...of failing to define your terms
Socionics is the science...
...of failing to define your terms
@Capitalist Pig and @Holon. Isn't it ironic that the two biggest socionics critics on the forum are typed as ILIs... which is nicknamed "the critic"?
well then I guess that means socionics isOriginally Posted by Elina
@Capitalist Pig and @Holon. Isn't it ironic that the two biggest socionics critics on the forum are typed as ILIs... which is nicknamed "the critic"?
Whatever gets the job donewell then I guess that means socionics is
@William actually it was a jab at this forum and the way people talk about Socionics as if they're talking about the same thing. I think this is pretty unlikely just looking at how many disagreements there are as to the nature of Socionics concepts, even amongst The Russians (whoever they even are).
Can you make me a "final" and a "confirmed" stamp? cuz i'd definately abuse the shit out of themwell then I guess that means socionics is
Technically, no.@Capitalist Pig and @Holon. Isn't it ironic that the two biggest socionics critics on the forum are typed as ILIs... which is nicknamed "the critic"?
ikr ILI is called the critic for a reason but i expect the unexpected would you expect the critic to not be critical exactly
@Elina
I agree, it would have been ironic if it had been the SEI's who were vocally airing their problems with socionics.
I misuse the term "ironic" often, what can I say lol
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I love Dirty Harry's "know your limitations" catchphrase. Nothing fits better the pretentious mediocrity around us. Socionics is a science but to express it in a way that is easy for everyone to understand takes a genius. A genius that Augusta was and the amateurs around here are not.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Until medical scanning devices reach the point of mapping psychological functions to brain activation, Socionics will most likely remain a framework for discussion and cloudy prediction. It sure is fun though.
All negativists have a vein of the critic to them, the ILI just happens to have the perfect storm of critical attention.
The way negativism works is that they look at objects and topics with a not so full glass mentality, but the problem is often that all they're doing is looking at a glass. Positivists if they see the glass is kinda of empty need to fill it or get another glass, occasionally goes back if it's full but they looking for shiny new things. I think some negativists have a different experience with it, they just hold on to the glass, however empty it is but they never stop complaining about it.
ILI have dialectical algorithmic thinking which is very rigid and structured but it's has some leeway unlike cause effect thinking, where cause effect thinking is a straight line, dialectical algorithmic thinking zigs and zags often based on mood and various variables. When ILI gets attached to a topic or object, they circle it zigzagging it looking for flaws, problems to criticize, frankly it can become quite abusive if it's another individual. However as their dual seeking function is
Since someone mentioned SEI's, I will note SEI's are also a negativist and dialectal algorithmic type, but their methods are different, they have similar perceptions but their attitude towards the topic is ethical vs logical. When they see something flawed they sometimes see it almost like it's in need of care and this is something which attaches SEI's to the topic, when dealing with an individual they can be doting. This is the same with other objects of attachment. It doesn't mean they don't see similar flaws but they do handle it quite differently.
Socionics isn't a science due to limited verification at the present time, but the structure of the theory allows for complex explanation of human behavior between distinct categories of individuals, as well as comparing the flaws of the explanation against reality. I've always compared this with topic with weather prediction as it's a complex macroscopic phenomena which defies deterministic prediction due to the size of the problem. We've gotten really good at weather prediction but it's still not there. However socionics is still the almanac phase of prediction vs the modern meteorological tools such as dopplar radar. As time progresses I believe the mysteries of the human mind will become more known and we will be able to have more objective measurement tools for the mind, however; it's still weather prediction and will lack precise determinism.
I think people want something from socionics it's unlikely to ever achieve, and adjacent technologies and knowledge aren't even at the level required for basic objective analysis. It is however a useful tool for explanation and with high skill level, even useful day to day.
Awww :'( I was trying to make it sound absurd and funny and now you've turned it into something serious :'(
Well I just wanted to show that the concepts and terms in socionics can be used to explain things in a reasonable fashion and be internally consistent. Of course this has to be matched empirically with reality but what Socionics does is goes beyond mere behavior but into the conscious and unconscious cognitive mechanics which power these behaviors.
You can see that ILI and SEI both have the same negativism and dialectical algorithmic thinking but why do their behaviors differ so drastically.
I have always considered socionics an art-form.
Socionics may be characterized in terms of it's representation of reality, expression, communication of emotion and thought.
The presentation of the self, with correspondence to the physical world, being an overall portrait whose colour palette is painted with the brush strokes of functions and information elements is real in that it is a logical and figurative representation of a natural phenomenan; the human egoic structure.
This is as close as really getting it as a pencil sketch of a peach approximates warm juice in the mouth.
Not being a true science, wherein the hypothesises are verifiable, those who study the concepts must bring a certain amount of belief. The truth comes from the individuals own experience, the verifiability arrives filtered through personal wisdom. "Is this real in my own experience?" As such, each facet of this art is left up to interpretation. How an individual interprets socionics and the inter-types is left up to processes such as group consensus, personal experience, and once again belief.
There is no possible way a viewer will watch dancers move across the stage; view the sistine chapel with upturned eyes; place there hands in warm clay on a turning wheel; feel the sweetness of a batter on the chefs tongue the same way as any other human being. All of these and more are examples of the variability among individuals to experience the world in a myriad of ways. Each way, however, is a witnessing of the same phenomenon. The dancers moved the same for each member of the audience, the chapel mural never changes, the clay has the same texture for each hand, the batter is equally sweet no matter who tastes it. In the same way, if we are to believe socionics, then we must see that patterns and archtypes emerge from our egoic-structures and extend out into the social world are solid and constant, the only thing that changes is the viewer!
Socionics is art because it is at once a representation of reality and a belief about what that reality is bringing to each individual.
Last edited by wacey; 08-18-2014 at 07:50 PM.
inferencing is the science of using context clues
mine was better
ooo an even better one
fuck you you ridiculous piece shit
The functions are defined but I can't say clearly, the question isn't really the definition of the function but the definition of "clear" and "definition" as well as whether either are possible. I don't think it's possible to clearly define many concepts in this topic, only delineat.
For some individuals clearly delineated concepts are the abstract relative ones. Things like logic/ethics/sense/intuition/irrationality/rationality. However when you look at the history of these big concept you realize that they are topics which defy definition, and have for thousand of years. Parmenides was talking Irrationality vs Rationality way back with Perception vs Logos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
It's important to understand all important socionic concept are huge philosophical issues which we've accumulated thousands of years of thought, criticism, more thought, more criticism, etc and have yet to come to terms. These are also evolving topic as humans evolve as well as our civilizations.
Socionics is part of a wider realm of cognitive sciences and asking for clearly defined terms is basically sophomoric speak for "I don't know, spoon feed me". Any adequate student of philosophy would understand that many of these topic defy clear definition and that clear delineation is all that thinkers have been doing thus far, "delineation" not "definition".
Threads like this is just sophomoric hi-jinks basically, individuals who have gained an adequate understanding of philosophy would go beyond this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
