Lying about type

[Reficulris]

One thing about socionics is odd to me. Sometimes it seems like they assume that everyone wears their personality on their sleeve. This seems somehow wrong to me, as many people shape perceptions about themselves to the extend where it's almost impossible to see their true self.

Let me explain what I mean:

When i'm applying for a job, meeting a client, walking the street or wooing a love, I will walk in a shield of created identity, bigger than life, more succesfull, disciplined, talented and interesting. I create this as a mechanism to protect the vulnerable emotional and flaky guy that I am. Ofcourse, after a while that guy will be known, but by then I hope to have added enough value to the lives of people around me for them to accept that person. Faking a certain personality, speaking a certain jargon, claiming certain believes is easy enough for most socially competent people (even if they, like me, don't like doing it).

Faking a type in an assessment is easy, doing the same in interviews usually isn't that hard either. While dating i'm quite sure everyone can at least hide their weakest sides.

For some people I know it has taken YEARS for them to look through the created identity, for some others i've dropped it a second after meeting, but obfuscating who I am never really seemed that hard.

Now, some of you will think this is inauthentic, and in a way it is, but showing who you are to people is a huge risk, so at least in superficial, first impression context it's more safe for me to play the role. This is not to say that i'm without quirks and such, just that those quirks could be considered to be adapted to the environment.

I'm not asking wether this is a good thing or not, nor am I asking about what function this deals with (i've got a pretty good idea). I'm just wondering how it impacts typing. A lot of people here assume they're good at typing and or judging people, even justifying their self-typing with that. Do you keep into account deliberate or non-deliberate obfuscation? I think many, if not most, people here hide more than they show, and often I wonder if socionics actually encourages looking deeper or just makes people more comfortable about their "typing" skills :s

[suedehead]

This is maybe unrelated but sometimes I consider what my personality would be like if I didn't care about being proactive/consistent about the few things that I consider important, because this could maybe be a facade or something temporary (I wasn't like this in highschool). If I just went off impulse and did random things. But in that case, I don't think I'd be doing much of anything or really enjoying myself more importantly, and I'd just end up wanting to go back to how I'm going about things now.

[ashlesha]

you might be interested in the info on socionics masks. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post809826

[InvisibleJim]

Keep reading this as 'Laughing about type'

[Reficulris]

you might be interested in the info on socionics masks. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post809826

Thanks, this is exactly what i was looking for.

How controversial is this article? Do people take "masks" into account while typing people?

I usually, when trying to get to know people, see many layers of masks, and try to punch through (with humor, manipulation, flattery etc) as many layers as I can. (also remembering them so I know what to expect of people in certain situations). But when trying to fix a type on that plethora of layers, I always doubt i've punched deep enough to find their "true" type. So nowadays I settle for typing the deepest layer I can see without concluding that this is the true one. This is enough for predicting people practically/cold reading but it still bothers me somewhat.

[ashlesha]

How controversial is this article? Do people take "masks" into account while typing people?

eh, i dont think many people use it when typing. but its not like you cant

[mu4]

This sounds just like ego. The ego is the shield. Or more appropriately it's the easiest way for an individual to create this shield.

The shield is what the ego type represents, the "true self" is a just the whole.

Now people can develop mask upon their ego, which is due to other pressures.

[Reficulris]

This sounds just like ego. The ego is the shield. Or more appropriately it's the easiest way for an individual to create this shield.

The shield is what the ego type represents, the "true self" is a just the whole.

Now people can develop mask upon their ego, which is due to other pressures.

Elaborate
Im particularly interested in how that meshes with the Mask changing behaviour. I Represent myself markedly different here than to aquintances in real life. Again, differently to friends family. Extremely different to business contacts. Again, differently to loved ones. Can this all be explained within the two functions in the ego?

[Reficulris]

This is maybe unrelated but sometimes I consider what my personality would be like if I didn't care about being proactive/consistent about the few things that I consider important, because this could maybe be a facade or something temporary (I wasn't like this in highschool). If I just went off impulse and did random things. But in that case, I don't think I'd be doing much of anything or really enjoying myself more importantly, and I'd just end up wanting to go back to how I'm going about things now.

This sounds like you're wondering what you're life would be without superego functions?

[Galen]

This is why Socionics makes for a terrible basis for understanding personality, in that it was never meant to explain personality at all. If you want personality, stick to Big 5 or Enneagram.

[Reficulris]

This is why Socionics makes for a terrible basis for understanding personality, in that it was never meant to explain personality at all. If you want personality, stick to Big 5 or Enneagram.

Big five is terribly non-descriptive though. And i've never been fond of enneagram, it's about as effective as predicting the stock exchange by reading tea-leaves.

That said, don't "masks" or "roles" mask informational preferences too?

Also, in the end, if not personality determination, what is the end-goal of socionics? There must have been some practical goal (I always assumed making people and relationships more predictable/understandable)?

Edit: also 95% of what is going on here on the forum deals with personality rather than pure perception theory.

[Galen]

Big five is terribly non-descriptive though. And i've never been fond of enneagram, it's about as effective as predicting the stock exchange by reading tea-leaves.

I never saw enneagram as claiming to possess any strong predictive powers. It's a much better explanation of personality than socionics though, by a wide margin. Predicting personality in a vacuum with a typology template is a pretty shitty endeavor anyway.

That said, don't "masks" or "roles" mask informational preferences too?

The premise as I understand is that information input and synthesis can't be faked or replicated with any sort of natural ease if it's not valued. It'd be like trying to cut your fingernails with a hacksaw. Like sure, you can do it with enough effort, but what you really want are some nail cutters to get the job done easier.

Also, in the end, if not personality determination, what is the end-goal of socionics? There must have been some practical goal (I always assumed making people and relationships more predictable/understandable)?

Understand how people synthesize information in a rather abstracted sense, sure. Understanding relationships, maybe in only the broadest of senses. There's way more that goes into interpersonal interaction than compatible raw information synthesis though, as should be apparent to anybody who's ever talked with more than five people.

Edit: also 95% of what is going on here on the forum deals with personality rather than pure perception theory.

95% of what's talked about on the forum sucks.

[darya]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. You don't believe in anything that socionics or enneagram say, you believe that every person can wear each type as a mask and has completely different personalities for different ocassions.

That's all a legit opinion, but why are you here then? And maybe if you would take some time and try to actually understand any of those typology systems a bit deeper, you would get something out of it...Or at least start seeing patterns and similarities/differences in people's behaviours. I mean, I would understand if you would be just "fuck it" and hang out here for fun, but why starting these annoying threads then.

And why do I still have a feeling like you wouldn't be able to spot an SLI e9 from an EIE e3 with a flashlight in the middle of the day? Not that it's important to have this ability and ofc we all make a bunch of mistakes when typing people, but that's just a bit surprising to me after spending all this time on typology forum (and supposedly being Ne base on top of that )

And no, I highly doubt you're a completely different person in each of those circumstances. I'm yet to meet such a person and if I would, I would be very afraid.

[mu4]

Elaborate
Im particularly interested in how that meshes with the Mask changing behaviour. I Represent myself markedly different here than to aquintances in real life. Again, differently to friends family. Extremely different to business contacts. Again, differently to loved ones. Can this all be explained within the two functions in the ego?

Type is about cognition not about behavior, your behavior will change based on what you're doing.

I don't think there is a person that is exactly the same behavior wise in the varied different situations but that doesn't mean the cognitive processes an individual uses are different.

A person is not just their ego, the type identifiers are just a representation of the ego functions of a person, a person's socionics type is described by the model A explanation of their type. This is of course a limited aspect of a whole individual, but a significant one. Nobody is 2 functions and nobody is their socionics type, Model A is all 8 functions and a holistic individual is not described only by socionics type.

If you really think you're a totally different person in each and every one of those situations you mentioned or you put on a different mask, do you even know who you really are? Perhaps that's a mask too. Perhaps you have a identity crisis.

Anyways I think you're asking fairly bad questions which have no answers because the questions are bad. TBQH I didn't really want to respond to this thread, because it seemed like a huge language game how many angels can fit on the head of a pin thread.

In socionics, and in just plain old human observation, most people can't really fake who they are, and if they really can, they're generally crazy, psychotic, or something which is very rare. Most people are exactly who they pretend to be and also exactly who they're hiding from the rest of the world. The whole of them is just the whole of them. This is a normative study, not based on disorder.

As far as masks and such, humans are more than just our personality. We have many adaptations such as mimicry and such, although some types may have developed advanced conscious control of their mimicry.

[Reficulris]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. You don't believe in anything that socionics or enneagram say, you believe that every person can wear each type as a mask and has completely different personalities for different ocassions..

Then why do you respond, there's four people above you who do understand the purpose of the thread and offered constructive and insightfull posts.

I don't BELIEVE socionics no, doesn't mean i'm not interested in it. It's probably an distinction that's lost to you. And no, enneagram is crap, this forum isn't about enneagram though, it's just a patch that gets applied to typings.

That's all a legit opinion, but why are you here then? And maybe if you would take some time and try to actually understand any of those typology systems a bit deeper, you would get something out of it...Or at least start seeing patterns and similarities/differences in people's behaviours. I mean, I would understand if you would be just "fuck it" and hang out here for fun, but why starting these annoying threads then.

More baseless assumptions based on not understanding me. What makes you think i've not tried to understand enneagram? I have, and i've discarded it. Socionics is something i'm trying to understand right now, this thread is part of that. I see patterns, similarities and differences, i'm trying to match my personal experience with this theory and struggling since it doesn't seem to be all that responsive (partly due to what @Galen pointed out, partly due to it being extremely abstract and complicated and rigid). As for starting an annoying thread, well my dear girl, the answer is in the above, i'm not just hanging out here for fun. Fun is the main motivator, but the most fun thing is understanding something/someone. If you don't like my threads, again, don't read/participate, your oppinion is not needed necessarily nor is your pressence.

And why do I still have a feeling like you wouldn't be able to spot an SLI e9 from an EIE e3 with a flashlight in the middle of the day? Not that it's important to have this ability and ofc we all make a bunch of mistakes when typing people, but that's just a bit surprising to me after spending all this time on typology forum (and supposedly being Ne base on top of that )

More assumptions based on your awesome people skills. I'd say for such a self aware Ni valuing creature you're pretty lousy at typing (see my type me thread for you swtiching around at will). Now I never made the claim that I could "spot an SLI". I dont believe in SLI's. I do however have a fair understanding of people, backed by a psychology degree to keep my biasses in check. What's your evidence for your people skills? Wait, no don't answer that, just don't reply to me anymore since you're going on ignore anyways...

And no, I highly doubt you're a completely different person in each of those circumstances. I'm yet to meet such a person and if I would, I would be very afraid.

Assume what you will, I believe the accertion above proves something i've just tried to establish.

[Galen]

Well, that was fast.

[Reficulris]

Type is about cognition not about behavior, your behavior will change based on what you're doing.

I don't think there is a person that is exactly the same behavior wise in the varied different situations but that doesn't mean the cognitive processes an individual uses are different.

A person is not just their ego, the type identifiers are just a representation of the ego functions of a person, a person's socionics type is described by the model A explanation of their type. This is of course a limited aspect of a whole individual, but a significant one. Nobody is 2 functions and nobody is their socionics type, Model A is all 8 functions and a holistic individual is not described only by socionics type..

Fair enough

If you really think you're a totally different person in each and every one of those situations you mentioned or you put on a different mask, do you even know who you really are? Perhaps that's a mask too. Perhaps you have a identity crisis.

yes, there's a "mask" that I default to it's the one that costs least energy so I asume it's the main part of my psyche. I'd also say that Identity crisis, could be a good summary of my state, but it has been ever since I was a kid, in the sense that i've always been doubtfull of the stable identity hypothesis, based on my own changing internal make-up and that of others.

Anyways I think you're asking fairly bad questions which have no answers because the questions are bad. TBQH I didn't really want to respond to this thread, because it seemed like a huge language game how many angels can fit on the head of a pin thread.

hahhaa you know the angles on a pin thing? that's fairly obscure humor though. Did you do some philosophy on the side?
The questions are bad because I'm not seeing a fit between socionics and personal subjective experience. This leads to me trying to find out where the gaps stem from or maybe even trying to bend socionics into something it's not.

In socionics, and in just plain old human observation, most people can't really fake who they are, and if they really can, they're generally crazy, psychotic, or something which is very rare. Most people are exactly who they pretend to be and also exactly who they're hiding from the rest of the world. The whole of them is just the whole of them. This is a normative study, not based on disorder.

I see a similar language confusion with you as in the young russian problem discussion we had. Are you sure that all people are exactly whom they pretend to be and what they hide? Or is that you? I mean, I see something totally different, usually in people who are considered "healthy" at least by the standards of modern abnormal psychology. I can live with a statement "this is the assumption socionics makes" if that's the case, but i'm highly doubting what you said is the universal truth (see our discussions about epistemology).

As far as masks and such, humans are more than just our personality. We have many adaptations such as mimicry and such, although some types may have developed advanced conscious control of their mimicry

Fair enough

[mu4]

I'm not really going to go into your personal experience or your ideas on stable identity, it's not really something that anyone can comment on beyond a shrug.

hahhaa you know the angles on a pin thing? that's fairly obscure humor though. Did you do some philosophy on the side?
The questions are bad because I'm not seeing a fit between socionics and personal subjective experience. This leads to me trying to find out where the gaps stem from or maybe even trying to bend socionics into something it's not.

I see a similar language confusion with you as in the young russian problem discussion we had. Are you sure that all people are exactly whom they pretend to be and what they hide? Or is that you? I mean, I see something totally different, usually in people who are considered "healthy" at least by the standards of modern abnormal psychology. I can live with a statement "this is the assumption socionics makes" if that's the case, but i'm highly doubting what you said is the universal truth (see our discussions about epistemology).

Fair enough

I've studied a lot of philosophy and natural sciences yes.

The problem with your questions is I'm not sure you understand your questions or you're not expressing it properly, you're also assuming you understand socionics and/or your personal subjective experience. It's seems to be really just a expression of a feeling of disagreement.

A person is just everything about them, no more no less, we cannot fully qualify or quantify this at the present time or really even close. I also never said people were "only" who they pretend to be or what they're hiding. Those are parts of their whole but are not the whole. However those parts are them. What I said was a tautology, people are just who they are and this means everything. What I'm telling you is that you don't know and socionics does not presumes to know either. You are assuming that socionics presumes to know and this is a incorrect assumption, it presumes to offer insight and understanding about a part of a individuals whole and is limited just to that. There are simply aspects of a individual it cannot comment no.

I think you need to look at the assumptions you're making about your personality as well as assumptions you're making about socionics, list them out and cross off the ones that aren't true of verifiable.

As I said it's very easy to engage in a language game here especially when assumptions are made about things which cannot be made.

[ryoka14]

can't your functions in socionics be used to predict what kind of mask you'd make? So in a way your mask actually is who you are?

[krieger]

This is why Socionics makes for a terrible basis for understanding personality, in that it was never meant to explain personality at all. If you want personality, stick to Big 5 or Enneagram.

did you really have to mention the only two things worse than socionics.

[mu4]

can't your functions in socionics be used to predict what kind of mask you'd make? So in a way your mask actually is who you are?

Give socionic theory, and model a, common masks are likely to be something like supervision. 2/3 function are contact functions and 3rd function is bold like the 1st function. Other masks that maybe common maybe id masks but this is a unconscious mask.

I myself have a supervision Mask which I can adopt. My initial typing in socionics I had a hard time determing whether I was LII or ILI but due to a previous ENTP MBTI assessment where I was younger I was able to determine I was ILE,

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post809826

This was described exactly here.

[The Martrix]

Too right! I just did a Big 5 test, and it in no way described me in any way, shape or form... I think I'll stick to Socionics.

[woofwoofl]

A general pattern I've seen, and heard stated from other people here, is that as time goes on, type gets harder to discern.

At some level, conscious or not, I expect everyone to grow, to become bigger, fuller, more complete, and this would take place here in seeing what were previously blind spots, and maybe even seeing that which was always seen, but in fuller detail. Sharper and stronger lines of judgements. As for enneagram, this is why I go towards tritypes with no set order as much as I do, it takes in everything.

This now becomes largely a question of whether or not there's more honesty in a person doing their best or doing their worst, and the only way I'll go forward, and likely the only way anyone will go forward, is with the former. A lot of this can be infinitely simpler or more complex than just resting at the current system of sixteen types. Still digesting much of the new Filatova and Moshenko material.

For this, and multiple other reasons, I took almost all self-typings of myself down. Also because people are using this for emo/drama/war too much, and for transcendence, not enough. Socionix is a graveyard for a reason; nothing with roots will ever grow with that approach, and it's all too fitting that the only thing active on that site are bots. Soon, even the bots will vanish.

[Words]

One thing about socionics is odd to me. Sometimes it seems like they assume that everyone wears their personality on their sleeve. This seems somehow wrong to me, as many people shape perceptions about themselves to the extend where it's almost impossible to see their true self.

Let me explain what I mean:

When i'm applying for a job, meeting a client, walking the street or wooing a love, I will walk in a shield of created identity, bigger than life, more succesfull, disciplined, talented and interesting. I create this as a mechanism to protect the vulnerable emotional and flaky guy that I am. Ofcourse, after a while that guy will be known, but by then I hope to have added enough value to the lives of people around me for them to accept that person. Faking a certain personality, speaking a certain jargon, claiming certain believes is easy enough for most socially competent people (even if they, like me, don't like doing it).

Faking a type in an assessment is easy, doing the same in interviews usually isn't that hard either. While dating i'm quite sure everyone can at least hide their weakest sides.

For some people I know it has taken YEARS for them to look through the created identity, for some others i've dropped it a second after meeting, but obfuscating who I am never really seemed that hard.

Now, some of you will think this is inauthentic, and in a way it is, but showing who you are to people is a huge risk, so at least in superficial, first impression context it's more safe for me to play the role. This is not to say that i'm without quirks and such, just that those quirks could be considered to be adapted to the environment.

I'm not asking wether this is a good thing or not, nor am I asking about what function this deals with (i've got a pretty good idea). I'm just wondering how it impacts typing. A lot of people here assume they're good at typing and or judging people, even justifying their self-typing with that. Do you keep into account deliberate or non-deliberate obfuscation? I think many, if not most, people here hide more than they show, and often I wonder if socionics actually encourages looking deeper or just makes people more comfortable about their "typing" skills :s

You can't use socionics or any typology system to predict everything about a person or their relationships, to do this would be like being able to build a program that correctly predicted the lottery numbers - and I don't know why someone would even try.* Every so often though with socionics something goes click and I go, "ah, that makes sense".

Its also an abstract tool to discuss large swathes of information processing in a few words, or even just two letters, so I think that's why it's so often discussed in this community - why people are still here, because that communication is far easier than looking insane to one of your friends and going, 'Fe'.

*I might try that now.

[Reficulris]

I'm not really going to go into your personal experience or your ideas on stable identity, it's not really something that anyone can comment on beyond a shrug.

I've studied a lot of philosophy and natural sciences yes.

The problem with your questions is I'm not sure you understand your questions or you're not expressing it properly, you're also assuming you understand socionics and/or your personal subjective experience. It's seems to be really just a expression of a feeling of disagreement.

I'm assuming i'm understanding my personal subjective experience, yes, that's a given. There's nothing to test this against. Socionics i've never claimed nor assumed to understand.

A person is just everything about them, no more no less, we cannot fully qualify or quantify this at the present time or really even close. I also never said people were "only" who they pretend to be or what they're hiding. Those are parts of their whole but are not the whole. However those parts are them. What I said was a tautology, people are just who they are and this means everything. What I'm telling you is that you don't know and socionics does not presumes to know either. You are assuming that socionics presumes to know and this is a incorrect assumption, it presumes to offer insight and understanding about a part of a individuals whole and is limited just to that. There are simply aspects of a individual it cannot comment no.

You answer my question on ontological level, and the answers are great, but I was more asking wether/how socionics deals with conscious (and unconscious outer display of other "personality traits"). The answer should've been what galen said; "it doesn't as it deals with different phenomena".

I think you need to look at the assumptions you're making about your personality as well as assumptions you're making about socionics, list them out and cross off the ones that aren't true of verifiable.

That is all of them. There is no truth nor verifiability. You know this. (this is about assumptions about my personality). About socionics I agree, and this (thread) is actually doing exactly that to one of my assumptions.

As I said it's very easy to engage in a language game here especially when assumptions are made about things which cannot be made.

To me all this is a language game, but I get what you mean, and the parts about assumptions did help me further a bit

[Reficulris]

You can't use socionics or any typology system to predict everything about a person or their relationships, to do this would be like being able to build a program that correctly predicted the lottery numbers. Every so often though with socionics something goes click and I go, "ah, that makes sense".

Its also an abstract tool to discuss large swathes of information processing in a few words, or even just two letters, so I think that's why it's so often discussed in this community - why people are still here, because that communication is far easier than looking insane to one of your friends and going, 'Fe'.

I agree, i didn't mean "predicting" in the hard Te kind of way, more in a language "making sense off" way. And yes, the "click" is awesome and addictive.

Thank you for that description, socionics IS an effective way to talk about that stuff

[Reficulris]

@point:

It's seems to be really just a expression of a feeling of disagreement.

It wasn't, it wasn't even meant as fundemantally criticing, it's was meant to provoke some revealing of assumptions (which it did). You know i don't Believe in socionics, as in I don't assume it's right or valid or true on epistemological basis, that doesn't mean I don't like it or want it to fall appart, rather the opposite.

[Words]

F sake ref how quickly are you posting here. I just went in with a small edit to my post and you'd already fired two canons

[Reficulris]

F sake ref how quickly are you posting here. I just went in with a small edit to my post and you'd already fired two canons

What can I say, I type fast.

[mu4]

That is all of them. There is no truth nor verifiability. You know this. (this is about assumptions about my personality). About socionics I agree, and this (thread) is actually doing exactly that to one of my assumptions.

You're wrong here. Because once you start enumerating the assumptions and understand what is actually being said, you will realize that some of the statements are definitely verifiable(or at least to the best of human ability).

Person = Person = true
Information processing = probably valid/falsifiable
Information preference = probably valid/falsifiable
Humans process information = probably valid/falsifiable
Model A = maybe/verifiable
Intertype relations = maybe/verifiable
etc
etc
Socionic as a full description of an individual = false

These are used to describe real things. To truly understand anything you must enumerate all the valid, known, unknowns, maybes, invalid.

Once you've done this, you see what you can verify, what you need to verify, what you must assume to discuss the topic and all the various details of the topic. You will need to make some tautological assumptions most likely but those should be only the most obvious necessary assumptions(and these are the all in bets).

You assumption "That is all of them. There is no truth nor verifiability." is false. Since true verifiability is never possible(Hume), there is only falsfiability(Popper). However, you can get pretty close to the falsifiable but not yet(perhaps never) area of verification.

.

[Reficulris]

You're wrong here. Because once you start enumerating the assumptions and understand what is actually being said, you will realize that some of the statements are definitely verifiable(or at least to the best of human ability).

Person = Person = true
Information processing = probably valid/falsifiable
Information preference = probably valid/falsifiable
Humans process information = probably valid/falsifiable
Model A = maybe/verifiable
Intertype relations = maybe/verifiable
etc
etc
Socionic as a full description of an individual = false

These are used to describe real things. To truly understand anything you must enumerate all the valid, known, unknowns, maybes, invalid.

Once you've done this, you see what you can verify, what you need to verify, what you must assume to discuss the topic and all the various details of the topic. You will need to make some tautological assumptions most likely but those should be only the most obvious necessary assumptions(and these are the all in bets).

You assumption "That is all of them. There is no truth nor verifiability." is false. Since true verifiability is never possible(Hume), there is only falsfiability(Popper). However, you can get pretty close to the falsifiable but not yet(perhaps never) area of verification.

.

For socionics you are right, as i said above.

Epistemologically you're wrong. Falsification is not getting closer to truth, nor is logical verification like a tautology any help in our quest for order in the chaos. You said you read Kuhn/feyerabend/rorty etc, read them again ;-)

Lets agree to disagree on the discussion about epistemological ground cuz our assumptions differ too much here.


Edit: this is the catch: I assume I can't be right/wrong because neither can be established, but i can't prove that to you, and my statement "emperically you're wrong" is incongruent with itself based on my argument. That means that I can never make you believe this based on arguments, just based on story. Therefor, if the assumptions don't facilitate the story we're not going to agree, ever.

[mu4]

@point: It wasn't, it wasn't even meant as fundemantally criticing, it's was meant to provoke some revealing of assumptions (which it did). You know i don't Believe in socionics, as in I don't assume it's right or valid or true on epistemological basis, that doesn't mean I don't like it or want it to fall appart, rather the opposite.

Belief is not that important, there's no reason to believe in anything beyond the necessary assumption for a given task. This is situational as well. The question a lot of the time when dealing with the unknown is how to talk about it constructively.

[Reficulris]

Belief is not that important, there's no reason to believe in anything beyond the necessary assumption for a given task. This is situational as well. The question a lot of the time when dealing with the unknown is how to talk about it constructively.

This is close to what I believe (hah) but I'd substitute "constructively" with "interestingly"

[Words]

@point: It wasn't, it wasn't even meant as fundemantally criticing, it's was meant to provoke some revealing of assumptions (which it did). You know i don't Believe in socionics, as in I don't assume it's right or valid or true on epistemological basis, that doesn't mean I don't like it or want it to fall appart, rather the opposite.

BTW I think people pick up on you doing this which is why you get some of the answers that you do. It seems kinda dishonest to me for you to reply to people in a way that feigns ignorance when you know and they know what you're doing.

It might be constructive to get better answers if you just levelled with people and left out the manipulating

[Reficulris]

BTW I think people pick up on you doing this which is why you get some of the answers that you do. It seems kinda dishonest to me for you to reply to people in a way that feigns ignorance when you know and they know what you're doing.

It might be constructive to get better answers if you just levelled with people and left out the manipulating

The method you propose is if you know, or have an idea of what you're asking for. I'm asking something in a broad, non specific way because i can't pinpoint what it is i'm uncomfortable with. If i'd had a better idea i'd probably not even needed to ask. Also, how is it manipulative?

Wait: are you still assuming i was being critical and feigned ignorance...? Sorry, i was truely not intending to criticize the theory. I'm lost :S

[Beautiful sky]

I don't lie about my type. I think I went for an interview at a law firm years ago where I told or explained the lawyer whp was interviewing me how I would be a good fit for their pffice because I am an introvert and aggreable tor suggestible. She took onto me quite well because I knew myself and explained things so well. I didn't take the job because it was too far from where I lived and the place that I work now is so much better in terms of atmosphere, flexibility. Great doctors to work for.

[mu4]

For socionics you are right, as i said above.

Epistemologically you're wrong. Falsification is not getting closer to truth, nor is logical verification like a tautology any help in our quest for order in the chaos. You said you read Kuhn/feyerabend/rorty etc, read them again ;-)

Lets agree to disagree on the discussion about epistemological ground cuz our assumptions differ too much here.


Edit: this is the catch: I assume I can't be right/wrong because neither can be established, but i can't prove that to you, and my statement "emperically you're wrong" is incongruent with itself based on my argument. That means that I can never make you believe this based on arguments, just based on story. Therefor, if the assumptions don't facilitate the story we're not going to agree, ever.

What I'm telling you is that it doesn't matter, Kuhn actually tells you it doesn't matter and that theory choice at this level of the unknown is just that, "Theory choice".

Socionics is a place your bets discussion not a epistomological one. What I can tell you is that assuming you can't be right/wrong is stupid, the fundamental state of human knowledge is that it's wrong. Assuming that whatever gibberish isn't right or wrong is a fallacy, you're wrong, but you may not know how you're wrong, but you're guaranteed to be wrong. Getting closer to right is systematically finding and eliminating what we don't know is wrong. Epistomological that statement is wrong.

When a machine can accurately categorize individuals and predict relations, maybe we can talk about epistemology, but until then, place your bets.

[Reficulris]

What I'm telling you is that it doesn't matter, Kuhn actually tells you it doesn't matter and that theory choice at this level of the unknown is just that, "Theory choice".

Absolutely agree we're on the same page after all. pfew.

Socionics is a place your bets discussion not a epistomological one. What I can tell you is that assuming you can't be right/wrong is stupid, the fundamental state of human knowledge is that it's wrong. Assuming that whatever gibberish isn't right or wrong is a fallacy, you're wrong, but you may not know how you're wrong, but you're guaranteed to be wrong. Getting closer to right is systematically finding and eliminating what we don't know is wrong.

I'm not sure I was the one who brought up the epistemological validity of socionics in this thread. The op had a specific question

"how does socionics deal with, or doesn't deal with deception while typing people"

This is on socionic practise level, not theorethical level or meta level or epistemology level. The reason we got into the "what is real" debate is because you questioned my subjective experience, which, implies that there's more than my subjective experience. Now i'm not saying that there's not, just saying that it's not within my subjective experience and thus irrelevant.

When a machine can accurately categorize individuals and predict relations, maybe we can talk about epistemology, but until then, place your bets.

I don't even think that's a sollution. I actually think epistemology is unnecessary as long as people don't assume their perspective is the only or right one.

[mu4]

This is close to what I believe (hah) but I'd substitute "constructively" with "interestingly"

You can talk about it interestingly with gibberish, you can only talk about it constructively by divorcing from gibberish.

[Reficulris]

You can talk about it interestingly with gibberish, you can only talk about it constructively by divorcing from gibberish.

"constructively" still implies a rating. Are we talking about constructively as in oriented towards a certain specified goal which is chosen in the moment or "constructively" as something on meta level? If the first I agree (coincides with my interestingly when there's no specific goal in mind). If the second :S