Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 123

Thread: Do IEs Really Exist?

  1. #1
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Do IEs Really Exist?

    Is it really coherent to speak of IEs? I've said before that socionics seems like zooming in on parts of an overall system rather than putting things together (which Gulenko points out in his cognitive styles thread in the Holographic-Panoramic section, and all the Ti-ish socionics mathematician types tend to think of types like this as well) and in that case I don't think it is.

    For example, take , what people consider the most boring function. On the one hand I tend to be good at the arts and I like to keep my things "Ordnung muss sein!"-level neat because I think that's pleasing and helps with actually accomplishing things, but on the other hand even since I was young I've said "I don't think things can be real except that they stand for something else" (which is philosophical idealism in the non-Berkeleyian sense and very, very, from a Jungian perspective) and have a rather infamous tendency to not notice things like the temperature (including wearing sandals when it's below freezing outside, then someone says "You're wearing sandals? It's below freezing..." and I respond something like "...Oh. I didn't notice, but I'll go put on some real shoes if this is weird then,") or when I've been injured (like the times where I'd fall down, people would gasp and say "Are you OK?" and I would respond "Of course, why not?" and then later I'd take off my jacket and see that I have a 2-foot-long dark black bruise across my entire arm). People will often break up functions into positive and negative versions of functions, like in this case + and -, which are "enjoys positive aesthetic experiences, organization, etc." and "avoids discomfort" respectively in this case, and you could say that I'm good at + and frighteningly bad at -, but that seems like severely overcomplicating things to me, and people don't think like that in general and that gets into alternative models that are very, very far from classical socionics (as if people used classical socionics in the first place. People use Filatova around here generally).

  2. #2
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,285
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    its the question, is it just attitudes of the psyche which is invented (estimations of the real deal) or is it real dimension in the fabric of reality? It is impossible really to prove one over the other

  3. #3
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Cloud 9
    TIM
    S to the L to the E
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    Is it really coherent to speak of IEs? I've said before that socionics seems like zooming in on parts of an overall system rather than putting things together (which Gulenko points out in his cognitive styles thread in the Holographic-Panoramic section, and all the Ti-ish socionics mathematician types tend to think of types like this as well) and in that case I don't think it is.

    For example, take , what people consider the most boring function. On the one hand I tend to be good at the arts and I like to keep my things "Ordnung muss sein!"-level neat because I think that's pleasing and helps with actually accomplishing things, but on the other hand even since I was young I've said "I don't think things can be real except that they stand for something else" (which is philosophical idealism in the non-Berkeleyian sense and very, very, from a Jungian perspective) and have a rather infamous tendency to not notice things like the temperature (including wearing sandals when it's below freezing outside, then someone says "You're wearing sandals? It's below freezing..." and I respond something like "...Oh. I didn't notice, but I'll go put on some real shoes if this is weird then,") or when I've been injured (like the times where I'd fall down, people would gasp and say "Are you OK?" and I would respond "Of course, why not?" and then later I'd take off my jacket and see that I have a 2-foot-long dark black bruise across my entire arm). People will often break up functions into positive and negative versions of functions, like in this case + and -, which are "enjoys positive aesthetic experiences, organization, etc." and "avoids discomfort" respectively in this case, and you could say that I'm good at + and frighteningly bad at -, but that seems like severely overcomplicating things to me, and people don't think like that in general and that gets into alternative models that are very, very far from classical socionics (as if people used classical socionics in the first place. People use Filatova around here generally).
    You voiced several thoughts I've been having since earlier today, but better than I could. I'm curious about the responses.

  4. #4
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    its the question, is it just attitudes of the psyche which is invented (estimations of the real deal) or is it real dimension in the fabric of reality? It is impossible really to prove one over the other
    Then psychology is not a science. Which is already what half or more of the scientific community thinks anyways, so that's not a new sentiment, just an unusual one for a typology forum.

  5. #5
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Wyrd You had linked this before:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...lographically/

    IMO, Information Elements and TIM can be conceptualized in the same way


    TLDR: All forms of information are contained in each and every one piece of the informational puzzle


    from one aspect or point of reference, all other points or pieces of information can be inferred



    So, in other words, the way this can apply to IE and Model A is that every personality configuration includes all of the Information Elements in its structure


    one IE holographically contains, or implies the existence of, all other IEs


    If interpreting reality in a philosophical sense, we can say IEs exist, in the way above, if you can accept that there is an archetypal aspect to reality.

    ff




  6. #6
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,654
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IEs are just a model or a theory... because we can't really know what really goes inside of our brains (yet...), and even if we did, it would be difficult to make sense out of it. So they're not "real" in a sense, but theories are supposed to help things more predictable and understandable for us... Are IEs achieving that? I don't really know...

  7. #7
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    822
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    IE's are arbitrary categorizations of observed behaviour; they're simply the results of a classification system; the categories do exist; and they're useful to a degree. They certainly don't define the functioning of cognitive processes; observational data can only be used to verify function once function is defined to some level of granularity. However, it seems that nobody has yet looked beyond the classifications. It's somewhat like being satisfied with categories of chemical reactions and not bothering to look for atomic or string theory.

    a.k.a. I/O

  8. #8
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,285
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    Then psychology is not a science. Which is already what half or more of the scientific community thinks anyways, so that's not a new sentiment, just an unusual one for a typology forum.
    Science states that everything is false until you can prove without any grain of doubt that it is not false. Theoretically by science than only earth have life in the universe.

  9. #9
    Give 'Em Hell, Harley Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    EIE Sx/So 378
    Posts
    8,968
    Mentioned
    695 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Red face Side Note

    is boring unless you have my needy existence around I laugh my ass off when someone talks about how their eyeballs feel like to them. I stare when someone is brushing their hair like a creep. I also get excited when I see someone stuffing themselves with food and enjoying it. I get particularly turned on if it's salad, don't ask me why. Also, cuddles are the world to me just saiyan.

  10. #10
    spiritual aggressor Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-C/H 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,325
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Works somewhat. Is anything real? Just saying. This has been my constant problem: I'm not sure if I'm at sleep, part of advanced simulation series or possibly star of the Truman Show....
    extrospection > introspection

    Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.


  11. #11
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They are real, and represent the totality of existence.

    Intuition - Time
    Sensing - Space
    Logic - Matter
    Feeling - Energy

  12. #12
    Give 'Em Hell, Harley Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    EIE Sx/So 378
    Posts
    8,968
    Mentioned
    695 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    They are real, and represent the totality of existence.

    Intuition - Time
    Sensing - Space
    Logic - Matter
    Feeling - Energy
    Boi summarized it real quick and raw for y'all, discussion: end!

  13. #13
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Cloud 9
    TIM
    S to the L to the E
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    They are real, and represent the totality of existence.

    Intuition - Time
    Sensing - Space
    Logic - Matter
    Feeling - Energy
    This should end the = kinetic energy/willpower thing then.

  14. #14
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,362
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    Is it really coherent to speak of IEs? I've said before that socionics seems like zooming in on parts of an overall system rather than putting things together (which Gulenko points out in his cognitive styles thread in the Holographic-Panoramic section, and all the Ti-ish socionics mathematician types tend to think of types like this as well) and in that case I don't think it is.

    For example, take , what people consider the most boring function. On the one hand I tend to be good at the arts and I like to keep my things "Ordnung muss sein!"-level neat because I think that's pleasing and helps with actually accomplishing things, but on the other hand even since I was young I've said "I don't think things can be real except that they stand for something else" (which is philosophical idealism in the non-Berkeleyian sense and very, very, from a Jungian perspective) and have a rather infamous tendency to not notice things like the temperature (including wearing sandals when it's below freezing outside, then someone says "You're wearing sandals? It's below freezing..." and I respond something like "...Oh. I didn't notice, but I'll go put on some real shoes if this is weird then,") or when I've been injured (like the times where I'd fall down, people would gasp and say "Are you OK?" and I would respond "Of course, why not?" and then later I'd take off my jacket and see that I have a 2-foot-long dark black bruise across my entire arm). People will often break up functions into positive and negative versions of functions, like in this case + and -, which are "enjoys positive aesthetic experiences, organization, etc." and "avoids discomfort" respectively in this case, and you could say that I'm good at + and frighteningly bad at -, but that seems like severely overcomplicating things to me, and people don't think like that in general and that gets into alternative models that are very, very far from classical socionics (as if people used classical socionics in the first place. People use Filatova around here generally).
    The weight of the evidence here seems to be against strength in Si. The arts involve a lot of Fe also, you'll find many Beta NF artists for example.

    "I like to keep my things "Ordnung muss sein!"-level neat because I think that's pleasing and helps with actually accomplishing things"

    This is not really Si, it's more like TiSe in socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyOne View Post
    This should end the = kinetic energy/willpower thing then.
    These definitions aren't exactly definitive, but space does have a close connection with force: force is how you make things move through space. Se evaluates both where things are in space and what you have to do to get them where you want them to be.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  15. #15
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Cloud 9
    TIM
    S to the L to the E
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post


    These definitions aren't exactly definitive, but space does have a close connection with force: force is how you make things move through space. Se evaluates both where things are in space and what you have to do to get them where you want them to be.
    That wasn't an agreement, it was actually sarcasm. It's not uncommon for it to go unnoticed when it's deadpan though, specially online. I do believe that is Force, in the Star Wars way.

  16. #16
    24601 ClownsandEntropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    TIM
    LII, 5w6
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I believe that IEs relate to certain "clusters" of behaviour, awareness and tendencies. (Which? Not entirely sure, though I can think of mappings like social dominance orientation and Se)

    On the one hand I tend to be good at the arts and I like to keep my things "Ordnung muss sein!"-level neat because I think that's pleasing and helps with actually accomplishing things, but on the other hand even since I was young I've said "I don't think things can be real except that they stand for something else" (which is philosophical idealism in the non-Berkeleyian sense and very, very, from a Jungian perspective) and have a rather infamous tendency to not notice things like the temperature...
    I think is about understanding how your body feels, why it feels a certain way, and how your body's state can impact your mental state. So, like, caring about art isn't super unless it's about the sounds (e.g. I like certain types of music because it puts me in a happy mood, but people probably wouldn't say I was treating it like "art", just as happy music.)

    Your preference for order is probably S-related, but maybe ? Cos it's about the external world.

    Have a non-Berkeleyian idealism as an internal philosophy sounds... interesting? Like, maybe cos I only know Berkeley's idealism so I don't know what your version means. Maybe that's a -esque interpretation, where it's kind of like "The world is ultimately like X, and even though my mind keeps thinking it's like Y, I just need to remind myself occasionally that it's actually like X." Like, you don't actually experience the world in that way (your body doesn't go around feeling "oh, I'm experiencing stuff and thus creating it because, as we know, it's my experiencing of it which means it exists, as that is what we mean when we say 'existence'."), instead you have an interpretation of how the world is really structured, but that's a thing.

    That doesn't mean you are -ego (although you probably are -valuing if you put a lot of emphasis on it), it's just a thought. Like, if your non-Berkeleyian idealism is super internally consistent and it seems to have good explanatory power then I could believe you are -ego. Because in that case, you are naturally good at the IE "cluster" of "structuring thoughts and putting them into categories and models" which is .
    Warm Regards,



    Clowns & Entropy

  17. #17
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    318
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It depends on what you mean by IE (information element) and 'exist'. Are you referring to information/aspects or cognitive processing/functions?

    You can choose any definitions of IE and they will of course exist. But you are asking whether they correspond with our observations of the types or not, right?

  18. #18
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,362
    Mentioned
    222 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyOne View Post
    I do believe that is Force, in the Star Wars way.
    ok, Yoda
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  19. #19
    LuckyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Cloud 9
    TIM
    S to the L to the E
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    ok, Yoda
    Lol, it really must hurt I wouldn't know

  20. #20
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyOne View Post
    I do believe that is Force, in the Star Wars way.
    The Force is actually -Ne/+Ni. Delta NFs and Gamma NTs would make the best Jedis, although luke is probably SEI-Fe.

  21. #21
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    480 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    The Force is actually -Ne/+Ni. Delta NFs and Gamma NTs would make the best Jedis, although luke is probably SEI-Fe.
    im curious as to what you think obi wan (in the prequels) is

  22. #22
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    im curious as to what you think obi wan (in the prequels) is
    I guess IEI-Ni.

  23. #23
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,946
    Mentioned
    480 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    I guess IEI-Ni.
    man I love that guy, but maybe its true

  24. #24
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just stumbled across this excerpt in a mandatory reading for a psych class today.... reminded me that maybe one day ill do socionics /personality research profesinoally

    Baghurst et al. (2004) explored the relationships among attentional style, cognitive strategies,and performance, with novice rowers who were classified as internalizers (n = 7; i.e., thosewho directed their attentional focus internally toward physical sensations, etc.), or externalizers(n = 7; i.e., those who focused their attention on their external environment). Each groupcompleted a 15-min maximal effort test on an ergometer under either a prescribed associativeor dissociative focus condition (counterbalanced order). It was found that the internalizergroup performed significantly better in the associative condition than in the dissociativecondition, whereas the externalizer group performed significantly better in the dissociativecondition than in the associative condition

  25. #25
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,331
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems to be a finger pointed at the moon question. The moon is real, but your focusing on the finger.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  26. #26
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    WOW!

  27. #27
    nyessss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    female
    Posts
    160
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  28. #28
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,892
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    The Force is actually -Ne/+Ni. Delta NFs and Gamma NTs would make the best Jedis, although luke is probably SEI-Fe.
    Gamma Jedi? huh. I guess the idea of a light Sith appeals to me, even though Star Wars always seems to associate the dark side as crazy power-hungry psychopathic assholes that loose control of themselves and their emotions.

    Someone that uses darkness to seek power and passion and control, yet sees the value in tempering it with compassion. Has that ever happened in Star Wars?

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,009
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The map is not the territory.

  30. #30
    Doctor Weird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    162
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangeling View Post

    Someone that uses darkness to seek power and passion and control, yet sees the value in tempering it with compassion. Has that ever happened in Star Wars?
    I think that was arguably Anakin's motivation for turning to the Dark Side, seeing it as means to save his wife and to bring justice and peace to the galaxy. I also think it's been suggested by some that Dooku was not a true Sith in the same sense as other sith lords we've seen. He was motivated by a personal sense of idealism and justice, he just got corrupted by the thirst for power and it created a hubris in him that became his undoing.

    There is also the concept of Grey Jedi mentioned in some expanded universe sources. These Jedi supposedly broke from the high council in recognizing the potential for both light and dark within, thus their aim was finding a healthy balance and learning to channel the dark side without allowing it to completely consume and corrupt the force user.

    I might even go so far to suggest that Palpatine is the only truly evil Sith we ever see.

  31. #31
    Doctor Weird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    162
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entelecheia View Post
    Then psychology is not a science. Which is already what half or more of the scientific community thinks anyways, so that's not a new sentiment, just an unusual one for a typology forum.
    I am by no means an "anti-science" person but I sometimes think society has a very narrow idea and expectation of what constitutes "science."

    If defined as follows:
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,

    then I think it would follow from that definition that typology and psychology could still be considered sciences. Whether people want to classify them as "soft" or "hard" sciences is another matter, I suppose.

    I consider them sciences, I just think they're still in their infancy.

  32. #32
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toynbee View Post
    I am by no means an "anti-science" person but I sometimes think society has a very narrow idea and expectation of what constitutes "science."

    If defined as follows:
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,

    then I think it would follow from that definition that typology and psychology could still be considered sciences. Whether people want to classify them as "soft" or "hard" sciences is another matter, I suppose.

    I consider them sciences, I just think they're still in their infancy.
    But that would include astrology and phrenology, and "society" doesn't want that.

  33. #33
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,046
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toynbee View Post
    I am by no means an "anti-science" person but I sometimes think society has a very narrow idea and expectation of what constitutes "science."

    If defined as follows:
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,

    then I think it would follow from that definition that typology and psychology could still be considered sciences. Whether people want to classify them as "soft" or "hard" sciences is another matter, I suppose.

    I consider them sciences, I just think they're still in their infancy.
    That puts them on par with economics.

    What amazes me about economists is how they can be wrong more frequently than a coin toss and people still consider them to be authorities. I suspect that they are convenient tools of some sectors of political society.

  34. #34
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    That puts them on par with economics.

    What amazes me about economists is how they can be wrong more frequently than a coin toss and people still consider them to be authorities. I suspect that they are convenient tools of some sectors of political society.
    But anyone can toss a coin

  35. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is OK I suppose, but socionics is the backdrop here to provide a means for people to intellectualize/socialise.

    Once basic theory is learned, there's no real need from a socionics perspective to keep re-discussing it.

    It becomes an avenue for intellectualism rather than any benefits the theory might hold (and there's one or two, but let's not get carried away.)

  36. #36
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    4,046
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac View Post
    Socionics is OK I suppose, but socionics is the backdrop here to provide a means for people to intellectualize/socialise.

    Once basic theory is learned, there's no real need from a socionics perspective to keep re-discussing it.

    It becomes an avenue for intellectualism rather than any benefits the theory might hold (and there's one or two, but let's not get carried away.)
    This is very true. Initially, progress in a field is very fast, then it tends to slow down to a trickle until some breakthroughs are made. Then, the cycle repeats. In the meantime, people need people, and you might be surprised at what you can pick up in the way of bits of knowledge.

  37. #37
    Doctor Weird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    162
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    That puts them on par with economics.

    What amazes me about economists is how they can be wrong more frequently than a coin toss and people still consider them to be authorities. I suspect that they are convenient tools of some sectors of political society.
    i find economics fascinating but economists tend to be windbags. Economist fanboys are the worst, especially the Friedman fanboys

  38. #38
    Doctor Weird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    162
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entelecheia View Post
    But that would include astrology and phrenology, and "society" doesn't want that.
    Society can lick my balls.

  39. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Economists are like sports pundits, the smart man makes the decisions for himself.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    564
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A few things can be said.

    One is that from a Jung perspective, being an artist in mentality was pretty compatible with introverted intuitive types to the point of being a common thing; it does not automatically point to sensation.

    Second is that even if one has a strong sensation orientation, it is possible to be impatient with the 'boring' aspects and seek exciting ones. Think BBC Sherlock Holmes. I'd call him a sensation type, not a N type. He's probably high on some aspects of the Big 5 Openness to Experience, and thus has eccentric tendencies, is more driven by curiosity than pragmatism, and so on -- none of that is incompatible with a taste for (novel, not pragmatic) sensory experience.
    Obviously, some call this Se-valuing > Si-valuing, though I find those kinds of distinctions are too concrete for IE to be the right language to use.

    I'd say the problem isn't that the IE aren't getting at meaningful things, but rather that a lot of the less abstract aspects of psychology that could be well covered by something like the Big 5 are roped into this territory, and there's really no reason to mix them.


    As to "existence," this probably depends on what level of detail we want to go into that concept. One could write a treatise on whether numbers exist, and if one's position is those don't, then one could take a position such as saying that IE are descriptions of phenomena which exist, but aren't real themselves -- though this seems a bit of a technicality. If all we mean is "are they reasonable/meaningful concepts we can define/find good examples of in real cases," then sure they do seem to without much question.
    They're just not generally used for what they're most powerful at describing.

Page 1 of 4 1234 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
  •