Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Hittas Annual why your interpretation of socionics is dumb

  1. #1
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Hittas Annual why your interpretation of socionics is dumb

    Thesis Statement:
    Socionics is a model of information metabolism. Yes, it relates to people and is mainly used as a personality theory. The model A though was created based on Kepinski though, making it a component of information processing.

    Idiotic Rational Points made
    1.) Everyone uses every function in Model A. Yes this is true to an extent, but model A shows the information and how it evolves its way to the ego process and back to the subconscious(note it doesn't exactly have isolated stages). As I have said before, you don't use your 7th and 8th functions to mop floors or have fun at parties; and yes... people do use other functions, but remember that we are dealing with a model, not actual people... but this deals with people, not the model. People can't be perfectly modeled, and quite frankly socionics doesn't come close. It is almost like some people are making others into a model, instead of trying to use the model to understand different wavelengths of things. People aren't going to fit directly into perfect little categories.

    2.) Statements like "Si is about observing the relationships between objects" and "Se is about observing the static properties of objects".(and yes sweety this is aimed at someone) You have just named two traits that exist in every single human being. Existence in itself requires these two traits. As a matter of fact, I'd go as far to say they are the same damn thing. You can't observe the relationship between objects without knowing the static properties of something; and the static properties of something are just the result of interactions of objects. Saying that these two concepts are conflicting categories is a paradox; they go hand in hand, always. Usually when trying to explain this to someone I'll get the response "All people use every function". I usually find this very cute and aloof; tee hee. When we talk about Si and Se, we aren't talking about people; we are talking about a damn model. A model, its a mother fucking model. A model mother fucker. If the model overlaps and is paradoxical, then what is the damn point.

    I'm tired, and I have other points I'll get to tomorrow.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  2. #2
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,319
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Thesis Statement:
    Socionics is a model of information metabolism. Yes, it relates to people and is mainly used as a personality theory. The model A though was created based on Kepinski though, making it a component of information processing.
    Exactly, it's about information processing, not traits.

    Idiotic Rational Points made
    1.) Everyone uses every function in Model A. Yes this is true to an extent, but model A shows the information and how it evolves its way to the ego process and back to the subconscious(note it doesn't exactly have isolated stages). As I have said before, you don't use your 7th and 8th functions to mop floors or have fun at parties; and yes... people do use other functions, but remember that we are dealing with a model, not actual people... but this deals with people, not the model. People can't be perfectly modeled, and quite frankly socionics doesn't come close. It is almost like some people are making others into a model, instead of trying to use the model to understand different wavelengths of things. People aren't going to fit directly into perfect little categories.
    Yes, it's a model, a model about how people process information.
    Right, people can't be perfectly modeled.

    It would be expected, then, that there would be conflicts when actually applying the model to..you know...the real world...to real people. It's part of testing the model, to see how accurate it is, or if changes to the model need to be made.

    Also, if you're not bothering to apply the model, nor test it, then what they hell are you doing with it?

    2.) Statements like "Si is about observing the relationships between objects" and "Se is about observing the static properties of objects".(and yes sweety this is aimed at someone) You have just named two traits that exist in every single human being. Existence in itself requires these two traits. As a matter of fact, I'd go as far to say they are the same damn thing.
    Statements like "Si is about observing the explicit interactive relationships between objects" and "Se is about observing the explicit static properties of objects" helps to differentiate what is happening in the psyche.

    Yes, on some level, both these information exist within a person's psyche.
    But no, they are not the same thing.

    When one is consciously focusing on the explicit interactive relationships between objects, the actual objects themselves fall into the backdrop...into the subconscious part of the mind... taking on a 'hazy' quality.

    When one is consciously focusing on the explicit static properties of objects, the actual explicit interactions fall into the backdrop..into the subconscious part of the mind....taking on a 'hazy' quality.

    Some people prefer one way of viewing, others the other way.
    Some people have developed strong mental maps using one way of the viewing, others the other way.

    As you said above, "model A shows the information and how it evolves its way to the ego process and back to the subconscious". Please don't confuse the fact that people themselves have all 8 elements nor all 8 aspects, that that means that all 8 are the preferred information to deal with, nor that all 8 are consciously focused on at the exact same time.

    A metaphor for grasping the differences of foci is to take into consideration how the human eye works.

    One way that we can get an idea of what we are seeing is too catch the details of what we are looking at, by narrowing our eyes to focus on small, specific points. But if it stayed on one specific point, the mind wouldn't grasp what was being looked at, as the sensation would quickly fade. So the eye darts around, seeing detailed bits and pieces while the back of the mind builds up an image of what's being looked at.

    Another way to get an idea of what we are seeing is to relax the vision, and take it in as a whole. But by doing so, we don't see the actual details of what we are looking at. Our eyes still have to move around to different parts of what we are seeing, but the movements is slower. The movement allows the back of our mind to pick up some of the details, and builds up an image of what's being looked at.

    The eyes cannot do both types of seeing at the exact same time.
    Those people who prefer, or are wired, to do more narrowed visual focus with the quick darting will naturally develop a more detailed map.

    Those who prefer, or are wired, to do more peripheral seeing, will develop less detailed maps. That doesn't mean that less detail is bad, but it IS a different kind of map.

    Our minds build up off those maps, creating more and more complex maps of a topic, or even of the world.

    By the same token, according to model A, the conscious ego cannot do all 8 elements nor all 8 aspects at the exact same time. But this doesn't stop the subconscious from picking up information related to the other elements.

    Now, just because the conscious ego cannot do all 8 elements nor all 8 aspects at the exact same time, doesn't mean that it doesn't develop the ability to juggle some of the 8 elements or some of the 8 aspects.

    As the psyche develops success in juggling the elements/aspects in certain ways, those ways become ingrained in the psyche, until it becomes far easier to juggle in those particular ways, than to juggle in differing ways.

    Model A attempts to model this.

    You can't observe the relationship between objects without knowing the static properties of something; and the static properties of something are just the result of interactions of objects. Saying that these two concepts are conflicting categories is a paradox; they go hand in hand, always.
    No, they don't, not in the conscious ego at the exact same time as the other. Hence why Si is paired with Ne, and Se is paired with Ni. But Si is not paired with Se because they contain similar aspects that will
    a) cause a conflict in the conscious ego, and
    b) cause a conflict in the subconscious

    Usually when trying to explain this to someone I'll get the response "All people use every function". I usually find this very cute and aloof; tee hee. When we talk about Si and Se, we aren't talking about people; we are talking about a damn model. A model, its a mother fucking model. A model mother fucker. If the model overlaps and is paradoxical, then what is the damn point.
    Yes, people have access to every element of information, to every aspect of information. You may find this "cute and aloof", but it IS part of being human.

    When we talk about Si and Se, we are talking about different types of information which the human mind juggles, thus leading to ego elements, etc, which is supposedly what the 'damned model' models. If it's not modeling how humans process information, then what the hell is it modeling?? or, as you say..."What's the damned point?"

  3. #3
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your mistake, hitta, is the assumption that Socionics SHOULD describe people completely, or that it even seeks to; it shouldn't, it doesn't, and it doesn't try to. Anyone who believes otherwise is coming at the shit from an entirely falsified angle.

  4. #4
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Your mistake, hitta, is the assumption that Socionics SHOULD describe people completely, or that it even seeks to; it shouldn't, it doesn't, and it doesn't try to. Anyone who believes otherwise is coming at the shit from an entirely falsified angle.
    I'm not wanting to describe people. I'm just saying some interpretations of it are skewed because they revolve around paradoxical information.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  5. #5
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Exactly, it's about information processing, not traits.

    Yes, it's a model, a model about how people process information.
    Right, people can't be perfectly modeled.

    It would be expected, then, that there would be conflicts when actually applying the model to..you know...the real world...to real people. It's part of testing the model, to see how accurate it is, or if changes to the model need to be made.

    Also, if you're not bothering to apply the model, nor test it, then what they hell are you doing with it?

    Statements like "Si is about observing the explicit interactive relationships between objects" and "Se is about observing the explicit static properties of objects" helps to differentiate what is happening in the psyche.

    Yes, on some level, both these information exist within a person's psyche.
    But no, they are not the same thing.

    When one is consciously focusing on the explicit interactive relationships between objects, the actual objects themselves fall into the backdrop...into the subconscious part of the mind... taking on a 'hazy' quality.

    When one is consciously focusing on the explicit static properties of objects, the actual explicit interactions fall into the backdrop..into the subconscious part of the mind....taking on a 'hazy' quality.

    Some people prefer one way of viewing, others the other way.
    Some people have developed strong mental maps using one way of the viewing, others the other way.

    As you said above, "model A shows the information and how it evolves its way to the ego process and back to the subconscious". Please don't confuse the fact that people themselves have all 8 elements nor all 8 aspects, that that means that all 8 are the preferred information to deal with, nor that all 8 are consciously focused on at the exact same time.

    A metaphor for grasping the differences of foci is to take into consideration how the human eye works.

    One way that we can get an idea of what we are seeing is too catch the details of what we are looking at, by narrowing our eyes to focus on small, specific points. But if it stayed on one specific point, the mind wouldn't grasp what was being looked at, as the sensation would quickly fade. So the eye darts around, seeing detailed bits and pieces while the back of the mind builds up an image of what's being looked at.

    Another way to get an idea of what we are seeing is to relax the vision, and take it in as a whole. But by doing so, we don't see the actual details of what we are looking at. Our eyes still have to move around to different parts of what we are seeing, but the movements is slower. The movement allows the back of our mind to pick up some of the details, and builds up an image of what's being looked at.

    The eyes cannot do both types of seeing at the exact same time.
    Those people who prefer, or are wired, to do more narrowed visual focus with the quick darting will naturally develop a more detailed map.

    Those who prefer, or are wired, to do more peripheral seeing, will develop less detailed maps. That doesn't mean that less detail is bad, but it IS a different kind of map.

    Our minds build up off those maps, creating more and more complex maps of a topic, or even of the world.

    By the same token, according to model A, the conscious ego cannot do all 8 elements nor all 8 aspects at the exact same time. But this doesn't stop the subconscious from picking up information related to the other elements.

    Now, just because the conscious ego cannot do all 8 elements nor all 8 aspects at the exact same time, doesn't mean that it doesn't develop the ability to juggle some of the 8 elements or some of the 8 aspects.

    As the psyche develops success in juggling the elements/aspects in certain ways, those ways become ingrained in the psyche, until it becomes far easier to juggle in those particular ways, than to juggle in differing ways.

    Model A attempts to model this.

    No, they don't, not in the conscious ego at the exact same time as the other. Hence why Si is paired with Ne, and Se is paired with Ni. But Si is not paired with Se because they contain similar aspects that will
    a) cause a conflict in the conscious ego, and
    b) cause a conflict in the subconscious

    Yes, people have access to every element of information, to every aspect of information. You may find this "cute and aloof", but it IS part of being human.

    When we talk about Si and Se, we are talking about different types of information which the human mind juggles, thus leading to ego elements, etc, which is supposedly what the 'damned model' models. If it's not modeling how humans process information, then what the hell is it modeling?? or, as you say..."What's the damned point?"
    Of course they do things at the same time. You can't understand the "static" properties of something without understanding the "dynamic" properties at the same time. In the whole scheme of things you'd have both a conforming and a conflict variation of the dynamic(trait?), and a conforming and conflicting variant of the static(trait?)(that is if you want to keep identifying Se and Si as it was in the statements above). People can't escape certain dynamics(not socionics term) of existence. The difference between people isn't if they interpret "dynamic properties/static properties", its how they interpret them.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  6. #6
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why don't you expand the theory to include various degrees of type in a person? Because what you are suggesting seems to be just that. It seems what you really want is a fluid model that measures the archetypes a person uses and why in different situations and how depending on circumstances might switch to another mainly preferred archetype, referencing the less used archetypes in other less occurred situations? Because really this is the only way you are going to come close to a more perfect model.

    Socionics is just a theoretical tool for predicting good human relationships by attempting to find personality preferences. We don't know if it even works that well. Get over it. Don't take it too seriously and have fun with it. It's aim is to help in relationships, not obfuscate them. So don't let it.

  7. #7
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    Why don't you expand the theory to include various degrees of type in a person? Because what you are suggesting seems to be just that. It seems what you really want is a fluid model that measures the archetypes a person uses and why in different situations and how depending on circumstances might switch to another mainly preferred archetype, referencing the less used archetypes in other less occurred situations? Because really this is the only way you are going to come close to a more perfect model.

    Socionics is just a theoretical tool for predicting good human relationships by attempting to find personality preferences. We don't know if it even works that well. Get over it. Don't take it too seriously and have fun with it. It's aim is to help in relationships, not obfuscate them. So don't let it.
    I'm not saying anything about the theory, only people's odd interpretations of it.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My interpretation of Socionics is flowing and constantly subject to revision. Is that dumb?

  9. #9
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    My interpretation of Socionics is flowing and constantly subject to revision. Is that dumb?
    no and I wouldn't care to correct anyone if they weren't making people into models and not the other way around. I hate how people stereotype others based on this shit.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    no and I wouldn't care to correct anyone if they weren't making people into models and not the other way around. I hate how people stereotype others based on this shit.
    A lot of people who post here are not very social, so it's easy for them to box humans into psychological categories. As you socialize with more and more people, you begin to see that there are many real and tangible variations in how multiple representatives of a single type may behave.

  11. #11
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    A lot of people who post here are not very social, so it's easy for them to box humans into psychological categories. As you socialize with more and more people, you begin to see that there are many real and tangible variations in how multiple representatives of a single type may behave.
    ok
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  12. #12
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    A lot of people who post here are not very social, so it's easy for them to box humans into psychological categories. As you socialize with more and more people, you begin to see that there are many real and tangible variations in how multiple representatives of a single type may behave.
    And therefore subtypes and more boxes
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Happy Birthday Hitta.

  14. #14
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  15. #15
    Logical vegetable Existential Potato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes.

Posting Permissions

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