The funny part

[Hitta]

People can't even agree what a function is, and how each functions work. They go around building these being fantasy elaborations of things, yet they we can't even agree on the root information of a theory. Everyones idealization of every type is different, how is asking someone to define the function they are talking about "not efficient"?

[Beautiful sky]

I award you the medal of honor for ranting.

[munenori2]

Searching for precise definitions is the beginning of everything.

[Aiss]

Not everything can be verbalized.

Also, in a way socionics implies that people will see elements differently depending on their own type.

[Hitta]

Not everything can be verbalized.

Also, in a way socionics implies that people will see elements differently depending on their own type.

Isn't that even more of a reason to ask someone to define something? You always have a big debate that the people's opinions on the subject are so conflicting that they don't even understand what each other or talking about. It usually either ends up with people debating and arguing over socionics types, or it ends up with people just agreeing on random details because they want to look good to others because they like to look intelligent. They usually say stuff like "Yes Si is inquisitive environmental accessing protocol analyzer gadgetizer that allows us to facilitate the inequalities in our imbalanced self".

[implied]

People can't even agree what a function is, and how each functions work. They go around building these being fantasy elaborations of things, yet they we can't even agree on the root information of a theory. Everyones idealization of every type is different, how is asking someone to define the function they are talking about "not efficient"?

one of the few things i agree with hitta on. but good job basically summing up why socionics is useless.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

He has a point though. People do this shit a bit too much: "Yes Si is inquisitive environmental accessing protocol analyzer gadgetizer that allows us to facilitate the inequalities in our imbalanced self".

I loled when I read that.

There has to be some objective definition we all agree on, some sort of foundation- or nothing works. That's why I think, you should see how well people understand socionics based on the most vaguest definitions that were created by the original founders. Ie what 'external dynamics of objects' means. Otherwise people have a tendency to twist the functions to mean what they want them to mean in their own heads..which is too easy to do because socionics is based so much on internal psychology, that people forget to be objective. And it happens sort of where people's brains turn neurotic and weird and creepy and sociopathic and too disconnected from raw reality.

I guess to be blunt: Everybody acts like an asshole to people over the internet because it's fun/easy to do, but it makes serious debates too hard, and it intimidates others from sharing their perspectives and viewpoints. I'd love to see more debates where people can be cool and respectful. Where we can keep a truly intellectual discussion going without any personal insults...but to get there, people have to stop crappily and stupidly arguing over the raw foundations of the theory.

[DividedsGhost]

...

I guess to be blunt: Everybody acts like an asshole to people over the internet because it's fun/easy to do, but it makes serious debates too hard, and it intimidates others from sharing their perspectives and viewpoints. I'd love to see more debates where people can be cool and respectful. Where we can keep a truly intellectual discussion going without any personal insults...but to get there, people have to stop crappily and stupidly arguing over the raw foundations of the theory.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah. I'm not holding my breath with that one.

[JohnDo]

Functions and elements can be described but not really defined. Defining them would be like defining colours.

Define red! Define green! It doesn't work. We can just agree that blood is red and grass is green. But how can you know that I don't see blood as what you call green and grass as what you call red? It is conceiveable...

[krieger]

The misunderstandings are part of the fun. Its probably going to be another decade before the public at large adopts my definitions. Until that time, I'll just derive entertainment from the way everyone still struggles.

[Jarno]

You need only roughly defenitions so you can find them in real life, and then extract your own more defined mental picture of what that function is.

[Gilly]

Doesn't seem out of reach.

I don't think it is. You and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I think we've both had a lot more experience since we've had any serious debate, and I feel like our discussions thus far have been fairly productive; we've avoided any serious epistemological issues and have mainly kept to consensus type-relevant information.

[Crispy]

I guess we're low on haters.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request