Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 52

Thread: What makes you NOT a socionist!!!

  1. #1
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What makes you NOT a socionist!!!

    I fully realize that I am risking to start a conflict here and, please, be assured that this is not my intention.
    My intention is to start a sane discussion in order to sort the things out.
    Many enthusiasts of socionics I know, repeatedly and regretfully fall vicims of the same mistake, not realizing the fact, that what they are doing is NOT socionics at all!!!
    So,

    What makes you NOT a socionist!!!


    1. Socionics started and continues as a MODEL approach which models information processing of the psyche. The generally accepted model now is the Model A. If we forget this, then we completely miss the point. If we think that socionics studies real people in real life (instead of models of TIMs), or types as described in some descriptions, or relationships between real people (instead of relations between TIMs) then we are missing the point.
    2. Typing in socionics is nothing but TIM IDENTIFICATION based on the model A. If you have demonstrated correlation between person’s behavior or thinking or acting and the respective Model A, then and only then you have identified this person’s type. If it seems to you that the person looks similar to someone who you consider to be such-and-such type or if he seems to conform to some description or if he seems to be in a certain relationship to a “known” type or if he has passed some test or else, then, please have no illusion - you still did NOT identify his type.
    3. RELATIONS in socionics are NOT descriptions of some real life observations but analysis of interactions between different TIM models which takes in consideration interactions between the models' functions that process the same information elements.


    Basically that’s all. But it has very serious consequences:

    Even if you think that talking about types is enough to be doing socionics, you might be wrong. A “type” does not necessarily mean a “model” – there are plenty of types without any model behind them at all. Take for example the temperaments or the Myers-Briggs types. They are just some type names with some description behind them, whereas a true model would be a set of elements with defined relations between them.

    If you are typing by using some tools like the Reinin’s dichotomies or Myers-Briggs indicator or VI traits or DNA analysis or brain MRI or fingerprints or handwriting or horoscopes or numerology or any fancy stuff like that, please, take care to demonstrate (either theoretically or practically) that there is a definite correlation between those tools and the Model A. Otherwise you might be well typing some “other” types.

    Use of socionics in order to describe some real life situations without referring to specific models or mechanisms of model interactions could be very deceiving. If you did not identify (or supposed) the TIMs of the participants of a real life situation and if you do not consider interaction between their functions how can you be sure that you are making a socionics analysis at all?

    Providing oneself as an example of such-and-such type’s behavior could be very incorrect mainly for two reasons: (I) one cannot judge himself adequately when it comes to his low-dimensional (you can also call them weak/vulnerable) functions; (II) one’s real life function’s acquired experience can be different. For the same reason could be erroneous an argument of the type: “I would say/do the same thing, hence he/she is my identical type”.

    As far as one realizes all the said above, I personally don’t mind if one is using Model A or not. If one is using numerology or astrology, or any other typology, please, keep in mind that this is NOT socionics.

    Constructive discussion of the above is most welcome.

  2. #2

    Default

    So what you're saying is that socionics is akin to building castles in the sand, or just playing in general. What point is there to socionics other then a metal exercise then?

  3. #3
    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 psvedonim
    Providing oneself as an example of such-and-such type’s behavior could be very incorrect mainly for two reasons: (I) one cannot judge himself adequately when it comes to his low-dimensional (you can also call them weak/vulnerable) functions; (II) one’s real life function’s acquired experience can be different. For the same reason could be erroneous an argument of the type: “I would say/do the same thing, hence he/she is my identical type”.
    This is the problem with Model A, I don't think it sufficiently describes IRL functional development as well as usage. For instance someone may be a Model A ILE, but makes use of Fi than other ILEs, that is function development and function 'strength', to use such terms. Furthermore, in a dual relation, one would at least theoretically expect only 4 functions to be used.

    I appreciate you looking to put a definition on what a socionist is, but until such times as there is direct reproducable evidence that whatever this phenomenon is exists, people are always going to attach other things to 'being a socionist'. Like + and - functions, Reinin dichotomies or something they thought useful (maybe even useless) themselves.

    I mean, opinion is split on VI, you rule it out, someone else doesn't.... who's to say the physical is not another reflection of the functions (much like behaviour and thinking to identify such and such a type) then this is just a belief of your own, unlike someone who sees (believes they see) correlations in VI as well as correlations in behaviour and thought.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    ... until such times as there is direct reproducable evidence that whatever this phenomenon is exists, people are always going to attach other things to 'being a socionist'...
    My understanding of socionics is people produce information, people exchange information, people process information. Where there are then various models that attempt to describe how this happens.

  5. #5
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    So what you're saying is that socionics is akin to building castles in the sand, or just playing in general. What point is there to socionics other then a metal exercise then?
    Hi, what made you conclude that from my words?

  6. #6
    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 Tropski Bolest View Post
    My understanding of socionics is people produce information, people exchange information, people process information. Where there are then various models that attempt to describe how this happens.
    That definition wouldn't just apply to socionics though, but I think that's what it wants to be about, which is my point that until there's reproducable evidence, socionics might describe nothing and it is after all a useful philisophical tool for people to apply to situations in life as a factor which might help them personally, along with some other things.

  7. #7
    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 psevdonim View Post
    RELATIONS in socionics are NOT descriptions of some real life observations but analysis of interactions between different TIM models which takes in consideration interactions between the models' functions that process the same information elements.
    Agreed.

  8. #8
    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 InvisibleJim View Post
    Agreed.
    I am pretty sure that Ashura said that they were backed up by real life observations, so which one is it?

  9. #9
    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 Words View Post
    I am pretty sure that Ashura said that they were backed up by real life observations, so which one is it?
    The one I agreed to. Because you will only see the type relations when two individuals are exactly those types. It's a get out of jail free card for Model A being an approximation of an individual.

  10. #10
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    This is the problem with Model A...
    This is the problem with any model. Unfortunately no model fully describes the reality.

    ...until such times as there is direct reproducable evidence that whatever this phenomenon is exists...
    Since you are so kin on this term, could you explain what you mean by "exist"?

    ...then this is just a belief of your own...
    Sorry, but I can return you the same argument - if you have another opinion that is no more then YOUR belief. Is it going to take us anywhere?

  11. #11
    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 psevdonim View Post
    This is the problem with any model. Unfortunately no model fully describes the reality.


    Since you are so kin on this term, could you explain what you mean by "exist"?


    Sorry, but I can return you the same argument - if you have another opinion that is no more then YOUR belief. Is it going to take us anywhere?
    That was my point, one belief is the same as the other, what I may have or what you may have. Until someone produces something which is reproducable, and that would move it to an actual scientific theory not a pseudo-scientific one as I understand it, it may as well be anything. As it is I would have expected the evidence to be flooding in since this has been around since the 70s, so I see the best gain in socionics to talk about it on the internet without getting too serious, and apply it as I understand it (and in my subjective approximation, it's in a reasonable margin of normal understanding) to situations in life when it suits me.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    Hi, what made you conclude that from my words?
    From what I understand of what you said, you are saying that every aspect of socionics is a model that attempts to approximate certain things about real people in the real world. It is entirely disconnected from reality like how a window has nothing to do with the view from it, even through it can be used to structure it, show certain patterns. Or reality does not obey the rules of socionics. Did I misinterpret you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    That definition wouldn't just apply to socionics though, but I think that's what it wants to be about, which is my point that until there's reproducable evidence, socionics might describe nothing and it is after all a useful philisophical tool for people to apply to situations in life as a factor which might help them personally, along with some other things.
    Do you think one could construct an entirely empirical kind of socionics?

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    That was my point, one belief is the same as the other, what I may have or what you may have. Until someone produces something which is reproducable, and that would move it to an actual scientific theory not a pseudo-scientific one as I understand it, it may as well be anything. As it is I would have expected the evidence to be flooding in since this has been around since the 70s, so I see the best gain in socionics to talk about it on the internet without getting too serious, and apply it as I understand it (and in my subjective approximation, it's in a reasonable margin of normal understanding) to situations in life when it suits me.
    Do you frequent the Russian discussion sites on socionics? From what I understand, people in Russia are attempting to do just that, give it some scientificity.

  14. #14
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    From what I understand of what you said, you are saying that every aspect of socionics is a model that attempts to approximate certain things about real people in the real world.
    Correct.

    It is entirely disconnected from reality like how a window has nothing to do with the view from it, even through it can be used to structure it, show certain patterns.
    If it can be used to structure reality then it already cannot be entirely disconnected from it. It is exaclty the connection point - serve to reflect the reality.

    Or reality does not obey the rules of socionics. Did I misinterpret you?
    Reality need not obey the rules of socionics, rather the contrary - these rules have been invented to model (make a mental image of) the reality. Reality is something we are trying to get glimpse of and models serve to that end.

  15. #15
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    Do you frequent the Russian discussion sites on socionics? From what I understand, people in Russia are attempting to do just that, give it some scientificity.
    Yes, we are attempting to do that. And there is a number of articles which try to demonstrate that connection of socionics with reality. If you are interested, there is an attempt to translate in English the site of the socionics school to which I belong to: http://en.socionicasys.ru (or if you can read in Russian: http://socionicasys.ru)

  16. #16

    Default

    Aha. My interpretations was of socionics in and of itself. Like, if it's not reality what's the point.

    So from what I understand you it's kind of like various approximations used in say physics. We know of stuff like relativity but Newtonian mechanics is a very good approximation of reality.

    But a window can distort reality entirely and replace it with another. How can you assert the validity of the distortion and interpretations?

    EDIT: I would be very interested in any attempt to scientifify socionics.

  17. #17
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    So from what I understand you it's kind of like various approximations used in say physics. We know of stuff like relativity but Newtonian mechanics is a very good approximation of reality.
    Exactly! That's the point. Using modeling permitted to the natural sciences to make a considerable progress also in terms of practical applications. Why not try to use the same approach to the study of human (perhaps, not only human) mind?

    But a window can distort reality entirely and replace it with another. How can you assert the validity of the distortion and interpretations?
    Do you have a mobile phone? Is that enough to prove the validity of a bunch of scientific theories and models?

    In case of socionics the only stumbling stone is objectivity. Whereas in the natural sciences you can measure something "objectively" i.e. using some instrument which does not depend on you (supposedly), in socionics you cannot do that. At least not yet. Mainly because the phenomena of mind we are trying to measure are not detectable with any known instuments. However, to my belief human mind can serve as a pretty good measurement instrument, provided it is properly calibrated. And it is already used that way in the practice of expertise.
    Not reaching too far, anyone could serve as a measuring tape or a ruler to estimate a length of some object or a distance. Of course, there would be an error but every measuring instrument has an error.
    So mainly using our mind as a measuring tool comes down to a question of correct methodology. And the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent experts. For me if that happens, it would be a sufficient proof that we do register some phenomenon and in Word's terms you could say that it "exists".

    Probably that also aswers to the "Consensus" discussion going on neaby. If you ask me, we have no other tool except consensus, but a concensus of "calibrated" experts.
    Last edited by psevdonim; 05-18-2013 at 12:47 PM.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    Exactly! That's the point. Using modeling permitted to the natural sciences to make a considerable progress also in terms of practical applications. Why not try to use the same approach to the study of human (perhaps, not only human) mind?
    It most certainly makes sense (to me). But then the emphasis should be on experiments and model testing.

    What about the underlining assumption that there is a model to be found? For example how would you go about modeling things like the stock market and various chaotic systems? Can everything in existence be modeled? Can mathematics describe the entirety of existence?

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    And the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent experts. For me if that happens, it would be a sufficient proof that we do register some phenomenon and in Word's terms you could say that it "exists".

    Probably that also aswers to the "Consensus" discussion going on neaby. If you ask me, we have no other tool except consensus, but a concensus of "calibrated" experts.
    I was going to mention that. Would you be saying, yes, consensus is the best we can have, for now, but like how medicine was a pseudoscience a 1000 years ago, limited by a lack of tools and knowledge, I see a bright future for the development of socionics as a hard science?

    What constitutes an expert?
    Last edited by Tropski Bolest; 05-18-2013 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Damn it, can't find the article, removed the section

  19. #19
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,932
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    @psevdonim, go sell pseudoscience somewhere else. We're all stocked up here.

  20. #20
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no such a thing as a socionist, so it's really moot to debate these points.

    I also completely disagree with your approach. Obviously if you want to do any kind of personality psychology you need to be talking about real people. Otherwise you'd better spend time watching porn.

    I also think YOU are missing the point. Jung derived his insights by observing REAL people. It's inexcusable to think about a derivation of Jung's work as being exclusively theoretical.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  21. #21
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    What about the underlining assumption that there is a model to be found? For example how would you go about modeling things like the stock market and various chaotic systems? Can everything in existence be modeled? Can mathematics describe the entirety of existence?
    Well, I am not sure that everything should be modeled. Things like art most definetely need not be modelled. Modeling should be applied where it is productive. And really I don't know anything about stock market, prebably it could be modeled too but it requires some talent too in order to build an adequate model. I don't believe that I would be able to do that.

    Would you be saying, yes, consensus is the best we can have, for now, but like how medicine was a pseudoscience a 1000 years ago, limited by a lack of tools and knowledge...
    I cannot have put it better. This is also a good answer to those who accuse socionics of being a pseudoscience. All the science has developed from a kind of pseudoscience.

  22. #22
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I also completely disagree with your approach. Obviously if you want to do any kind of personality psychology you need to be talking about real people.
    In fact I didn't want to say that socionics won't be talking about real people or observing real people as well. I meant to define subject and approach of socionics. That's all. You can talk about real John Doe as much as you wish but once you say that John Doe is ILE (for instance) then you have to consider the above.

    I also think YOU are missing the point. Jung derived his insights by observing REAL people. It's inexcusable to think about a derivation of Jung's work as being exclusively theoretical.
    By no means I meant to accuse Jung of being non socionist He never claimed to use socionics.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    As far as one realizes all the said above, I personally don’t mind if one is using Model A or not. If one is using numerology or astrology, or any other typology, please, keep in mind that this is NOT socionics.
    Didn't really notice. So those who use them instead of Socionics aren't socionists - they're astrologers, numerologists, etc. Great.

    Wonder whether Jung's typology is any different from Socionics at all though, taking into account people on here use both and happen to see no problem with it, besides not being a socionist that they suffer greatly from.

    And I think Jung did clinical observations of people, real people of course, pending treatment and counseling during their illness(?)

    Anyhow, you think Socionics is anti-Jung, psevdonim? I mean, taken its emphasis on a model and trying to measure TIM by Ti superpowers, it looks like Jung's work falls somewhat behind. One could say the same about Socionics when contrasted with natural sciences you mentioned.
    Last edited by Absurd; 05-18-2013 at 05:59 PM.

  24. #24
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    What constitutes an expert?
    Basically it is quite obvious. A typing expert must have good understanding of information elements and the model, have practical experience of identifying information elements in interaction (speech is most convenient but it can be also behavior) and in identifying model's functions by their parameters (dimension, vital/mental track etc). There are some indicators in speech which help one to see the functions' "signatures". For example, this article sheds some light on the subject.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    I couldn't have put it better. This is also a good answer to those who accuse socionics of being a pseudoscience. All the sciences developed from a kind of pseudoscience.
    That's my own belief as well. Those three pillars I mentioned, information exists, information is exchanged and information is processed, is what makes me think socionics has a very bright future. Models will come and go but I think the foundations of socionics are valid, real.

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    And really I don't know anything about stock market, prebably it could be modeled too but it requires some talent too in order to build an adequate model. I don't believe that I would be able to do that.
    I used it as an example of changeable model. Well I guess layered, as you can then use a model to model the changes.

    Consider this, you can model the stock market by using equations that cannot be solved and are valid in only a very short time span and in very specific situations. It can also be modeled by models which are broad and general. However those tend to be statistically uncorrelated to reality. That is, those models do not model reality, they model something and make accurate predictions no more then chance would allow it. Because the model of the stock market is inherently dynamic it cannot be described by a static model.

    Just thinking about what kind of a model a model can be. With dynamic models experts need not come to an agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    Basically it is quite obvious. A typing expert must have good understanding of information elements and the model, have practical experience of identifying information elements in interaction (speech is most convenient but it can be also behavior) and in identifying model's functions by their parameters (dimension, vital/mental track etc). There are some indicators in speech which help one to see the functions' "signatures". For example, this article sheds some light on the subject.
    And who or how is an expert constituted / all of that is determined? Subjectively? You have to choose to accept it? How do you settle arguments on expertise?

  27. #27
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Wonder whether Jung's typology is any different from Socionics at all
    Yes, they are different. There is an article on the subject, I believe. Socionics understnding of information elements is different from Jung's sensing, thinking etc, Jungs model is different.

    ...though, taking into account people on here use both and happen to see no problem with it, besides not being a socionist that they suffer greatly from.
    That's why I have written this post. It is not about suffering it is about being aware of the difference. Because there IS difference.

    And I think Jung did clinical observations of people, real people of course, pending treatment and counseling during their illness(?)
    Great! Aristotle and Socrates and all the guys up to Einstein have done great deeds too. Does this mean that we are not allowed to make a step which would be different from what they did?

    Anyhow, you think Socionics is anti-Jung, psevdonim? I mean, taken its emphasis on a model and trying to measure TIM by Ti superpowers, it looks like Jung's work falls somewhat behind. One could say the same about Socionics when contrasted with natural sciences you mentioned.
    Well, if you say so... I am not interested so much in building a "who's cooler" hierarchy. Do you?
    If I see good potential in the approach of socionics I just express this opinion. Is Jung a kind of holy cow?

  28. #28
    Anglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lithuania
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 7w8 So/Sp
    Posts
    1,354
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So @psevdonim what happened between you and @Yaaroslav , was it love at first sight?

  29. #29
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    And who or how is an expert constituted / all of that is determined? Subjectively? You have to choose to accept it? How do you settle arguments on expertise?
    Well, in the domain of socionics everything is subjective. I didn't quite understand the question. When we have arguments it could be for one of the following reasons:
    1. Not quite synchronized theoretical or methodological understanding.
    2. Not sufficient material for analysis.
    3. We have encountered a phenomenon not described by existing model.

    Mostly it happens for the second reason, then we just have to acquire more material until the picture gets clearer. Sometimes we can leave a case unsolved for the lack of material.

  30. #30

    Default

    It's more of a if it walks like a duck, talks like duck and acts like a duck, could it be a monkey in disguise?

    I use to frequent this forum a long time ago and there were people that presented themselves as experts. You could really buy it. But after a while of observing things around me, people in real life, what they were saying was being contradicted by my own observations. So for example when you say “A typing expert must have good understanding of information elements and the model”. Who determines that? How is it determined? What if I say bullshit and 10 other people say, no no, he's SPOT on. Is an expert determined by consensus? By other experts?

    Basically the statement “the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent experts” is it really “the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent literately anybody”?

  31. #31
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tropski Bolest View Post
    It's more of a if it walks like a duck, talks like duck and acts like a duck, could it be a monkey in disguise?
    it might be well a monkey in disguise. If eventyally you find out that it was a monkey you'll look for a reason which made you take this monkey for a duck. You will detect a hole in your understanding and this is great. this is what helps us improve. You might find interesting this article which treats the subject.

    I use to frequent this forum a long time ago and there were people that presented themselves as experts. You could really buy it. But after a while of observing things around me, people in real life, what they were saying was being contradicted by my own observations.
    Well, if they contradict your observations, don't trust them including myself, of course.

    So for example when you say “A typing expert must have good understanding of information elements and the model”. Who determines that? How is it determined?
    The model and elements are intoduced apriori. There is no other way, some notions in any theory are introduced apriori. If they contradict your observations - discard them.

    What if I say bullshit and 10 other people say, no no, he's SPOT on. Is an expert determined by consensus? By other experts?
    We take it for granted that no expert says bullshit because of his evil spirits. So, basically at the stage when they say the bullshit, they honestly belive in it. So at the point of expressing it is no bullshit but opinion. It becomes the bullsit later when you demonstrate that it is an erroneous opinion. Well... it can happen to anyone to say and believe in bullshit. But since the bullshit is against the truth (or reality), sooner or later it will come up and will stink. The real problem is when you persist in the bullshit ignoring the stinking.

    Basically the statement “the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent experts” is it really “the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent literately anybody”?
    Yes, virtually experts are those "anybody". The main difference is that anybody does not care about special terms and notions. But yes, anybody will feel the objective effects of information interactions. That's what makes me believe in the objective side of such "unmaterial" matter as information interaction. And if the model is correct, it will have practical benefits including taking care of people mentionned above in the discussion and relationships prognisis and influence on other people and other things.

    Is an expert determined by consensus?
    Oh, if you are talking about technical side it might be some expert ranking system. The more hits you have the higher your rank is. we didn't intoduce it yet because it could provoke some unhealthy competition. But usually any specialist can estimate his collegues qualifications quite well.
    Last edited by psevdonim; 05-18-2013 at 08:02 PM.

  32. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    Yes, they are different. There is an article on the subject, I believe. Socionics understnding of information elements is different from Jung's sensing, thinking etc, Jungs model is different.
    Well, providing it is different the average Joe can be tempted to reason thusly:

    Socionics being a different animal than Jung's typology and Jung's typology being a different animal than Socionics, not all typings made via both are going to end up in the same place, so you're already taking a subjective stance here favouring one over another convinced of the validity of the former and killing the latter for reasons you mentioned.


    It is not about suffering it is about being aware of the difference.


    Great! Aristotle and Socrates and all the guys up to Einstein have done great deeds too. Does this mean that we are not allowed to make a step which would be different from what they did?
    Well Socrates said that all he knows is that he knows nothing - outstanding deed, indeed. Aristotle being the master of cause and effect surely impacted art answering the "why?" with "because."

    Einstein alongside Karl Marx got a bit political (theory of relativity aside) and smacked Capitalism in both cheeks like a Christian that he wasn't. I'm sure Christians didn't welcome the smack like proper Christians ought to going by scripture.

    Well, if you say so... I am not interested so much in building a "who's cooler" hierarchy. Do you?
    I'm only interested in things that "work" in some way making it easier for me and others.

    If I see good potential in the approach of socionics I just express this opinion. Is Jung a kind of holy cow?
    Aristotle did as well, not in Socionics though. As for Jung? Hmm, ask around and you'll see...

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  34. #34
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    I'm only interested in things that "work" in some way making it easier for me and others..
    It would be quite a hard task to find such things without trying them.

  35. #35
    A dusty and dreadful charade. Scapegrace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    TIM
    ill
    Posts
    3,055
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This mean ass Ukranian is going to make Maritsa cry. Ban him.
    "[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan

    Brought to you by socionix.com

  36. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    It would be quite a hard task to find such things without trying them.
    This sounds mighty familiar. Heard it on this forum before. Thanks, anyway.

  37. #37
    psevdonim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kiev, Ukraine
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Well Socrates said that all he knows is that he knows nothing - outstanding deed, indeed. Aristotle being the master of cause and effect surely impacted art answering the "why?" with "because."
    Einstein alongside Karl Marx got a bit political (theory of relativity aside) and smacked Capitalism in both cheeks like a Christian that he wasn't. I'm sure Christians didn't welcome the smack like proper Christians ought to going by scripture.
    Congratulations! You have done them all!

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    it might be well a monkey in disguise. If eventyally you find out that it was a monkey you'll look for a reason which made you take this monkey for a duck. You will detect a hole in your understanding and this is great. this is what helps us improve. You might find interesting this article which treats the subject.


    Well, if they contradict your observations, don't trust them including myself, of course.


    The model and elements are intoduced apriori. There is no other way, some notions in any theory are introduced apriori. If they contradict your observations - discard them.


    We take it for granted that no expert says bullshit because of his evil spirits. So, basically at the stage when they say the bullshit, they honestly belive in it. So at the point of expressing it is no bullshit but opinion. It becomes the bullsit later when you demonstrate that it is an erroneous opinion. Well... it can happen to anyone to say and believe in bullshit. But since the bullshit is against the truth (or reality), sooner or later it will come up and will stink. The real problem is when you persist in the bullshit ignoring the stinking.


    Yes, virtually experts are those "anybody". The main difference is that anybody does not care about special terms and notions. But yes, anybody will feel the objective effects of information interactions. That's what makes me believe in the objective side of such "unmaterial" matter as information interaction. And if the model is correct, it will have practical benefits including taking care of people mentionned above in the discussion and relationships prognisis and influence on other people and other things.


    Oh, if you are talking about technical side it might be some expert ranking system. The more hits you have the higher your rank is. we didn't intoduce it yet because it could provoke some unhealthy competition. But usually any specialist can estimate his collegues qualifications quite well.
    Meh, that sounds awful. You have to become an expert yourself in order to determine the expertise of the expert. You can't just Oh, they say they're an expert, let's give them these impartial, deterministic tests and tasks to perform while we go away, do nothing, not get invested at all, and just look at and interpret the results. That would be much more preferable.

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psevdonim View Post
    Congratulations! You have done them all!
    I can "do" a lot more of them. I can nibble at Plato, Augustine of Hippo and so on. Dead people do not really mind.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Those are precisely my concerns regarding expertise!

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
  •