Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 61

Thread: No True Scotsman Fallacy -- Why Most People's Understanding of Socionics is BS

  1. #1
    Creepy-male

    Default No True Scotsman Fallacy -- Why Most People's Understanding of Socionics is BS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    When an assertion about a type conflicts people's experience in reality, instead of refuting the assertion or counterexample, they modify the subject of the assertion.

    All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.

    The entire science is built on this fallacy, people make baseless claims on what constitutes a type and in order to uphold these claims they type people differently rather than actually attempt to refute the assertion or counterexample. Any attempt to form consistent claims with reality is considered to be "overly scientific and unfun" so instead most people's understanding are fallacious collections of stereotypes which contradict each other, when confronted with a counterexample to the universal claims with which they categorize types, instead of attempting the reconcile the counter-example with the claim or modify it, they immediately turn to re-typing or type-doubt.

    Of course the moment someone mentions socionics as being bullshit or mentions an XXXX type, gradients of dichotomies, or type change, everyone gets extremely serious and scientific about their justifications, and its no longer about "fun" but something much more serious.

  2. #2
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your mom's a true scotsman.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  3. #3
    Creepy-male

    Default

    No you...

  4. #4
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's pretty obvious that there are no generalisations you can make that will encompass ALL members of any type, apart from model A axioms like "They will have Ti as their base function" "They supervise SEEs". But that doesn't necessarily make finding correlations and type tendencies any less interesting or scientific.

    For example, adolescent South Koreans are on average 12 cm (4.7 inches) taller than their North Korean counterparts, which is probably due to famines in North Korea in the past 20 years. OF COURSE there are South Korean dwarfs who are going to be shorter than 99% of North Koreans, and freakishly tall North Korean giants with some sort of pituitary disorder. But just because they exist doesn't mean that the correlation isn't valid, or interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  5. #5
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    It's pretty obvious that there are no generalisations you can make that will encompass ALL members of any type, apart from model A axioms like "They will have Ti as their base function" "They supervise SEEs". But that doesn't necessarily make finding correlations and type tendencies any less interesting or scientific.
    Well the real problem is the fallacy, instead of acknowledging one's universal claims as false given contradictory evidence, people like to attempt to reconcile these claims by "type doubts" or "re-typing" --This makes the preservation of the claims fall under the category of this fallacy.

    That's what this post is about -- I'm not accusing people as being wrong, I'm pointing out the fallacy so that hopefully people can grow intellectually instead of stay in their comfort zone.

    My hope is that some people will begin to actually attempt to reconcile their theoretical ideas about what a type is like with direct observation, so that intellectually the science can grow. Also, if people don't want to look at socionics as "science" that is fine -- its not like I'm into forcing people to do things, but they can't have it both ways, if they aren't willing to back up their claims with evidence, they can't be expected that their ideas will be taken with the same gravity as those that do.

    Finally I'll mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation -- so even if behaviors can be correlated to types empirically, it doesn't imply the psychological make up of their type is responsible for these behaviors.

  6. #6
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I understand what you're saying... but at the same time, the evidence that's provided here almost 100% of the time is anecdotal evidence, so it really can't be "scientific". And this being a personality typology, an additional problem with the anecdotal evidence offered is the reliability of the typer in question. So I don't think this problem of people suspecting that someone is mistyped will ever go away, even if everyone realised their biases.

    In socionics correlation does usually imply causation, simply because most people believe type is inborn The main exception I can think of is along the lines of "SLEs tend to like masculine activities" "Males are more likely to be mistyped SLE" - but that would be one of those mistyping issues. I think a more important note is that a correlations are trends, not rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  7. #7
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Pretty much.

    Though I think the board in general has gotten a lot better about this over the years. If you check out old posts from '04 - '08, the kind of stuff that used to pass for rigorous type analysis was… well, pretty awful.
    Yea, like I said above I didn't write this to accuse the community so much as raise awareness.

    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    I understand what you're saying... but at the same time, the evidence that's provided here almost 100% of the time is anecdotal evidence, so it really can't be "scientific". And this being a personality typology, an additional problem with the anecdotal evidence offered is the reliability of the typer in question. So I don't think this problem of people suspecting that someone is mistyped will ever go away, even if everyone realised their biases.

    In socionics correlation does usually imply causation, simply because most people believe type is inborn The main exception I can think of is along the lines of "SLEs tend to like masculine activities" "Males are more likely to be mistyped SLE" - but that would be one of those mistyping issues. I think a more important note is that a correlations are trends, not rules.
    The fallacy isn't about the perfection of someone's assertions as being absolutely correct, its a specific case where something which may appear correct is incorrect. I'm not pretending all errors can be eliminated from socionics... its not as easy to verify as a hard science and suffers from subjective bias horribly, but at least people can increase the quality of their typing by realizing at least one source of error -- that's all I'm saying. Your argument seems to be "well if its not perfect we might as well just fuck it all".

    Most people believing type is inborn is irrelevant, if we lived in 14th century Europe its likely most people would believe the sun revolves around the earth. I'm not really interested in what the prevalent bandwagon ideas are, I'm interested in exploring new ideas and finding things out. Can you really say you enjoy personality typology as much now with everyone all niched in and in consensus or when you first learned about it and everything was novel and new? I personally enjoyed it a lot more when I was exploring out new ideas rather than jumping on the good ole' bandwagon.
    Last edited by male; 12-09-2011 at 08:04 AM.

  8. #8
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blah blah blah
    All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.
    Where in socionics are these sort of assertions made? People make this sort of assertions sure, but it doesn't really say anything about socionics. I mean plenty of people try to prove 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong too and various other things.

    I think you're engaging in a strawman argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    There are plenty of unproven assertions in socionics but nothing like this is there.

    Socionics isn't science, don't pretend it is until a objective means of measure is created, then the predictions can be analyzed. All we have is subjective measurement which is useful but not provable to others.

    Science is often a battle of instrumentation and there still lacks a instrument to produce a socionics type analysis which will provide a means to test the predictive side of socionics, or at least no instrument that would allow for a very accurate prediction.

    This sort of posts happens about once a year in this topic, and that post is generally as full of misunderstanding and problems as people's understand of socionics.

  9. #9
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Socionics not being an empirical science is no excuse for shoddy thinking.
    The point is that even if it was an empirical science, there is no excuse for shoddy thinking.

    Socionics isn't based on "the true scotsman fallacy".

    People commit this fallacy in all fields of study, as well as make strawman arguments. Nothing new about this.

  10. #10
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Where in socionics are these sort of assertions made? People make this sort of assertions sure, but it doesn't really say anything about socionics. I mean plenty of people try to prove 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong too and various other things.

    I think you're engaging in a strawman argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    There are plenty of unproven assertions in socionics but nothing like this is there.

    Socionics isn't science, don't pretend it is until a objective means of measure is created, then the predictions can be analyzed. All we have is subjective measurement which is useful but not provable to others.

    Science is often a battle of instrumentation and there still lacks a instrument to produce a socionics type analysis which will provide a means to test the predictive side of socionics, or at least no instrument that would allow for a very accurate prediction.

    This sort of posts happens about once a year in this topic, and that post is generally as full of misunderstanding and problems as people's understand of socionics.
    1 - I'm not giving any specific examples of people making assertions similar to the example I gave. I'm just showing how socionics is vulnerable to this particular type of fallacy, and everyone seems to be extremely defensive about it, which I find quite revealing. The title "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... isn't meant to be taken literally, as in I have conducted a census of most people's understandings of socionics, the title is just a promotion thing to draw attention.

    2 - As for the "socionics isn't science" see what I said to octo, you're argument is basically "if socionics isn't perfect, fuck it all".... I'm not saying socionics is a perfectly accurate characterization of personality, what I'm saying is that its vulnerable to at least a single preventable logical fallacy.

    3 - No I am not engaging in a strawman argument, I could see your point if the topic was called "why socionics is bs"... but instead it's called "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs".... how about before you claim a fallacy on me you take the time to discriminate the difference between both titles.

    God damn zealots -- PROTECT THE SACRED THEORY!... ok maybe thats a little harsh, but I think some people need to take a step back and calm down, your precious inner world isn't under attack, just take a second and read what I've said, nothing to get hung about.

  11. #11
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    1 - I'm not giving any specific examples of people making assertions similar to the example I gave. I'm just showing how socionics is vulnerable to this particular type of fallacy, and everyone seems to be extremely defensive about it, which I find quite revealing. The title "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... isn't meant to be taken literally, as in I have conducted a census of most people's understandings of socionics, the title is just a promotion thing to draw attention.

    2 - As for the "socionics isn't science" see what I said to octo, you're argument is basically "if socionics isn't perfect, fuck it all".... I'm not saying socionics is a perfectly accurate characterization of personality, what I'm saying is that its vulnerable to at least a single preventable logical fallacy.

    3 - No I am not engaging in a strawman argument, I could see your point if the topic was called "why socionics is bs"... but instead it's called "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs".... how about before you claim a fallacy on me you take the time to discriminate the difference between both titles.

    God damn zealots -- PROTECT THE SACRED THEORY!
    I never said any of this, stop misrepresenting me. You don't even understand what I said. Seriously.
    The True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study, along with a number of other fallacies. People have misunderstanding of physics and other sciences all the time and there are still unsolved problems in that field of study.

    Do you even know why I call your argument a strawman, because it is. Because very few users uses the example and line of reasoning you posted very seriously. Can you even prove that a ton of users use that line of reasoning?

    The fact that you're calling me a zealot and using a ad hominem attack is even worse, because it just shows how many fallacies you're engaging in. You have to use a personal attack on me without even understanding my argument. Piss off.

  12. #12
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    So, is that supposed to give the fallacy some kind of license to occur in Socionics? Not sure why you're even bringing this up.
    No, if someone makes a poor argument one should make the criticism. It's just this post seems to represent this as some sort of socionics peculiarity as if the study of socionics is somehow correlated with shoddy thinking which is not. Shoddy thinkers think shoddily. Should be obvious. Duh! Need me to explain more obvious things to you?

  13. #13
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I never said any of this, stop misrepresenting me. You don't even understand what I said. Seriously.
    The True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study, along with a number of other fallacies. People have misunderstanding of physics and other sciences all the time and there are still unsolved problems in that field of study.

    Do you even know why I call your argument a strawman, because it is. Because very few users uses the example and line of reasoning you posted very seriously. Can you even prove that a ton of users use that line of reasoning?

    The fact that you're calling me a zealot and using a ad hominem attack is even worse, because it just shows how many fallacies you're engaging in. You have to use a personal attack on me without even understanding my argument. Piss off.
    Lol it is very well possible I don't understand what you said, but that is all well in my opinion as I'm willing to hear you out, but I'd appreciate it if you calmed down a bit and didn't react so defensively.

    I do agree the True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study. And I will re-iterate, the title "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs" is not supposed to be a factual assertion but a rhetorical device to get attention and draw awareness to the fallacy and its potential impact on people's thinking when dealing with socionics. Finally, I'm not seriously calling you a zealot, and I even jokingly said, ok... that's a bit harsh... but can you blame me, the voracity of your previous posts towards me seems a little over-zealous and unwarranted for just a run of the mill discussion. I have a great problem understanding why you are so pissed off, if someone came up to me and started to claim the sky was red and not blue, I wouldn't be pissed off by their faulty assertion, but if anything more amused. If you're so confident that my post just amounts to one big strawman argument then why are you so upset, if I am so obviously wrong, then what is there to be upset about?

    Not everyone is going to agree on everything, but can you at least not be an asshole about it, I should have the right to share my ideas on the forum without being attacked even if they go against the mainstream.... I haven't personally attacked anyone and even made it clear I wasn't going to make this topic about accusations.

  14. #14
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    I do agree the True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study. And I will re-iterate, the title "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs" is not supposed to be a factual assertion but a rhetorical device to get attention and draw awareness to the fallacy and its potential impact on people's thinking when dealing with socionics. Finally, I'm not seriously calling you a zealot, and I even jokingly said, ok... that's a bit harsh... but can you blame me, the voracity of your previous posts towards me seems a little over-zealous and unwarranted for just a run of the mill discussion. I have a great problem understanding why you are so pissed off, if someone came up to me and started to claim the sky was red and not blue, I wouldn't be pissed off by their faulty assertion, but if anything more amused. If you're so confident that my post just amounts to one big strawman argument then why are you so upset, if I am so obviously wrong, then what is there to be upset about?
    The devil is in the details they say and it often is.

    "why most"

    You sure about that?

    "why most"

    You sure this isn't the fallacy? I mean are you really calling most of the people here dumb or fallicious? How is that remotely justifiable.

    And you want me to calm down after you made a ad-hominem attack on me?

  15. #15
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    The devil is in the details they say and it often is.

    "why most"

    You sure about that?

    "why most"

    You sure this isn't the fallacy? I mean are you really calling most of the people here dumb? How is that remotely justifiable.

    And you want me to calm down after you made a ad-hominem attack on me?

    I'm pissed because you decided to make a ad-hominem attack on me.
    Lol well let's try for the third time, its a promotional title and not a factual assertion... you're taking the title a little too seriously.

  16. #16
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Lol well let's try for the third time, its a promotional title and not a factual assertion... you're taking the title a little too seriously.

  17. #17
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think HLD makes a good point. Not everyone does it, but Socionics typing involves some generalizing, and I've seen a lot of "can't possibly be" instead of "that type doesn't tend to" or "that might point to this possiblity." There are trends as far as physically observable stuff goes, but only trends. And even then some of the trends aren pretty tenuous, like maybe it's more common than not or something you see sometimes rather than very common. But "only X types cross their arms in front of them" and "I can't imagine an X type ever having a job like that" and "Only X type use that kind of language" or "X types never use that kind of language" and that kind of thing happen a lot.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  18. #18
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I honestly don't think it happens a lot, and when it does, this community tends to self-police. The only person who I recall doing this more than once is Maritsa, and everyone jumps on her in their own amusing ways

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    The fallacy isn't about the perfection of someone's assertions as being absolutely correct, its a specific case where something which may appear correct is incorrect. I'm not pretending all errors can be eliminated from socionics... its not as easy to verify as a hard science and suffers from subjective bias horribly, but at least people can increase the quality of their typing by realizing at least one source of error -- that's all I'm saying. Your argument seems to be "well if its not perfect we might as well just fuck it all".
    Lol, I really didn't say any of that, or mean to say that if it came across that way. All I said is that it's harder to verify the category ("Scottish") in socionics since the quality of typing is always in question, whereas something like "Scottish" is more easily objectively verifiable. So this "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't always a fallacy in socionics discussions, questioning the reliability of someone's typings is often legitimate and explains a lot of discrepancies between one person's experiences with a certain type and everyone else's experiences.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Most people believing type is inborn is irrelevant, if we lived in 14th century Europe its likely most people would believe the sun revolves around the earth. I'm not really interested in what the prevalent bandwagon ideas are, I'm interested in exploring new ideas and finding things out. Can you really say you enjoy personality typology as much now with everyone all niched in and in consensus or when you first learned about it and everything was novel and new? I personally enjoyed it a lot more when I was exploring out new ideas rather than jumping on the good ole' bandwagon.
    I was specifically referring to the phrase "correlation doesn't imply causation" and how that applies less to socionics. Generally if a correlation isn't causation, the correlation is due to a common causative agent, e.g. when people eat lots of ice cream, people also wear less clothes - if correlation implied causation, then you would conclude that ice cream causes spontaneous stripping, but it's actually due to a common causative agent, hot weather. In socionics however, if type is there from the beginning and there is a strong correlation with a certain type of behaviour, causation is almost implied, unless there was some other causative agent e.g. poor maternal nutrition causes both IEI-ness and being artistic faggy fluffy things. It's an attitude innate to all of personality psychology, really. The first thing in a sequence can't be caused by anything further upstream, because there is nothing further upstream.

    I'm not really sure where you're going with that bandwagon stuff, or how it's relevant to this thread, but I agree fwiw
    Last edited by octo; 12-09-2011 at 02:04 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you're correct except you don't acknowledge all of science has this error in it to a degree, it's just much more apparent when looking at it through socionics

  20. #20
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The 1st and 5th were informative. The rest is unnecessary back and forth.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  21. #21
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    HLD: Let's talk about sources of error in socionics, so that we can raise awareness and eliminate some of it.

    hkkmr: I think all error comes from shoddy thinking, so the arguement is shoddy and invalidate (circular reasoning).

    You are being intellectually dishonest, hkkmr. It doesn't matter how you write it off, HLD's opening points are valid and you have not legitimately disputed them.

  22. #22
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Picking out specific examples of the fallacy would be more productive (and juicy) than saying that ERRYBODY does it. You're generalizing that the forum generalizes too much.

    No specifics, no case.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  23. #23
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    When an assertion about a type conflicts people's experience in reality, instead of refuting the assertion or counterexample, they modify the subject of the assertion.

    All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.

    The entire science is built on this fallacy, people make baseless claims on what constitutes a type and in order to uphold these claims they type people differently rather than actually attempt to refute the assertion or counterexample. Any attempt to form consistent claims with reality is considered to be "overly scientific and unfun" so instead most people's understanding are fallacious collections of stereotypes which contradict each other, when confronted with a counterexample to the universal claims with which they categorize types, instead of attempting the reconcile the counter-example with the claim or modify it, they immediately turn to re-typing or type-doubt.

    Of course the moment someone mentions socionics as being bullshit or mentions an XXXX type, gradients of dichotomies, or type change, everyone gets extremely serious and scientific about their justifications, and its no longer about "fun" but something much more serious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Picking out specific examples of the fallacy would be more productive (and juicy) than saying that ERRYBODY does it. You're generalizing that the forum generalizes too much.

    No specifics, no case.


    Yeah HLD. One can either modify the SUBJECT of the assertion, or modify the ASSERTION to become more understanding/knowledgeable/accepting of other variations in a type. I see absolutely zero reason why you would think this one aspect of negative thinking is how everyone thinks, why you would make this insulting, baseless assumption, or why you would make a generalization of a generalization.

    "All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them."
    "All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... HMM well I guess not all INFps really enjoy literature then, HUH!"

    ^^ I know this is how many intelligent people think. I wouldn't assume that in some cases, people modifying the SUBJECT of an assumption, is reason to denounce or dismiss our entire science of socionics, or call it "bullshit" as you so eloquently phrased.

  24. #24
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think you can dismiss all of socionics because of this potential, but I do think the potential exists and it's good for us to keep our eyes open and avoid it. We can choose to fall for this fallacy or not. I saw that as HLD's point, not that all of socionics should be dismissed.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  25. #25
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Finally some real debate, its funny to see how polarizing this topic is at a guteral level, but let us continue.



    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    I honestly don't think it happens a lot, and when it does, this community tends to self-police. The only person who I recall doing this more than once is Maritsa, and everyone jumps on her in their own amusing ways
    I disagree -- a community will self-police but that doesn't mean it will self-police to the correct things -- you seem to emphasize social consensus as being inherently correct or something, a point I disagree with. Also the entire idea of people jumping on particular person's like Maritsa and Tcaud seems more founded on the social effect of scapegoating than real solid logical contention.


    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    Lol, I really didn't say any of that, or mean to say that if it came across that way. All I said is that it's harder to verify the category ("Scottish") in socionics since the quality of typing is always in question, whereas something like "Scottish" is more easily objectively verifiable. So this "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't always a fallacy in socionics discussions, questioning the reliability of someone's typings is often legitimate and explains a lot of discrepancies between one person's experiences with a certain type and everyone else's experiences.
    Alright pay attention, because I will agree with you on this... I understand exactly what your saying and its a good point. In socionics type is harder to factually verify than something simple like "scottish" making it more complex to determine the actual error in one's understanding of socionics. That much I think is a good point.

    Now I'll elaborate, in socionics there is an entanglement, ones understanding of the theory influences ones typings and one's typings influences ones understanding of the theory. But this isn't unique to socionics we could apply the same thing to the no true scotsman fallacy... the criteria for a scotsman is based on certain assertions and these assertions are based on ones observations of scotsmen. This isn't unique to socionics, everything is entangled in the way you mention, but thats not what the fallacy is about. The fallacy is about "cooking data" to fit a theory, when an assertion is overthrown. In socionics this is observed as people re-typing to preserve incorrect assertions instead of focusing on the assertions themselves as potentially being incorrect statements. It's about preservation of potentially false assertions through evidence manipulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    I was specifically referring to the phrase "correlation doesn't imply causation" and how that applies less to socionics. Generally if a correlation isn't causation, the correlation is due to a common causative agent, e.g. when people eat lots of ice cream, people also wear less clothes - if correlation implied causation, then you would conclude that ice cream causes spontaneous stripping, but it's actually due to a common causative agent, hot weather. In socionics however, if type is there from the beginning and there is a strong correlation with a certain type of behaviour, causation is almost implied, unless there was some other causative agent e.g. poor maternal nutrition causes both IEI-ness and being artistic faggy fluffy things. It's an attitude innate to all of personality psychology, really. The first thing in a sequence can't be caused by anything further upstream, because there is nothing further upstream.
    It applies just the same because your entire argument is contingent upon type being inborn, you need that assumption to make the causation work out, and if it does work out, its not because of the correlation, its because you have discovered a chain of events which logically link things together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    HLD: Let's talk about sources of error in socionics, so that we can raise awareness and eliminate some of it.
    Yea I agree I'd love to make a series of posts on potential sources of error

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Picking out specific examples of the fallacy would be more productive (and juicy) than saying that ERRYBODY does it.
    I'm not saying everybody does it, I'm saying everybody may potentially do it. I'll let individuals call each other out on this in debate though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Dew View Post
    Mountain Dew's Post
    I'm not saying all of socionics is BS, the title is "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... and no its not a factual statement claiming most people are wrong, its more a rhetorical device... the idea is to raise awareness like someone reads it and thinks, "hmmm could I be one of those people!?"... it's fine if your not a fan of the title, but that's what I meant by it, not that socionics is invalid and should be discarded.

    In fact I think a lot of the presentation of how I wrote this is turning people off, its like instead of reading it as "hmm could I be one of those people!?"... people are reading it as "no way man I'm not one of those people your obviously wrong -- most people that study socionics know what they are talking about!" And for this may I introduce you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect A.LA. korpsey
    Last edited by male; 12-09-2011 at 09:25 PM.

  26. #26
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Divided View Post
    You are being intellectually dishonest, hkkmr. It doesn't matter how you write it off, HLD's opening points are valid and you have not legitimately disputed them.
    I'm not being intellectually dishonest here. I admit that these sort of fallacies can happen, my problem is with HLD's intellectual dishonesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by dishonesty
    ts a promotional title and not a factual assertion...
    Quote Originally Posted by dishonesty
    the title is "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... and no its not a factual statement claiming most people are wrong, its more a rhetorical device...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    He misrepresents the general type skepticism here that needs to occur because typing is simply inaccurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doesn't happen much
    "All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them."
    This sort of statement doesn't happen that much in type skepticism as universal claims are rarely made. Non-universal claims are often made generally with evidence pointing to another type as well as well as uncertainty in the skepticism itself.

    I.E

    "INFP's tend to enjoy the arts/fashion/etc, Maggie doesn't enjoy the arts/fashion/etc at all and seems to concentrate on concrete topics like engineering, it's possible that Maggie isn't INFp."

    I think actually his fallacies are worse or just as bad then the ones he's pointing out, and that his assumptions are unsubstantiated. And he used an ad-hominem attack on me once I criticized his argument.

    He never even bothered to read or discuss my main point.

    Which I'm going to summarize.

    One of the main reason that there is a lot of type skepticism as there is no objective instrument to measure type in any sort of predictably verifiable fashion. Typology has a problem of measurement.

    Anyways what is the point of this post? How does it make typing any easier or harder?

    If you want to see what common logical fallacies people make in all areas of study. Study philosophy. It's good for you or something.

  27. #27
    InkStrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    419
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I addressed one of the main reason that there is a lot of type skepticism as there is no objective instrument to measure type in any sort of predictably verifiable fashion. Typology has a problem of measurement.
    True. The question is, how could this be addressed? People use different 'type indicators' to gauge a person's sociotype, which is probably the root of typing discrepancies.

  28. #28
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InkStrider View Post
    True. The question is, how could this be addressed? People use different 'type indicators' to gauge a person's sociotype, which is probably the root of typing discrepancies.
    Replied to you here http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=38282

  29. #29
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    I disagree -- a community will self-police but that doesn't mean it will self-police to the correct things -- you seem to emphasize social consensus as being inherently correct or something, a point I disagree with. Also the entire idea of people jumping on particular person's like Maritsa and Tcaud seems more founded on the social effect of scapegoating than real solid logical contention.
    HLD - you seem to be misunderstanding me a lot I'm not a crazy fan of social consensus being correct, and it's obvious that self-policing will not always be to the correct things. I'm not sure about Tcaud, but I'm pointing to concrete examples of people calling Maritsa out when she commits the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    e.g. (sorry for quoting out of context)

    (after Maritsa basically said EIIs can't be good computer programmers)
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I know 3 EII computer programmers. Perhaps you're just not quick enough.

    Maritsa don't spread bullshit, because people believe you are serious and newbies might get the wrong picture of a given concept, if they believe in what you say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother Slacker View Post
    She loves her friends, therefore she must be Fi ego. Fi PoLR people never love anyone. Welcome to Maritsa's typing style.
    Quote Originally Posted by jessica129 View Post
    I agree with Kim. Maritsa, things aren't always so black and white...
    basically all of this page

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    The fallacy is about "cooking data" to fit a theory, when an assertion is overthrown. In socionics this is observed as people re-typing to preserve incorrect assertions instead of focusing on the assertions themselves as potentially being incorrect statements. It's about preservation of potentially false assertions through evidence manipulation.
    I never claimed that this doesn't occur. I'm saying this occurs far less frequently than you seem to be making out.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    It applies just the same because your entire argument is contingent upon type being inborn, you need that assumption to make the causation work out, and if it does work out, its not because of the correlation, its because you have discovered a chain of events which logically link things together.
    In my memory, I can't recall anyone ever claiming that the correlation PROVES causation (although I wouldn't be surprised if certain people did try... anyway...). I think you're making a logical fallacy with your interpretation of logical fallacies... just because something CAN be a logical fallacy, doesn't mean it always WILL be, or even that it's common. In my experience, people here will hypothesise a likely cause based on the theory being discussed (e.g. IEIs tend to like literature... this is probably because of Fe in their ego block or whatever) and move on, which is exactly what happens in other sciences, if you read the discussion section of any scientific paper. The reason being, isn't much point debating causation vs. mere correlation because causation is always going to be difficult to prove without a lot of data, and even then, "proof" isn't absolute and there's always the possibility of an alternate mechanism.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    In fact I think a lot of the presentation of how I wrote this is turning people off, its like instead of reading it as "hmm could I be one of those people!?"... people are reading it as "no way man I'm not one of those people your obviously wrong -- most people that study socionics know what they are talking about!" And for this may I introduce you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect A.LA. korpsey
    I think the problem is that we're reading it as a combination of preaching to the choir, fixing a problem that doesn't exist, hyperbolic attention-seeking and straw man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  30. #30
    Creepy-male

    Default

    @Octo you seem to misrepresent my viewpoint.... things like

    "I'm saying this occurs far less frequently than you seem to be making out" -- I never directly gave a frequency for its occurrence, my main point which I've re-iterated is that I'm drawing awareness to it, even if it doesn't happen often I feel like it could and therefore I should be able to mention it without it being seen as something negative

    "I think the problem is that we're reading it as a combination of preaching to the choir, fixing a problem that doesn't exist, hyperbolic attention-seeking and straw man" -- I'm not preaching, claiming to fix a problem, or seeking attention... I'm just bringing attention to a single logical fallacy and how it can have an effect of people's understanding of socionics.

    Like I said, some people tend to get this immediately but it appears like some people guterally/emotionally have a bad reaction to it. It's obvious you have been going out of your way to drive home the same sort of thing you opened your first post in this thread with -- you've referred several times to how it's not a big deal because it happens rarely, the community is mostly correct, and there is always some error to socionics. I've addressed each of these points several times. It is a big deal because regardless of if it does or does not happen frequently -- it can happen, so at least it deserves a glance, if nothing more. Social consensus isn't always correct -- doesn't mean its always wrong, but it definitely isn't a source of empirical evidence of something being true -- and finally just because there is some error to socionics doesn't mean that its futile to consider these kinds of topics. I've iterated these three counter points several times and you just keep saying the same thing, which makes me think the source of contention in this is less logical in nature and more how you feel about this topic, which is fine, but you keep addressing this from the same standpoint logically and its going nowhere, and its a little boring/annoying.

    The entire tactic of accusing me of a straw man when I mention another logical fallacy seems almost vengeful -- like you've taken the title as a personal attack and your immediate response is to show that I'm actually the one committing a fallacy and not other people. It's kind of defensive response to a topic that isn't even about making attacks on people, but about developing an intellectually robust community through recognition of potential sources of error. It's not a straw man either because a straw man seeks to mischaracterize another's point of view to something which is easily refuted... I don't see how what I have said is a straw man as I haven't given specific examples of anyone actually committing this fallacy. In fact I openly admit the target of my criticism is towards a "straw man", and then I pose the question to the community "are you the same as the straw man or different"? When someone commits the strawman fallacy they aren't giving people the same benefit they are pointedly characterizing someone as a straw man as opposed to asking them if they are the strawman... that is the difference and why what I'm doing is not a strawman. I don't expect you to get this through your head as you seem emotionally wired to immediately resist what I say and see it as some kind of argument, but I feel like saying it regardless so that I have the opportunity to articulate in depth why driving home this accusation on me is actually the real strawman.

  31. #31
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Dew View Post


    Yeah HLD. One can either modify the SUBJECT of the assertion, or modify the ASSERTION to become more understanding/knowledgeable/accepting of other variations in a type. I see absolutely zero reason why you would think this one aspect of negative thinking is how everyone thinks, why you would make this insulting, baseless assumption, or why you would make a generalization of a generalization.

    "All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them."
    "All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... HMM well I guess not all INFps really enjoy literature then, HUH!"

    ^^ I know this is how many intelligent people think. I wouldn't assume that in some cases, people modifying the SUBJECT of an assumption, is reason to denounce or dismiss our entire science of socionics, or call it "bullshit" as you so eloquently phrased.
    Look at thought working (together too!) and look at thought working in the direction of internal clarity. Thinking upon people's understanding and Socionics...humm.

  32. #32
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My opinion is that I have an opinion. Hither!

  33. #33
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    My opinion is that I have an opinion. Hither!
    That's a fact, not an opinion.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  34. #34
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe we could discuss differences in how conclusions are formed and debate from there? For instance, I know probably one of the biggest things about typing is whether we are looking at nature vs nurture. It's easy to say 'someone is xxxx type because they fit a certain behavior (nurture)', but then on the flip-side we also can have 'a person is xxxx type because they have always had a particular nature regarding certain the way they approach and solve certain situations'.

    What I see mostly of in typing is the former, which is looking more at the superficial. The latter is supposed to give you more of an idea of your innate self, which won't fit exactly into certain types necessarily; but neither is really separate also, of course. It would be really cool if we could distinguish more between the two, since doing so provides more substance to understanding.

    For instance, I relate a lot to the Fi of IEIs (nature), yet there are other more major aspects of my personality that fit ILI much better (nurture). It's things like that that no one even seems to care about, but lead to contradictions. And these contradictions are ignored and I'm told not to 'change' socionics or argue different ideas, lest I'm using another typology...

  35. #35
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another problem is that anything that goes against the mainstream of what is considered socionics or what some dead Russians decided was true in their time, automatically gets labeled as NOT SOCIONICS. What's up with that? How is that helpful?

  36. #36
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, wow. I seem to have hit a nerve. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    "I'm saying this occurs far less frequently than you seem to be making out" -- I never directly gave a frequency for its occurrence, my main point which I've re-iterated is that I'm drawing awareness to it, even if it doesn't happen often I feel like it could and therefore I should be able to mention it without it being seen as something negative
    I agree with you that there's no harm in pointing it out... but again, it's the title "most people's..." - that's where you indicated a frequency. I know you've said that the title was just attention-drawing, but I thought maybe it was only a slight exaggeration of your perception of the magnitude of the problem ("most" downgraded to "many"). But if you're downgrading to "some", then yeah, I'd agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Like I said, some people tend to get this immediately but it appears like some people guterally/emotionally have a bad reaction to it.
    I'm really not being emotional here In fact it's just irritating that you're accusing me of being emotional/illogical. I feel like you've been misconstruing my points due to the indirect nature of your replies.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    how it's not a big deal because it happens rarely, the community is mostly correct, and there is always some error to socionics.
    Pretty good summary, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    It is a big deal because regardless of if it does or does not happen frequently -- it can happen, so at least it deserves a glance, if nothing more.
    It's stuff like this I don't understand about your posts... how is "big deal" = "deserves at glance, if nothing more"? I would characterise that as a "small deal". But I do agree that it deserves a glance. I'm not attacking you for starting this topic or anything - I do think that everyone (and I mean everyone, not just on this board) should have at least a passing knowledge of the most common logical fallacies, and yes, your topic does raise awareness of it and I approve of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    Social consensus isn't always correct -- doesn't mean its always wrong, but it definitely isn't a source of empirical evidence of something being true
    Um, I just said I agreed. See previous post. It isn't consensus that I've been talking about, in fact I didn't say anything about consensus til you pointed it out. It's the lack of people who commit this fallacy that I'm referring to, and people pointing it out which means a lot of people here are aware of the fallacy, which has absolutely nothing to do with consensus.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    finally just because there is some error to socionics doesn't mean that its futile to consider these kinds of topics.
    Again, I never said this. I just pointed out a logical reason for bias towards doubting the typer in socionics as opposed to other sciences where categories are objectively verifiable. It doesn't make it less worthy of consideration, it's just something to keep in mind, that the no true scotsman fallacy is more often not a fallacy when the category isn't verifiable as opposed to when it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    I've iterated these three counter points several times and you just keep saying the same thing, which makes me think the source of contention in this is less logical in nature and more how you feel about this topic, which is fine, but you keep addressing this from the same standpoint logically and its going nowhere, and its a little boring/annoying.
    I'm repeating myself because you don't seem to be understanding me, and I think I'm just hoping that if I word it differently it'll finally get through to you and you'll stop rewording what I'm saying into something else. I've bolded my points this time.


    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    The entire tactic of accusing me of a straw man when I mention another logical fallacy seems almost vengeful -- like you've taken the title as a personal attack and your immediate response is to show that I'm actually the one committing a fallacy and not other people. It's kind of defensive response to a topic that isn't even about making attacks on people, but about developing an intellectually robust community through recognition of potential sources of error.

    I'm honestly baffled why you think I'm being defensive/emotional/uterussy when all I've been essentially saying re the OP is:

    - your title is misleading as to frequency of this fallacy's occurrence (this is the straw man bit, nothing more)
    - people in this community are already somewhat aware of this fallacy, as supported by quotes in the earlier post
    - due to the difficulties with objectively verifying someone's type, questioning whether the "Scotsman" is actually "Scottish" is often a good idea

    This is why I don't think you understand me - I really don't think I'm making any controversial proposals here.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz View Post
    It's not a straw man either because a straw man seeks to mischaracterize another's point of view to something which is easily refuted... I don't see how what I have said is a straw man as I haven't given specific examples of anyone actually committing this fallacy. In fact I openly admit the target of my criticism is towards a "straw man", and then I pose the question to the community "are you the same as the straw man or different"? When someone commits the strawman fallacy they aren't giving people the same benefit they are pointedly characterizing someone as a straw man as opposed to asking them if they are the strawman... that is the difference and why what I'm doing is not a strawman. I don't expect you to get this through your head as you seem emotionally wired to immediately resist what I say and see it as some kind of argument, but I feel like saying it regardless so that I have the opportunity to articulate in depth why driving home this accusation on me is actually the real strawman.
    Dude. Calm down. The straw man objection is largely to the title of your topic. What I'm saying is that you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist yet, and you're saying that it's worth preventing because it can theoretically exist and we should be aware of it. Great. This is one of those easy "agree to disagree" things where you go off and buy flood insurance and I don't because I don't think my house will flood. There's no right or wrong here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The true way to understand socionics is not to merely understand the principles of Model A... but to reach beyond it, towards a fully understanding of personality itself.

    A lot of people fool themselves into believing that socionics/MBTI claims to apprehend the whole picture of human personality. It does not. Learn socionics and master it well... but understand its limits.

  38. #38
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.
    I don't enjoy most literature but as a general rule I love writing and reading. More writing than reading, since I kinda like to be 'in control' in that way or something. Literature class bored me because the teacher always acted like they hated doing it and just wanted to get out of there quickly as possible. And too many kids goofed off and acted 'ghetto tough guy like' and like they didn't want to be there. This is why I think school is so stupid, like forcing people to care about stuff they won't unless they already do naturally.

    People stereotype cause people usually fit them. Like right now this irish dude is on cam and he's talking about how drunk he gets. Haha. =p

    and some people are just idk.... introverted and artistic and kinda shy in social situations but have a big heart and are humanitarian ness.
    Last edited by bnd; 12-10-2011 at 11:27 AM.

  39. #39
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Your mom's a true scotsman.
    How did you know?

    ^^

  40. #40
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Look at thought working (together too!) and look at thought working in the direction of internal clarity. Thinking upon people's understanding and Socionics...humm.
    Not quite sure what you are saying, my Illusionary. Are you suggesting people do NOT have a good understanding of socionics? I know you type others a lot differently than most people on here.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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