Idle Curiousity

[Logik Bomb]

Out of a sense of propriety, I won't mention the individual whom referenced this site to me lest through the clarion call of guilt by association I somehow embarrass them, and so without the legitimacy of a proper introduction to offer you, I can only extend my personal assurance that I am not a troll and none of this is done lightly or for entertainment. Nor do I intend to detain you long.

The situation stands that I know an individual here to be rather taken with this sort of personality pidgeon holing. While tone is reduced to naught over text, I think it is quite obvious my stance is somewhat contrariwise to theirs. Point of fact, I think it is all rubbish. One can no more objectify the subjective than generalise the specific and this rather trite observation explains concisely why generalities invariably lend themselves to logical fallacies, and also why petty little tricks such as those employed to gauge an individuals social niche are both arbitrary and inaccurate in the end result.

If we have an understanding, then I would be appreciative if you would answer a simple question for me to settle a private dispute: Precisely how much faith do any of you actually have in your 'socionic' evaluations?

[redbaron]

it would seem your curiosity isn't idle if you're bothering to post here with such a vehement opinion. Have you studied it? Do you know for certain that it's "rubbish" as you say?

[Logik Bomb]

For what its worth, my field is Political Science, or more precisely, governmental theory, civics and ehtics. I find sociology to be compromised of any scientific integrity by virtue of its adherence to many Baconian Idols, but undermined specifically by the assumption that power exists to some degree in every relationship.

So no, I am not intimately familiar with socionics and disregard sociology with its derivative disciplines such as behavioural psychology accordingly. Are you suggesting that without specialised training that I cannot hope to encompass the mysteries of personality profiling, and that my opinion therefore is of no consequence? I would like to think an able mind can accommodate any idea provided the correct conceptual framework.

[stray]

lol, Baconian idols. Oh, you.

Yes, it's bullshit. Run for the hills.

[yellow82]

Haha. Funny. You talk just like an LII pal of mine. . .

I'm sorry you have a mouthful of limes with psychology, and I don't think you'll find anyone here that will say that this science applies 100% of the time, because, it doesn't, and it's still being tested as to all of it's applications.

But I think if you study neurology that you will find that every brain has a similar makeup, and that when given different circumstances every brain will react in a very similar way.

I think that in the developmental years it is impossible to say for certain what "type" the child is. . . for they are still developing and may change. I also believe that every person can strengthen their weaknesses in a way that will make them appear "mixed up" in socionics, more balanced in all of the given functions.

But personality types are pretty well grounded in the psychology world in general. So you may want to give it a chance before you pass the mustard so-to-speak. . .

[Capitalist Pig]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? SOCIONICS IS INFALLIBLE! IT'S SCIENCE, JUST ASK JARNO!

[Jarno]

science is fallible.

you use odd definitions.

[EyeSeeCold]

"Logik Bomb" is such a perfect name. I get fleeting hints of associated images, like wars in the name of reason etc. Plus "logik" is German. That only adds to the war imagery, including WWII.

[buckland]

I'm sorry you have a mouthful of limes with psychology, and I don't think you'll find anyone here that will say that this science applies 100% of the time, because, it doesn't, and it's still being tested as to all of it's applications.

I think you misunderstand socionics if you believe this. The likelihood that every dual you meet is attracted to you and marries you... isn't 100%. However saying that it doesn't apply 100% is wrong. Socionics describes information metabolism, and based on that with all else being equal, intertype relational compatibility being increased in some types as compared to others.

But I think if you study neurology that you will find that every brain has a similar makeup, and that when given different circumstances every brain will react in a very similar way.

, though the neurological underpinnings may take a while to be discovered.

I think that in the developmental years it is impossible to say for certain what "type" the child is. . . for they are still developing and may change. I also believe that every person can strengthen their weaknesses in a way that will make them appear "mixed up" in socionics, more balanced in all of the given functions

Yes, it may be difficult to determine the eventual type of a child, but not because of them changing as that would negate the idea of information metabolism being an intrinsic part of your make-up, which then kills off socionics. Type is integral, some very serious change would be required to rewire your type, more along the lines of stroke and trauma possibly.

[redbaron]

Yes, it may be difficult to determine the eventual type of a child, but not because of them changing as that would negate the idea of information metabolism being an intrinsic part of your make-up, which then kills off socionics. Type is integral, some very serious change would be required to rewire your type, more along the lines of stroke and trauma possibly.

agreed.