Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 121 to 123 of 123

Thread: I want to talk about Ni

  1. #121

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptitron View Post
    So many leaky ideas everywhere in socionics. You can try to patch one at a time, but not all. Even if you manage, it is all likely to erupt at any time.
    Patch in terms of the logical model? Or what do you mean?

  2. #122
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Patch in terms of the logical model? Or what do you mean?
    The underlying ideas or reality are larger than what models are capable of containing. They often go too far. The indescribable is just that, difficult to describe. Just when you think you have nailed it, something else tells you that you haven't.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptitron View Post
    The underlying ideas or reality are larger than what models are capable of containing. They often go too far. The indescribable is just that, difficult to describe. Just when you think you have nailed it, something else tells you that you haven't.
    I don't think I'm following this. Why would models have to go too far? Personally, I'm content with seeing the limits of models and just explore and refine more over time by analyzing more concrete data for them. This includes paradigm shifts for models, updating and changing them to fundamentally different models. (Not too often, only when enough analysis of enough data necessitates it.) You cannot nail the Absolute Truth anyway, just nice to try and get closer

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

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