since socionics is a mental construct, consensus is really the only thing that matters.
thoughts?
This is a common logical fallacy known as the argument to moderation which is fine, but um yeah, a compromise doesn't mean the 'right' answer.
It would be best to consider peoples opinions on type as a risk matrix, with one axis being their 'socionics expertise' and their others the 'knowledge of the person being typed'. Those with the maximum multiplier of the two would rank as the authority on an individuals type.
In a 'forum setting' I only see limited information on an individual. If I draw a conclusion on their type it isn't rational for me to add together 'the same' type if others agree with me as an argument that I have typed correctly because we are all drawing from the same limited information and the same paradigms.
Method of troubleshooting:
Scientific stuff = quality > quantity
Artistic stuff = quantity > quality
Only on this magical site where it creates some kind of sense of belonging and identity. You're operating from the stance that in order to actually roam this site and your, and I don't know, leisure time on here acknowledged one simply has to pass through every person there is so that you can have some kind of validation of your person/personality and your time spent on here. It means people mold you the way they want as if one is unable to know for oneself, anosognosia(c). In this case, consensus is somewhat hard to achieve, for you're putting yourself at the mercy of others, and some people are going to have a distorted view of you, fitting one, completely missed one, and so on.
It sounds a bit limiting to say the least and is akin to saying 'you're not in tiny chat - you don't exist' what is just plain silly.
You would have to rest on one person, so it can be done. You can rest on your own judgment as well.
Last edited by Absurd; 03-03-2013 at 11:46 AM.
i'm not talking about myself.Originally Posted by Absurd
tinychat isn't a mental construct. that's what i'm talking about. if 99 out of 100 people agree that a paint color is sky blue and that 1 skeptic proves that the color is actually green, it wouldn't stop anyone from using it to paint the sky on a canvas and pass it as realism. and socionics can't even be proved.
Some kind of strong consensus is probably more reliable than a situation where there's no clear favorite and the single most popular option has only a narrow margin on some of the other choices. There's also the whole "how well do you actually know this person" stuff ... yeah, I dunno.
I know you're not. You have put forth a statement/an idea which you seem to agree with inquiring the input of people who might show up and lay one. The same way I could direct what I said to Radio, but it would be a deranged move on my part seeing he's not the thread creator.
Ehh, you say Socionics can't be proved which means people in tiny chat won't be able to agree on anything in the first place, that is, they can't know whether the paint is sky blue or green. I can be wrong but it seems like you're taking a skeptical stance here - vulgar empiricism nor naturalism is not worth my time -, and statements like 'we perceive only things as they appear to us' put a smile on my face, for they are: personal, subjective and simply mean we are without a method to know whether the judgments we make, are correct. In this case, there is no point in making any kind of judgments at alltinychat isn't a mental construct. that's what i'm talking about. if 99 out of 100 people agree that a paint color is sky blue and that 1 skeptic proves that the color is actually green, it wouldn't stop anyone from using it to paint the sky on a canvas and pass it as realism. and socionics can't even be proved.
No korpsey here which means he won't fly off the handle, so I can add - argumentum ad numerum.
Last edited by Absurd; 03-03-2013 at 05:19 PM.
Perhaps when we find ourselves in a group of muslims, wiccans or mormons we should change religion to match? After all it can't even be proved and if it is the most popular choice, is it the right one?
It's kinda like saying that "In an ideal democracy, even the will of the majority, no matter how stupid, is being executed."
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Actually fuck that analogy.
In a way consensus is the closest thing we can get. If twenty "informed" typers unaware of each others typings end up mostly in the same results, it's a qualified typing. However, defining that "informed" is an issue we cannot verify in any empirically credible means.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
tbh that kind of thing terrifies me. what the majority of people think tends to be shit anyway. the "world is flat" fallacy.
but it can be proven that the world isn't flat.
i wish i could describe better what i mean. i might be wrong, but i don't think "the majority isn't always right" is a response that actually addresses what i'm saying. those tall things you see when you look out the window are called "trees" and that's because its generally agreed upon by the vast majority of english speakers that they're called "trees." because language is a mental construct. the world being round is just the truth.
Like I said before, I hope you're aware that in order to achieve consensus on this site, one is going to have to get the approval of every member in this community to gather as much opinions as possible, whatever they may be (it wouldn't be called a consensus to begin with), it can be a group of people in this community as well to make it easier. I tan be you and some other person. You can decide for yourself, too. No biggie.
I. When one decides for oneself:
1. There is no need to rely on a consensus, for members are going to arrive at the same conclusion you did without participating in what's called a 'process of voting' (not always, though) to reach some kind of decision - some democracies operate this way and by no means they are 'ideal', as in existing in mind of some person,
1.1. There may appear a 'craving' for consensus due to many factors, I think, a craving for collective opinion not being satisfied with one's choice...
II. When one goes by collective opinion:
2. It's a long lasting process, for everyone has something to say and one wants to hear out the nay sayers as well,
2.1. It's a bit ineffective in some cases when it comes to decision making.
Choice is yours. But when what one has arrived at something oneself or at least did it half way, the approval/agreement of a collective can be sweet.
It's not truth, it's a fact and I know what you want to say, you simply mean one arrives as a blank, not tainted(?) by their own ideas/expectations about something and puts oneself in the hands of community who in turn reaches some kind of agreement - consensus.
Problem is, how to get all those people to see trees instead of bees?
Last edited by Absurd; 03-06-2013 at 06:43 PM.
Oh I see what you mean better.
hmm how is it a consensus though if we all still argue about what the definitions represent?
I get the analogy but a tree is still a tree, you can still see one if you have eyes. socionics represents more fragmented things in the mind which makes it trickier I think. but that stuff is really interesting as it's describing where personality comes from and stuff.
I get what you're saying but I disagree, well, maybe not disagree but I find the notion of one correct reality versus a relative one somewhat hard to marry with each other, vide that window and trees analogy of yours. I would see trees myself. In fact, there are three outside of my window. Two pines and one spruce.
Don't know about others...
Last edited by Absurd; 03-06-2013 at 07:08 PM.
I'm reminded of something I've read in an ESE description:
Not saying you're ESE, but whoever wrote this description obviously doesn't think highly of consensus.He was not convinced of the truth of their judgments, so almost all the issues relies on the fact that this other people think. Opinion of the team more important to him of their own, and there is no nonsense, to which he would not accept "for the company." He is very difficult to develop their own values, and so he uses another's. The main criterion in choosing the principles of life - the number of people who hold them. For example, ESE, it seems, just can not come up with the idea not to drink if his entourage "respects" the case.
Ass-burger-suming it's a mental construct, then no, my mental construct is different from someone else's mental construct. I reckon it's a bit of a laugh in group consensus, a bit of an internal chuckle on ones own, erm.
I could've dropped a name in 'someone else's', heh.
? I think that when something is a social construct, then consensus is all that matters. If it's a mental construct, only your own opinion (i.e. your own version of the mental construct) matters.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
this is basically what i got from words said. and its true.
it just doesn't really help anything from the standpoint of like... idk, talking about types. we might as well all just agree to disagree about everything lol. and maybe it is a social construct, too. intertype relations and whatnot.
actually, this is a pretty good example of you regulating the truth
consensus is hardly a criteria for reliability, there are much more important things a person needs to keep in mind, regardless of what kind of construct it is
for the record i'm not suggesting at all that, for example, if everybody else types you ESE even though you self-type ESI, then you must actually be ESE. i hate that shit. you own your own identity. i'm not saying that at all.
what i'm saying is more like. you say, "look, i have the posture of an ESI" and everybody else says, "no, you have the posture of an ESE." you have the same fucking posture either way and the rest is just words. so for the sake of communication and "objectivity" (as far as it can go in something like this) ESE might be a better descriptor.
Hmm, it's a matter of being somewhat knowledgeable(?) when it comes to consensus, it's self-explanatory that wanting to achieve it, you have to have, say, a group consisting of ten people who are on the same wavelength as you. Of course, one might want to hear out different opinions and this consensus usually takes the form of negotiations after the fact...
That's incorrect. He didn't. Most of his political opponents have been thwarted by any means necessary, so speaking about consensus in that aspect is silly, for it was a homogeneous environment, taking into account he started off a Bavarian Republican "sect" which already paints a picture. In lungs' case, she would have to do the same/be under the the protectorate of such entity.
It is 4 only in mathematics. Not specified which you can both wrong and right at the same time.If I have 20 people telling me that 2+2=5, I'm still going to insist that 2+2=4
Last edited by Absurd; 05-15-2013 at 10:14 PM.
His post seems relevant to me. You just ignored it.
Everything else.
lovely
do explain further what you meant by that
Speaking of wavelengths...
your previous post reminded me of networking class
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote