "when your theoretical ideas don't line up with reality, reevaluate them" – which directly implies "going with reality."

[redbaron]

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.

[JWC3]

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."

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[strrrng]

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.

[Nexus]

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

[munenori2]

I dig it.

[munenori2]

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.

[Nexus]

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

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

[Galen]

thread title just pissed off all E4s

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Nexus]

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

[Wynch]

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.

[Nexus]

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...

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[silverchris9]

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.)

[Galen]

there is no way you are -leading

I dunno, I agree with everything she said in that block of text.

[electric sheep]

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.

[Nexus]

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

[krieger]

Trying too hard at Ti.

[tereg]

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.

[electric sheep]

I like your avatar, very LII

Yep, that's why I picked it

[ArchonAlarion]

lollll

[stanprollyright]

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.

[electric sheep]

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.

[Nexus]

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

[electric sheep]

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

[Nexus]

but I AM different! I swear! I'm not even that intellectual!

lol

yeah right...

I am not even that extroverted intuitive

[electric sheep]

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.

[Jarno]

why the heck is this stickied...?

[strrrng]

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.