Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Frame-fitting

  1. #1
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Frame-fitting.

    Is that the ultimate end result of all Socionic speculation? Are Socionic truths only perceivable AFTER the warping of percpetions to fit a pre-existing model that holds to its validity? I agree that there are certain modicums of truth here and there within the hypothesis, but it seems to me that the matter has more to do with general observations of trends and patterns that only correspond to reality in-part. Is there any significant justifications for Socionic theory or is it all just intuitive hunch?

    If the latter statement falls true, do you not think it proper to hold skepticism towards the entire hypothesis? After-all, one must note the countless psychological theories such as those that fall within the analytical tradition that've been thoroughly debunked and are now generally treated as nonsense---despite its wide, or at the very least, wider, acceptance within the circle in which it was born and the general area around it? Does it not, then, seem absurd to believe in the Socionic theory with the overhead looming of systems whose absurdity has been thoroughly shown and exposed?
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  2. #2
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Frame-fitting.

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Is that the ultimate end result of all Socionic speculation? Are Socionic truths only perceivable AFTER the warping of percpetions to fit a pre-existing model that holds to its validity? I agree that there are certain modicums of truth here and there within the hypothesis, but it seems to me that the matter has more to do with general observations of trends and patterns that only correspond to reality in-part. Is there any significant justifications for Socionic theory or is it all just intuitive hunch?

    If the latter statement falls true, do you not think it proper to hold skepticism towards the entire hypothesis? After-all, one must note the countless psychological theories such as those that fall within the analytical tradition that've been thoroughly debunked and are now generally treated as nonsense---despite its wide, or at the very least, wider, acceptance within the circle in which it was born and the general area around it? Does it not, then, seem absurd to believe in the Socionic theory with the overhead looming of systems whose absurdity has been thoroughly shown and exposed?
    yes, it is all correlation, except the typology upon which it is built. even that is dodgy, but i refuse to dismiss my emotional evaluations. is socionics absurd? no. as long as you acknowledge it for what it is, feel free to do what you will with it, for whatever motivations you may have.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamicism
    No theory or model will ever have complete 100% correspondence to reality. Inevitably, the only thing you can do is predict aggregate tendencies and patterns in nature that fall within certain standard deviations. And any responsible scientist is a constant skeptic who knows that all theories and models are tentative and should always be subject to revision impending new evidence. Rationally, we can't accept something as 100% true because we know that we don't know everything yet. Nevertheless, as our methods of probing the universe around us improve, our subsequent theories allow us to take in a greater breath of that universe with greater precision. But that doesn't mean these theories are not useful. Newtonian Mechanics was superceded by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We know now that the universe doesn't *really* operate in the ways NM describes, but NM is a deciseively useful and pragmatic approximation of the universe. You can build perfectly functional airplanes and skyscrapers without any knowledge of time dilation or Heisenberg Uncertainty. However incomplete some theories may be, they do appear to be at least describing something that is there.

    So it is with Socionics. I find it a useful model for explaining and predicting a given individual's behavior, in parts. I don't think it is a matter of my perceptions being reframed by the model either, because I was very much aware of these patterns in people well before I ever knew about Socionics, or MBTI for that matter. I could observe and see in action in people that I knew well before I ever knew that such a thing like might exist. Same with other functions, like and . These psychic structures do appear to have some kind of tangible existence. So overall, Socionics is really nothing more for me than a reference frame for describing and predicting things I was already well aware of beforehand. And I mold it more according to my own experiental data than I do semantic data compiled from reading materials out there. Parts of Socionics I can confirm with my own experience (like the functions), parts of it I can't (like the relationships... duality, supervision, etc.). I take what fits, I dismiss what doesn't.

    From a purely scientific POV, Socionics would fail *pathetically* as a valid theory. There are far too many holes and inconsistencies at this point. As a personal tool for my own sake however, it's very useful and that's as far as I take it. With time, Socionics may evolve into something better or be superceded altogether by something with more accurate and comprehensive explanatory power. In the meantime, I wish people would quit -ing Socionics to death like a fucking logic proof, especially when they try to type others. It doesn't work, STOP it. But that's another rant for another time.
    I've had the same opinion about everything in this post before, only I've never been able to put it so nicely.

    And yes I do believe these "functions" and so on do exist, only some people get too caught up in this incoherent mess that they don't realize when they are foolling themselves or not making sense anymore. The best person for identifying a "type" may be someone who knows nothing about the systems. Heh.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  5. #5
    Topaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,340
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bravo Dynamicism. That was a very good consice explination. One of the reasons I do like type theory is because it does give me some kind of structure to my observations. I agree there are some inconsistencies and I do see people trying to force themselves into socionics boxes. I recall XoX saying "OK Im learning to be a victim" after he learned about Gulenkos (or whoever it was) sexual attitudes. I had to laugh to myself. Hopefully he was being facetious.
    I try to give my experiences as I see them in my life and not use the model too much. There are other things that fall out of the scope of socionics. Part of me likes to participate in this "socionics thing" to see where it leads though. The other part of me watches on with an amuzed detatchment and tries not to take it too serious. One thing that does interest me is my dual. Admitedly I had exposed myself (ahem, no, not like that ) to many types to see how we interacted. I never considered my dual as one that I should spend much time with and I overlooked them (Theyre still not easy for me to see actually). So socionics has set me on a new journey of discovery. Im seeing aspects of all different types of people that I would have never known despite my considerable interest. It has even led to some humbling experiences as well And thats a good thing

    Topaz
    The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.

Posting Permissions

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