hi

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, you're the mofo talking about "objective actuality" or some such. Sounded like you were claiming otherwise to me, negro.

"Oh please. Socionics is just a systemized form of Aushra's personal observations and prejudices; it isn't any more objectified than Jung's work. The systematic format of Socionics conveys a misleading rigor where none actually exists."

"Wrong. According to these bozos (Marie84, Effie, etc.), Aushra is the be-all, end-all of everything Socionics."


One of these is a pure irrelevant attack. The other is deliberately missing the point.

Bottom line is - you can't use Jungian typology as support for Socionics-Enneagram correlations. That's what the whole disagreement was about, you committed a pretty clear fallacy there.

Nothing wrong with being critical of a theory that one simultaneously utilizes aspects of.

Yeah there is. It's dishonest and pretentious to hover around Socionics' validity to detract from it as a whole and belittle those who adhere to it, just to pick and choose what you want to accept. You're not practicing Socionics anymore then and therefore its concepts and theories are inapplicable.

[EyeSeeCold]

Theories and viewpoints are mutable and interchangeable—there aren't invisible chains of logic forcing my brain to abide according to some strict interpretational rubric. I'll use theories and ideas in whatever ways are useful to me for explaining reality as I see it and experience it.

Jungian Psychological Attitudes are not mutable and interchangeable with Socionics Information Elements/Aspects. They are indicative and referential, sure I'll give you that, but you simply cannot use one to support the other, it's an invalid argument. Use whatever you want as you want, but recognize your irrationality in doing so.

No, it's just practicing healthy skepticism.

It's not healthy to belittle others and the theory itself when you are, in the next instant, practicing that same theory. It's devious hypocrisy born out of some kind of insecurity.

[Absurd]

See what I mean siuntal. Example on this very page.

[Korpsy Knievel]

And don't bother hiding behind claims of irony, otherwise it's safe to assume everything else in your post, including your precious signature, is probably also bunk.

[EyeSeeCold]

Sez who, or what?

Who says they are mutable and interchangeable? You have to show that. I'm pretty sure you know what burden of proof is.

Oh? According to what epistemic standards is it invalid?

Try the false attribution fallacy. Your position has been wrong this whole argument, and you still are. I really don't know what you are persisting for.

I was ridiculing dogmatism and ecclesiasticism, and I'll continue to do so. Since when is rationally criticizing a theory an act of 'belittling' it?

Case in point. You claim you are ridiculing ecclesiasticism yet there are no actual churches in site, there is no actual religion being practiced. Calling it such and claiming there is is your personal sentiment and an equivocation of terms to suit your appeals to rhetoric. That's not rational criticism, it's personally-motivated defamation.

There is dogmatism but where is there not? You're showing dogmatism now, are you going to ridicule yourself?

[EyeSeeCold]

You're the one making fiat decrees that they're mutually incompatible. So, I think burden of proof is on you.

But it is you who assumed they were compatible in the first pace - a wrongful assumption. The burden of proof is on you.

Point out specifically where I did False Attribution.

"Advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified,biased or fabricated source in support of an argument. "

Jungian typology has nothing to do with a Socionics-Enneagram correlation.

Says the dude chilling at the Holy Temple of St. Augusta, with a cross in his signature.

I detect haterism.

No, I'm just referring to the phenomenon of a religious-like mentality that the particularly orthodox practitioners/defenders of Socionics appear to exhibit.

Okay, now I do agree that wherever and whenever perspectivism and personal observations of phenomena are the theme, religious-like mentalities are bound to occur, due to the lack of sufficient reproducible external concrete evidence. However, I do think you need to improve on your ability to identify meta-satire. One can mock those who mock, you know.

You "seem" to be sensitively defensive about this. How come?

I don't know. Ask yourself why your perceptions don't reflect reality.

How am I demonstrating dogmatism?

Your pointless persistence even after your position's been proven to be preposterous.

[717495]

[Korpsy Knievel]

-

[EyeSeeCold]

Jungian Typology is incorporated in the foundation of Socionics, so it's fair game to use as far as I'm concerned. I don't see any specific prohibition against it, except from a few silly folks on here who shriek that it's somehow sullying their precious Socionical faith.

I was putting that out there to suggest plausible compatibility between E4 and Fi.

The principles and frameworks of Jungian typology are incorporated into the foundation of Socionics—not Jung's introspective elaborations. So extracting a subjective observational description of Jung's from Ch.10 isn't fair game. It's still invalid as support for your argument.

There probably is a compatibility between E4 and Fi, but if you're talking Socionics Fi, then you just can't defer to Jung to prove it.

Just pointing out amusing irony.

Considering that the majority of these religious notions come projectively and pre-emptively from you and your associates, who especially seek to invoke the almighty Carl Jung himself, your claims of religiosity are pretty ridiculously laughable.

I asked you 1st about your dysfunctional perceptions.

You must be confused.

No, you.

No.



















You.

[EyeSeeCold]

Socionics isn't a closed system. Consilience from other ideas, theories, and viewpoints is allowed.

If you want to prove a correlation between Soicionics theory and Enneagram theory, then you need to have Socionics theory evidence. Plain and simple.

I'm not really into subordinating human understanding to a priori dictates of arbitrary theoretical frameworks. If other Fi dominants say they relate to Jung's Fi description, that's all that matters.

That's all fine and dandy, but "arbitrary theoretical frameworks" is another one of your dubious appeals to rhetoric. Socionics is based on Jung remember?

No one is saying Jungian Fi and Socionics Fi don't overlap, and I agree that they do overlap, but they are still separate concepts for correlating Fi to E4.

Describing an analogous process isn't 'projecting'. Quit being so reflexively butthurt about it.

Last time I checked spouting unfounded categorizations and descriptions about others, based on one's own haterism and personal faults, is projecting.

Be proud of what you and your associates do, cause you do it so well.

Yeah, that's right. Keep evading.

Looks like you're talking to yourself again.
http://local.yahoo.com/MO/Kansas+Cit...tric+Hospitals

[EyeSeeCold]

I thought this was primarily over Jung/Socionics. Or are we changing topic midstream?

It's over you not understanding how to properly support your arguments.

Since when are theoretical frameworks not arbitrary…?

Oh come off it. It's all too easy to pull the arbitrary card.

Frameworks can be based on inherent tendencies and axioms of the physically observable reality, that's not arbitrary.

It's no great secret that Jung and Kepinski are foundational influences in Socionics. So I'd think their work deserves attention for purposes of enhancing understanding of the subject.

Most definitely they do. It would calibrate people's understanding to the levels of all the initial developers of all these theories, which would could lead to greater developments. But that's not really the point of contention here.

No shit?!

Well if you can understand that, then why can't you understand one can't serve as support for the other?

Well, I'll defer to your expertise on projecting. Lead the way.

After you, Grand Poobah. Your projections skills are un-paralleled.

No, I was definitely talking to you.

Yeah, but you're not really saying much.

[EyeSeeCold]

No, you're just trying to fix epistemic scope of the discussion within very narrow and fallacious confines, and I'm not going there.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. This argument is still hinged on the fact that you invalidly use information from one theory to support a separate theory's correlation with another theory. Recognize that and we're done here.

The interpretations and assumptions humans make which give rise to said frameworks, are quite arbitrary.

All theories are basically wrong or incomplete with respect to extant reality, but some theories yield useful results about it.

You're still pulling the arbitrary card. Interpretations and assumptions based on reason which in turn is based on observed phenomena is not arbitrary.

Pure arbitrariness is arguably impossible anyway. All things cause and effect some thing one way or another.

If that isn't a point of contention, then quit arguing with me that Jung is incompatible with Socionics.

One, that's not what I'm arguing with you over; two, you can admit your initial fallacy and leave anytime you want. No one is stopping you.

You are familiar with the notion that inductions from one field of study can meaningfully corroborate with inductions from another field of study, yes? This is what I meant when I mentioned consilience:

The word consilience was apparently coined by William Whewell, in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1840. In this synthesis Whewell explained that, "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs."

Modern views understand that each branch of knowledge studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches. Atomic physics underlies the workings of chemistry, which studies emergent properties that in turn are the basis of biology. Psychology can no longer be separated from the study of properties emergent from the interaction of neurons and synapses. Sociology, economics, and anthropology are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans.

The fact that all these different areas of research are studying one real, existing universe is an apparent explanation of why generalizations arrived at in one area have often helped in understanding other areas. Consilience is thus often used as an argument for scientific realism by philosophers of science.

That is an interesting excerpt, but it still doesn't change the fact that using Jungian typology as support for a concept of Socionics theory correlating with Enneagram is fallacious. You can't use Jung as a source of information in that process of demonstrating proof.

Unparalleled relative to what? Oh, you're admitting that I'm not projecting. Cool, glad we cleared that up.

Exactly. They are un-paralleled, and not relative to anything. Absolute projection.

I'm not saying a lot, but you're exhibiting difficulty with comprehension nevertheless.

More of that projection.

[ashlesha]

esc you are on one hand saying jung is compatible with aushra and on the other hand saying Jung can't be used as evidence for enneagram correlations. this doesn't make sense to me.

[ashlesha]

also I propose that this thread be more about me. I was told the other day I am too intellectually aggressive to be esi. this tickled me.

[EyeSeeCold]

esc you are on one hand saying jung is compatible with aushra and on the other hand saying it Jung can't be used as evidence for enneagram correlations. this doesn't make sense to me.

Even though two stories are similar to each other, and overlap somewhat, the discrepancies they do have invalidates a 1:1 substitution. It's like trying to fit a hexagon in a circle.

also I propose that this thread be more about me. I was told the other day I am too intellectually aggressive to be esi. this tickled me.

Okay I think Ashton and I bonded enough for today anyway.

Talk about yourself more and it'll be more about you.

[ashlesha]

but there are discrepancies between socionics and enneagram too so I think that misses the point. I clicked constructive by accident on my phone lol whoops!

everything I write is about myself even when I'm talking about other things. same with everybody else. its kind of cool, how you can learn things about people without them actually telling you.

I moved into my apartment last weekend. I'm living by myself for the first time. it makes time and silence feel heavy. the other night I sat and scanned a bunch of books on my bookshelf into goodreads for something to do. they are alphabetized by author, except for the hardcovers and textbooks. I don't have a lot of stuff but I have plenty of books and lotion. these are the things that I have accumulated so far in my life - books and lotion.

you probably want character traits. I am more scheduled now than I was a month ago and I was more scheduled than that 10 years before. I don't know. I don't like talking about traits like they are pieces of who I am as a person. I've done that and found out later that I was misleading.

[Radio]

hi kassie <3

[FDG]

also I propose that this thread be more about me. I was told the other day I am too intellectually aggressive to be esi. this tickled me.

I'd say it's a fair objection. ISFjs, having Ne PoLR and being a feeling type, tend (in my experience) to be rather cautios during intellectual debates, even if they might know very well the subject matter.

In any case, that doesn't prove anything, but it's not something that can or should be completely discarded.

[ashlesha]

I'd say it's a fair objection. ISFjs, having Ne PoLR and being a feeling type, tend (in my experience) to be rather cautios during intellectual debates, even if they might know very well the subject matter.

how do you feel about this?

[FDG]

how do you feel about this?

I feel that they really have no reason to be like that (i.e. it'd be better if they spoke up more frequently), even though they may appear/be more diplomatic thanks to such attitude.

[ashlesha]

[Korpsy Knievel]

This argument is still hinged on the fact that you invalidly use information from one theory to support a separate theory's correlation with another theory. Recognize that and we're done here.

vs.

Many times I have exhibited synthetic thinking(Dialetical-Algorithmic) which has constantly been ignored as evidence. I pull other people's theories which I've accepted as operational and I form my own deductions. Not to mention I constantly exhibit this, I always have since middle school:.

You're still pulling the arbitrary card. Interpretations and assumptions based on reason which in turn is based on observed phenomena is not arbitrary.

Pure arbitrariness is arguably impossible anyway. All things cause and effect some thing one way or another.

vs.

I don't know if I can. Isn't anything I produce from the self and therefore subjective in nature?

Winner: Incoherence

[EyeSeeCold]

blah blah

laghlagh asked for the thread to be more about her. Unless you want to disrespect her, take it somewhere else, because I don't.

[Korpsy Knievel]

You ceratinly seem...demeaning and very territorial. I dont mean that in a bad way. This is how you seem though I cant say for sure since I dont know you that well, you seem very much into "your" people.

Clown, meet Ji.

Kassie is Ti polR because Kassie does not like to analyze things. So there you have it SEE and confirm. Deep, abstract thinking and analysis is a waste of time for someone who seems to really enjoy just hanging around and experiencing (taking in things).

This is an incredibly stupid conclusion to draw when kassie is known for regularly critiquing subjectivity/favoritism and unverifiable standards in sociotyping, not to mention whether a theory that is broadly admitted to be of only partial utility and validity should be kept alive at all. No one who simply "hangs around and experiences" is going to argue as often or in the manner that kassie does.

Incidentally this reminds me of an polr I know, who rejects things I say on the basis that they're too vague, qualitative, mentally derived, prone to error and therefore bullshit.

Good eye. Since socionics is primarily an NeTi construct it's easy to see how disparities between theoretical claims and the empirically demonstrable would try the tolerance and patience of a similarly constituted super-ego.

[ashlesha]

laghlagh asked for the thread to be more about her. Unless you want to disrespect her, take it somewhere else, because I don't.

ive told you i prefer for you not to call me laghlagh so i find this post ironic.

[EyeSeeCold]

ive told you i prefer for you not to call me laghlagh so i find this post ironic.

Really? I don't remember, but do you have another name in mind? I find it awkward to address members by their first name on here. It's just weird in general, but it also gives a false/forced sense of familiarity.

[ashlesha]

i like it because of the familiarity because I feel like there's so much pretense here. and nobody ever knew how to pronounce laghlagh. but if its really important to you I guess you could just call me k.

[717495]

[EyeSeeCold]

i like it because of the familiarity because I feel like there's so much pretense here. and nobody ever knew how to pronounce laghlagh. but if its really important to you I guess you could just call me k.

laff laff?

Alright.

[ashlesha]

po po po pointyhead

[Trevor]

log log log LOGMAO

[golden]

also I propose that this thread be more about me. I was told the other day I am too intellectually aggressive to be esi. this tickled me.

I don't know that I have found you intellectually aggressive. Maybe intellectually resistant? Which is not to say anti-intellectual, but rather ... not following along with the elaboration of some lines of thought. I suppose I could imagine this is Te-seeking? Not sure, but don't see an argument against ESI in it.

[ashlesha]

I don't know that I have found you intellectually aggressive. Maybe intellectually resistant? Which is not to say anti-intellectual, but rather ... not following along with the elaboration of some lines of thought. I suppose I could imagine this is Te-seeking? Not sure, but don't see an argument against ESI in it.

I can see this, and it kind of makes more sense to me than the "intellectually aggressive" thing. what happens is that so much of the discussion seems like empty talk and stuff that I just don't buy into and when something is along that vein I already know what it is - its bullshit, to me - and I know I'm not going to be persuaded and it will just irritate me. I think some people take this as a sign that I don't understand the material, but I don't think thats it. its like, static and dynamic are concepts I can understand when they are very clearly demonstrated or just disembodied academic terms. but when it comes to actually applying them, thats where I struggle. because here are these disembodied academic terms and here are real people. and I feel like a lot of people cram and force and shove in order to apply and by doing that they glorify something that doesn't actually "exist" by shitting on the humanity of real people who do exist. the people here I respect the most are ones who are able to take it and leave it and apply it when they want, but maintain skepticism. thats what I mean when I talk about "balance" and thats what id like to do. but its hard because once I get started its like: is this a real phenomenon or not?!? it either is or it isn't! I struggle to have healthy skepticism without rejecting it outright and when I'm hit with that cognitive dissonance I get pissed off. (lol korp said it was about cognitive dissonance awhile back and I insisted he just didn't get it, hi!)

so yeah when I refuse to follow its because my pendulum has hit "this isn't a real phenomenon, its all bullshit!" idk how its type related except that for the most part the people best able to reason with me when I get into a "fuck socionics" state have been gamma.

[Creepy-]

Pretty sure it's just pronounced "lala". The 'g's and 'h's are silent.

[golden]

I can see this, and it kind of makes more sense to me than the "intellectually aggressive" thing. what happens is that so much of the discussion seems like empty talk and stuff that I just don't buy into and when something is along that vein I already know what it is - its bullshit, to me - and I know I'm not going to be persuaded and it will just irritate me. I think some people take this as a sign that I don't understand the material, but I don't think thats it.

Never seemed to me that you don't understand it. Am not under the impression anyone sees you that way.

its like, static and dynamic are concepts I can understand when they are very clearly demonstrated or just disembodied academic terms. but when it comes to actually applying them, thats where I struggle. because here are these disembodied academic terms and here are real people. and I feel like a lot of people cram and force and shove in order to apply and by doing that they glorify something that doesn't actually "exist" by shitting on the humanity of real people who do exist. the people here I respect the most are ones who are able to take it and leave it and apply it when they want, but maintain skepticism. thats what I mean when I talk about "balance" and thats what id like to do. but its hard because once I get started its like: is this a real phenomenon or not?!? it either is or it isn't! I struggle to have healthy skepticism without rejecting it outright and when I'm hit with that cognitive dissonance I get pissed off. (lol korp said it was about cognitive dissonance awhile back and I insisted he just didn't get it, hi!)

Interesting, bc here in this thread we have Ashton accused by ESC of, um, looks like something like playing both sides--talking about socionics in a way that would lead someone to think maybe he buys into it wholesale, and turning around and rejecting many parts of it, and so on. Or some implication that one is not allowed to pick and choose what parts of socionics/Jung one thinks work, and to change that in response to whatever seems relevant or expedient in the moment. Not sure I'm interpreting that correctly.

I suspect that some of us may misunderstand one another re how much we buy into this theory. I don't personally feel the need to express a lot of skepticism verbally all the time, bc it seems like most of my thoughts about most things are set up as conditionals, so there's always a readiness to disengage from them as "true." And I love cognitive dissonance and will actively cultivate it, so that's really intriguing to me the way you describe cog diss.

so yeah when I refuse to follow its because my pendulum has hit "this isn't a real phenomenon, its all bullshit!" idk how its type related except that for the most part the people best able to reason with me when I get into a "fuck socionics" state have been gamma.

I actually feel the same way about some of the self-professed gammas here. Good reality checkers, or just embody a balanced attitude.

BTW, something about what you posted made me think of this guy Rufus May, whose attitudes toward psychiatry (he's sort of an anti-psychiatrist) are, to my pov, not about building up alternative theories, but center on rejecting the theories that have been layered over experience and recovering and placing faith in just ... people. He does so in a way that some people might find "aggressive." Video link, skip to 30 seconds in for start:



Curious what you'd think of him.

[EyeSeeCold]

Interesting, bc here in this thread we have Ashton accused by ESC of, um, looks like something like playing both sides--talking about socionics in a way that would lead someone to think maybe he buys into it wholesale, and turning around and rejecting many parts of it, and so on. Or some implication that one is not allowed to pick and choose what parts of socionics/Jung one thinks work, and to change that in response to whatever seems relevant or expedient in the moment. Not sure I'm interpreting that correctly.

Yeah you didn't interpret it correctly. What kassie does is not the same as Ashton, it's not a pretty good comparison to say so. It's understandable and healthy to maintain some distance and skepticism of Socionics or any other similar subject. Or if some things make sense to you and fit your observations and others don't - nothing is wrong with that either.

But that's completely different from being detractingly haughty towards the theory and belittling people who do study and want to learn Socionics when the next moment there you are professing its theories and claiming expert status(even if indirectly).

kassie is not like that.

[Creepy-female]

Interesting, bc here in this thread we have Ashton accused by ESC of, um, looks like something like playing both sides--talking about socionics in a way that would lead someone to think maybe he buys into it wholesale, and turning around and rejecting many parts of it, and so on. Or some implication that one is not allowed to pick and choose what parts of socionics/Jung one thinks work, and to change that in response to whatever seems relevant or expedient in the moment. Not sure I'm interpreting that correctly.

I had a lightbulb moment when thinking about this cuz I was considering Kassie's experience of Ne polr. And it occurred to me, Rationals have a perceiving function as their polr and Irrationals a judging function. A rational dual couple might ignore an information loop on the perceiving axis. Whereas their irrational duality counterpart may have more success parsing/acknowledging said information loop, even if they don't actively value it. And so on. This is why ISFjs go around saying DUH so emphatically. lol

[Gilly]

It's the same shit, whether Socionics or Jung. Strictly relativizing reality according to theory (what you and Effie are doing), is silly.

I disagree...I think that assuming the phenomenal identity of Socionics functions to Jungian functions is fallacious, given the different typings made using the two different systems, and the language used to describe the functions and types. Presuming perfect correlation ignores all of the changes made by Augusta in formulating the theory as a whole. A lot certainly translates, but calling them Tue same is just plain wrong.

[ashlesha]

BTW, something about what you posted made me think of this guy Rufus May, whose attitudes toward psychiatry (he's sort of an anti-psychiatrist) are, to my pov, not about building up alternative theories, but center on rejecting the theories that have been layered over experience and recovering and placing faith in just ... people. He does so in a way that some people might find "aggressive." Video link, skip to 30 seconds in for start:



Curious what you'd think of him.

sounds cool, i just wanted to say i plan on watching and commenting on this video and just havent yet cuz of my current tech situation.

[FDG]

If you're skilled at ethics, maybe you can just ignore socionics information. For someone who's not that skilled, it might be a bit of a revelation, or rather, a way to check/confirm hir own impressions?

An analogous example would be how ethical types often profuse a large amount of effort into academic / school matters, whereas thinking types are more like "meh, I know this shit already" and might end up with lower grades, given the same level of potential.