Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Quantum Socionics -- Does the act of observing Socionics effect one's Sociotype?

  1. #1
    Creepy-male

    Default Quantum Socionics -- Does the act of observing Socionics effect one's Sociotype?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

    For those unfamiliar with quantum mechanics I'd suggest reading up on how "observation" and "wave function collapse" works, or at least have a look at schrodinger's cat.

    Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
    Basically the idea is that observing the cat will change the state of the cat from being simultaneously alive/dead to being one or the other. It largely has to do with how an observer effects the state of something, the act of observation causes a collapse of something to a particular state.

    I'm wondering if self-observation of type effects one's personality through building up self-fulfilling prophecies, that in a way mirror this observation and collapse in quantum mechanics. Originally a person is merely in an undetermined state but on self-observation that they are a particular type this alters the state of their consciousness and sets in motion a process of confirmation bias which proceeds up until a critical point of cognitive dissonance and conflicting observation which then places someone else into another state.

    This of course may sound like I'm trying to say personality or identity doesn't exist, but I think this is beside the point, as a person's essence or being is still there and unique. Overtime the state of a person changes as a result of observation and interference from other entities but inevitably, while that state changes it takes a very unique trajectory or path in life that is separate from others.

    Also the idea of quantum entanglement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

    Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[6] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin)
    I think this applies to intertype relations. Since people are in a world full of other entities, their identity is impacted and entangled with the identities of others. When someone modifies their personality, the entangled pair modifies their own. If you run across someone you dislike, you resolve to be different or something similar. If you find someone endearing you try to modify yourself to gain their acceptance, approval, appreciation. This is all going on meanwhile people observe themselves and each others and make determinations of what state they wish to be in.

    I'm interested to here your thoughts on this-- I won't play baby sitter but please I ask that you keep discussion civil and constructive as this is something I'm interested in. I studied 3 semesters of quantum mechanics in university and I personally think when you apply certain aspects of it to the understanding of something like socionics there can be some powerful insights to gain. Personally I find this view a lot more real and freeing than having my identity put into another cog, its capable of not only describing who I am, but why I became that way, how others effect me, and why sometimes I want to be something different. You can disagree just please I'd request some civility and a lack of ad hom attacks at my expense for proposing this view.

    Thanks and let the games begin

  2. #2
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shang Tsung View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

    For those unfamiliar with quantum mechanics I'd suggest reading up on how "observation" and "wave function collapse" works, or at least have a look at schrodinger's cat.



    Basically the idea is that observing the cat will change the state of the cat from being simultaneously alive/dead to being one or the other. It largely has to do with how an observer effects the state of something, the act of observation causes a collapse of something to a particular state.

    I'm wondering if self-observation of type effects one's personality through building up self-fulfilling prophecies, that in a way mirror this observation and collapse in quantum mechanics. Originally a person is merely in an undetermined state but on self-observation that they are a particular type this alters the state of their consciousness and sets in motion a process of confirmation bias which proceeds up until a critical point of cognitive dissonance and conflicting observation which then places someone else into another state.

    This of course may sound like I'm trying to say personality or identity doesn't exist, but I think this is beside the point, as a person's essence or being is still there and unique. Overtime the state of a person changes as a result of observation and interference from other entities but inevitably, while that state changes it takes a very unique trajectory or path in life that is separate from others.

    Also the idea of quantum entanglement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement



    I think this applies to intertype relations. Since people are in a world full of other entities, their identity is impacted and entangled with the identities of others. When someone modifies their personality, the entangled pair modifies their own. If you run across someone you dislike, you resolve to be different or something similar. If you find someone endearing you try to modify yourself to gain their acceptance, approval, appreciation. This is all going on meanwhile people observe themselves and each others and make determinations of what state they wish to be in.

    I'm interested to here your thoughts on this-- I won't play baby sitter but please I ask that you keep discussion civil and constructive as this is something I'm interested in. I studied 3 semesters of quantum mechanics in university and I personally think when you apply certain aspects of it to the understanding of something like socionics there can be some powerful insights to gain. Personally I find this view a lot more real and freeing than having my identity put into another cog, its capable of not only describing who I am, but why I became that way, how others effect me, and why sometimes I want to be something different. You can disagree just please I'd request some civility and a lack of ad hom attacks at my expense for proposing this view.

    Thanks and let the games begin
    You don't even need quantum mechanics to arrive at the conclusions you did. For most sociologists and social psychologists identity is a social construct, and also in philosophy we can find examples of theories that state an individual does not have an identity until one starts to interact with another person (e.g. Sartre: existence precedes essence). Question is, of course, what is the underlying mechanism? As far as I know, no conclusive evidence has come up yet, and although I think the gap is to too wide to be bridged with the current scientific knowledge we have, quantum effects should not be excluded from consideration.

    I once had an 'epiphany' while I was stoned, where I actually understood Fe as a sort of 'electrical' field around a person affecting other persons (some people would probably call it an aura). Well, I was stoned, so perhaps it was just my imagination running wild.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  3. #3
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    perception of personality (and other neocortex functions like logic and reasoning -- hoping i'm getting that right) are a lot more susceptible to deception, so there's always a factor of what you want to see that you need to keep in mind, or you risk convincing yourself that they're one and the same thing. but it's not like said perception is entirely divorced from what you are/how you act. it's possible that people (to some extent) form the idea of their "selves" based on how they find themselves behaving in certain situations. whether that behavior is entirely dependent upon external circumstances, i'm not sure. i think it's more like a loop; self-image drives behavior and behavior alters self-image and so on, and then something regarding external stimuli. i probably need to think about this more.
    Last edited by Radio; 03-25-2013 at 10:52 AM.

  4. #4
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm pretty sure awareness of socionics can affect one's identity, personality and relations with others, as well as their own personalities' through these relations, and certainly our perception of them, regardless of the system's actual validity.

    The same goes for nearly everything related to psychology, of course.

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think the direction of the effect could be argued to work both ways; on one hand it might reinforce ones view of oneself by serving as a kind of anchor that the mind keeps returning to and establishing as a bastion of certitude. but on the other it can be something you rebel against because its influence is stifling. the two effects probably net out to zero.

  6. #6
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    idk what im saying sounds kinda dark and cynical but:

    Basically it's hard to be completely honest with yourself, as the human ego is filled with contradictions (socialization itself is based on a lot of hypocrisies). the ego itself: is a contradiction. your true self... is simply immortal and narcissistic. so therefore, what you see in a person is really always just the presentation that they want you to see. and while it's easy to point the finger and understand everybody else is doing it, doing it yourself and uncracking your own illusion is the hugest task of all.

    we obviously as a society, reward presentation over substance - because we literally just do not know better.

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    somebody i knew once, hatefully mocked gay people once. they called us all 'shallow.'

    then i thought about how that shouldn't really be an insult at all, as it reminds me of reading a book about life and spirituality...

    maybe im just a secular hedonist socialist satanist, (hooker prostitute wench ala lady gaga) but i thought about how dead inside i feel when i go that deep... and how happy and light i free when i focus on things that a lot of people consider to be 'shallow' then i thought, perhaps people are envious/jealous/hateful judging of others who have found the greater key to life isn't in their identities and personas and other crappy things that always make you question instead of answer, perhaps it *is* actually more in our superficial qualities... but how would you advocate something like this, since we always crave for like that something deep that isn't there. but i think that might be the ultimate mistake too.

    anyways depth has this hypocrisy to it. this dark dead bottom of the lake-hypocrisy. it's like they act as if shallow is deep enough to cut depth where depth should always be avoidant anyway. the very fact that you can get butthurt by so many 'shallow' people proves to me that you're not all that deep yourself to begin with.

    shallow vapid whore.

  8. #8
    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

    What does this even have to do with behaviour being modified by knowing Socionics? That's why people make those kind of statements.

  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

    Schrodinger's cat is a reductio ad absurdum argument against Copenhagen, also the question is how is socionic observation different than standard introspection. In Shrodinger's cat thought experiment, perhaps the cat is the observer of it's own demise, or perhaps the box is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense. The scenario presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schrodinger
    One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
    For a human being there is a series of observations which exist prior to the first meta-cognitive observations, one of which is associated with identity.

    Something like objective collapse theory is imo far better analogy vs copenhagen in giving a way of interpreting the determination of identity (of which socionics is a incomplete measurement of).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...lapse_theories

    Also it seems that conscious observation of the cat is not necessary and only a unconscious measurement via a geiger counter.

    http://web.archive.org/web/200611301...flb311m387.pdf

    The thing I think that occurs is more like this, a human is always observed, always interacting, always collapsing. Socionics is actually a way of categorizing all the processes which interpret interactions via functional blocks, ID/Ego/Super-Ego/Super-Id.

  10. #10
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    .... talking about shallow/depth ....
    I agree, you bring up a good point. Personally I've criticized myself for being too shallow or too deep and done the same to others, when in fact I think its a bit ridiculous. I think the observation that helps me is that shallow and deep are connected. The faccade people try to display is connected to their true self. When something under the surface changes it can spark changes to the outward presentation. I think focus is important too, while I don't think its always good to ignore the depths of one's soul or essence, its also important not to become overly fixated with that and sink into a bottomless ocean. It's maybe occasionally healthy to express yourself from time to time and get out without having to feel guilty about being "shallow".

    Really when others call people "shallow" I think the criticism isn't really supposed to be about telling the other person they should shut down, but related to other things. If I say a mate is "shallow" in a relationship, maybe this is because I want more depth or intimacy, and maybe it would be more constructive to suggest this as opposed to making accusations. If I think a person is dishonest and acting in a way just to get a result, then maybe the real criticism is their deception and not the fact they are "shallow". At any rate, I agree that it's completely worthless for people to run around feeling guilty about being "shallow" and for others to run around with a highbrow notion that "deep" is always better.

    If a person is deceptive, this isn't so much a problem with them being shallow, but a holistic problem that is connected to their inner essence. Although deception is a tricky subject as in some cases deception may be argued to be moral (lying to protect a friend). The point is though I think the language of calling someone "shallow" is maybe not exactly accurate as to what grievance the accuser actually has against said "shallow" person.
    Last edited by male; 03-27-2013 at 07:20 PM.

  11. #11
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Thanks for the response hkkmr, I'm going to have to research what you posted in a little more depth in order to formulate an intelligible response.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would like to know how one can observe Socionics first.

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Shang Tsung

    speaking of like people influencing us, i wonder if people ultimately have less influence on us than we think. i mean cause to be honest a lot of that stuff is manipulative. people who don't go along with the group spirit are usually thought of assholes and i admit it is rather asshole-ish at times but there's also a raw honesty to it. but a lot of time people only pretend to value people more than they really do because it obviously puts them ahead in a more advantageous position society-wise.

    idk ugh im being too dark again but i just feel when two people mesh really the other essences are just really like competing narcissistically to see who is the true strong one, not in such a campy 'haha i am better than you way' but kind of in an organic way, so naturally the submissive essence or whatever morphs and just becomes part of the more stronger/narcissistic identity. so in a way that's kinda why i avoid people sometimes, their pull is too magnetic and strong and if some days im feeling shy and empathetic and like i don't wanna compete i just don't really wanna be absorbed in their tits or whatever.

    im sorry if im going off topic. anyways nice topic man.

  14. #14
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Its made me more aware of everyone elses type, and everyone is more aware of my type through my behavior. And also has helped me appreciate my strength and weaknesses more, so that would have an even more dramatic effect on my behavior. Although, since im very handsome and a genius ESTp....my near perfect symmetry and overexaggerated ESTp behavior just makes me stand out above the rest anyways.

    No joke though, attractiveness means good gene expression/ genetic quality. Type is in your dna, therefore if your attractive you will "pop out" more so to speak, obviously, and your perceived attractiveness/unattractiveness (or information transfer) to other respective types will be enhanced.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leader View Post
    Its made me more aware of everyone elses type, and everyone is more aware of my type through my behavior. And also has helped me appreciate my strength and weaknesses more, so that would have an even more dramatic effect on my behavior. Although, since im very handsome and a genius ESTp....my near perfect symmetry and overexaggerated ESTp behavior just makes me stand out above the rest anyways.

    No joke though, attractiveness means good gene expression/ genetic quality. Type is in your dna, therefore if your attractive you will "pop out" more so to speak, obviously, and your perceived attractiveness/unattractiveness (or information transfer) to other respective types will be enhanced.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leader View Post
    Its made me more aware of everyone elses type, and everyone is more aware of my type through my behavior. And also has helped me appreciate my strength and weaknesses more, so that would have an even more dramatic effect on my behavior. Although, since im very handsome and a genius ESTp....my near perfect symmetry and overexaggerated ESTp behavior just makes me stand out above the rest anyways.

    No joke though, attractiveness means good gene expression/ genetic quality. Type is in your dna, therefore if your attractive you will "pop out" more so to speak, obviously, and your perceived attractiveness/unattractiveness (or information transfer) to other respective types will be enhanced.
    You had me going there haha

  17. #17
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No. Its true.

    Take an ugly person for example, their face is disfigured...even if you're reasonably good at VI, it will be especially harder to VI a much less attractive person than one who has a more symmetrical face.

    Take any type, a beautiful female ESI for example, shes going to attract types that fair well with ESIs in general from a mile away, especially ENTjs.

    Not only that, but attractiveness is correlated with higher IQ. Higher IQ = Better/Smarter behavior (you'll use your functions better). This too will make you more attractive to those around you, especially those who value those functions.

    You think im joking, but I realize its because you can't see things the way I do. I see and experience reality perfectly for what it is (Se), and not only that I recognize and understand patterns in reality perfectly (Ti). Its everywhere, like the matrix.

    Knowledge is Power bruh....thats why i've said that socionics (just like alot of other things) would be dangerous in the wrong hands, people could do alot of good or evil with this, more so the latter. All they would have to do is read a type description, analyze the types weaknesses and strengths, and use that as a template to manipulate a person...like I do sometimes

    But of course alot of people already know about certain types through life experiences, but they dont know about socionics..so they have no way of articulating, or using to full potential, what they already know.
    Last edited by Leader; 03-27-2013 at 08:25 PM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leader View Post
    No. Its true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    No joke though, attractiveness means good gene expression/ genetic quality. Type is in your dna, therefore if your attractive you will "pop out" more so to speak, obviously, and your perceived attractiveness/unattractiveness (or information transfer) to other respective types will be enhanced.
    Haha it was just quite funny how you came across.

    I dunno about all this though, like the quote, guys who are ugly or weak or w/e associated with bad DNA can become infinitely more attractive if the are loaded. Nothing i'm aware of proves type is in DNA. Not meaning to nit pick it was interesting read but hey

  19. #19
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    labster summated my original idea in regards to this topic.
    However upon further thought, i came up with a question. Can one observe their own Sociotype without knowledge of Socionics? Sociotype is a construct that makes no sense without the context of Socionics. So, rationally, observing Socionics absolutely effects one's sociotype. Knowledge of Socionics brings life to the term Sociotype.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  20. #20
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Haha it was just quite funny how you came across.

    I dunno about all this though, like the quote, guys who are ugly or weak or w/e associated with bad DNA can become infinitely more attractive if the are loaded. Nothing i'm aware of proves type is in DNA. Not meaning to nit pick it was interesting read but hey
    Oh okay lol. And yeah lol im too blunt at times. I wasn't trying to say that they have bad DNA or anything, but yeah..

  21. #21
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    labster summated my original idea in regards to this topic.
    However upon further thought, i came up with a question. Can one observe their own Sociotype without knowledge of Socionics? Sociotype is a construct that makes no sense without the context of Socionics. So, rationally, observing Socionics absolutely effects one's sociotype. Knowledge of Socionics brings life to the term Sociotype.
    Yes, people know of or at least have some conception of types already without any knowledge of socionics. But I find that this generally comes with experience, alot of it. But you can basically skip the experience and cheat if you have the knowledge already.
    Now observing their own type? Well, they obviously wouldn't be aware of it, but they'd know that the person is like a brother/sister to them since they understand each other so well and see things the same way.

  22. #22
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,125
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I meant to point out the limitation of the word Sociotype and have it verified or not whether Sociotype was the purposeful word, or rather just a term used in place of Personality, Self-Identity, Ego, etc...

    If Sociotype was the intended word; No, one can not have a Sociotype without observing Socionics. If the word used was not of great importance to the topic, than that leads to a better topic of discussion(IMO). I want Shang to resolve this question.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  23. #23
    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 Shang Tsung View Post
    Thanks for the response hkkmr, I'm going to have to research what you posted in a little more depth in order to formulate an intelligible response.
    I had to research a bit on my response before, as my knowledge of QM is very basic.

    But my thoughts is mostly influenced by Carver Mead and his criticism of Copenhagen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead

    http://www.amazon.com/Collective-Ele.../dp/0262632608

    One of my goals in the next decade is to understand his book, but I simply don't have the math skills to get there at the moment.

    Intuitively what he says makes sense to me, but I couldn't tell you if it's right or not.

    Socionics as it pertains to physics is interesting as the general thought exercise/experiment that it's conducting is to place identity in a waveform model. Model A can be viewed as a waveform description of identity, with compatibility being like say consonance and dissonance in music.

    Duality is supposed to be compatible because the waveform descriptions between duals are in the highest consonance while conflictors will be highest dissonance. I think music is a good analogy because compatibility is a ethical/aesthetic interpretations of a limited spectrum of information that we can detect. In the same way, what socio-type is trying to describe is a limited spectrum of a individual whole, but one that is interpret-able thru ethical/aesthetic mechanisms within the brain.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All quantum mechanics is is the boundaries of perception expanding to incorporate new data. So all "quantum socionics" would be is the continual reassessment of your type based upon new information. Over time you accumulate enough data to become generally sure of your type. Over time your type can also change, too. So that's about the sum of it.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hahhaa.

Posting Permissions

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