Yeah good prediction bro... try to repeat that 100 times with different people. You would have to get your prediction right thousands of times to have any statistical significance.
Yeah good prediction bro... try to repeat that 100 times with different people. You would have to get your prediction right thousands of times to have any statistical significance.
Causality beats Correlation
If you can prove causality, then you should be able to predict things with near 100% accuracy.
Saying that you can predict relationships in such a way is absurd, since relationships are supposed to be transformative, and not constant and unchanging. The future does NOT resemble the past, the future is different from the past in every single way. In order to predict something, it has to be able to predict something new, and not just something that resembles the past.
Actually that even says something about Ni, which works in a way of something like looking into past patterns to predict the future. But that's not how prediction actually works, since the future does NOT resemble the past. The only way to predict the future is through careful and deliberate thinking, via deduction and not induction, to prove causality and explain how it exactly works.
There is a stage of understanding beyond socionics, which is neuroscience. Everything that socionics claims to know is known with more scientific certainty by neuroscientists, who actually understand causation much better. All cognitive functions(or IE) are correlations to what is ignorance of the brain. The size of different structures in the brain account for huge aspects of our personalities, which develop as a combination of our genetics and environmental interactions. The truth is that each individual has unique thought patterns that emerge from the interaction between self and environment, various that exceeds what socionics can account for. All you can do is try and force the data into the model to make it true, instead of creating a model that better explains the data. This is why ideas die. They fail to adapt to current bodies of knowledge.
Beware of socionicists, who will claim to know what "type" you are, or function you are using, by gathering information that hasn't been scientifically correlated with the functions purported to exist. There isn't a chart, or a list of catch words, or thoughts, that have been proven to substantiate not only a persons psychological type, but single information elements. This should serve as a warning to those people who come here to better understand themselves, probably because they are going through difficult types and ended up finding about Jung, MBTI, and Socionics by surfing the web. No one is interested here in individuals. They are only interested in themselves and their ability to type other people based off ignorance.
I would highly recommend reading Judea Pearl's lecture on Causality:
The Art and Science of Cause and Effect:
http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/cau...2-epilogue.pdf
--
I'm still a layman, but this has clarified many things for me, and all the problems that Socionics faces. It seems to me that most of us being amateurs, we don't have the necessary tools like statistics, probabilities and (mathematical model of) causality to objectively describe an observed phenomenon and transcribe that in an objective manner (though I'm sure some people here are statisticians, have knowledge of advanced mathematics etc., but they don't seem to apply it to Socionics). We rely on ordinary languages that are vague and imprecise and are prone to errors. But what we would really need is a "universal language" of mathematics.
What puzzles me is why the "professional Socionists" don't use this approach, even though they have a fetish for applying some complicated math to Model A. Because it would cost too much money to perform controlled experiments? Because then the entire system would be refuted and break down? Because then they would have to modify the theory so much that it would hardly be "Jungian" or "Augustaian" anymore, because they also have a fetish for their originators of the theory? Maybe the entire process of "typing" is simply not tenable. None of this can be properly measured or quantified.
Anyway, even then, there may not be much to be salvaged from Socionics. And if we narrow down so much variables as to be able to finally assume causality from a vast amount of experimental data, then such findings may already have been discovered by some other psychology studies and experiments.
This is all true but it's also prudent to not trust neuroscience to have the answers either.Originally Posted by Chains
Take the subject of free will, debated over millennia by philosophers and scientists. Do a google search for 'neuroscientists prove we don't have free will', and you will find search results saying science proves we don't have it and that science proves we do have it.
The problem then is the definition of free will. Do we have the free will to control whether our heart beats or not, or when we feel hungry? Well, maybe not, but people have known this for millennia too and it never settled any debate.
Also scientists have their biases too, which will influence at least what they want to research.
This can all make life seem like a crazy mess, well, it is a little, but it's best to read things yes, but still to look to the old tried and true method of experience. Everyone's situation is unique and only we can learn what works and is right for us, so it's not that bad
Agreed. All pretty reasonableThis is all true but it's also prudent to not trust neuroscience to have the answers either.
Take the subject of free will, debated over millennia by philosophers and scientists. Do a google search for 'neuroscientists prove we don't have free will', and you will find search results saying science proves we don't have it and that science proves we do have it.
The problem then is the definition of free will. Do we have the free will to control whether our heart beats or not, or when we feel hungry? Well, maybe not, but people have known this for millennia too and it never settled any debate.
Also scientists have their biases too, which will influence at least what they want to research.
This can all make life seem like a crazy mess, well, it is a little, but it's best to read things yes, but still to look to the old tried and true method of experience. Everyone's situation is unique and only we can learn what works and is right for us, so it's not that bad
Lenore Thomson, Braintypes, and Dario Nardi have been around for years. Judea Pearl's book is from 8 years ago. Jung has been around since Neuroscience began and on it goes. It never occurs that not only are there people that understand Neuroscience, Structural Modeling, Empirical Methodology, Linguistics, Mathematics, AND Socionics better than a beginner with low expertise. They are also perfectly capable of conducting their own meta-analysis of the available literature, creating an integrated research paradigm and rationalist methodology, updating the current state-of-the-art in interdisciplinary studies, forming a group of advisors and consultants with specialized expertise, successfully constructing an educational curriculum and pedagogy implemented by schools/seminars/credential/training programs, while also maintaining cross-cultural transparency with multiple language translators without ever having needed to solicit one idea from you.
The only reason that the debate has been going on for millenias, is because up until very recently, it has all been just a matter of "people talking shit" and "people making things up" (i.e. philosophy). It is only recently that we have both the tools and the knowledge to decide on the matter.
So on the most basic and fundamental level, quantum physics says that things are just kind of... random. At least, it's random from the perspective of our universe. It really doesn't matter what the initial starting point is, because the result could go either way. Nothing can ever be determined in a sense. But that just means that things are non-deterministic, but perhaps it doesn't necessarily mean that we have free will, either.
But on the neusroscientific side, the opinions are tipping towards that we don't have free will, since most of the decisions have already been decided by the unconscious, and it is an illusion created by the brain to make us think that we have made a choice, when we really didn't.
So of course, people don't have "the" answer, but scientific tools and knowledge can definitely help us decide to pick the "best" answer that we have right now, from the best knowledge that we currently have about the world as well as ourselves. The reason why people have been making same kind of mistakes and errors for thousands of years, is due to because we had no real understanding of how our brains worked. And now we are finally starting to figure out how it really works, in a scientific way. And I think, that is a pretty exciting thing that's happening right now.
Wow that's dumb, so you judge information by how long it has been?
I think this is a very important point:
The reverence that most people here have toward Jung is perverse.The reverence that philosophers show for the historical sources of ideas is very perverse, you know. In science we do not consider the discoverer of a theory to have any special insight into it. On the contrary, we hardly ever consult original sources. They invariably become obsolete, as the problem-situations that prompted them are transformed by the discoveries themselves. For example, most relativity theorists today understand Einstein’s theory better than he did. The founders of quantum theory made a complete mess of understanding their own theory. Such shaky beginnings are to be expected; and when we stand upon the shoulders of giants, it may not be all that hard to see further than they did. But in any case, surely it is more interesting to argue about what the truth is, than about what some particular thinker, however great, did or did not think.
Also things like Lenore Thomson, Braintypes, and Dario Nardi are all mostly pseudoscientific bullshit.
look it was all people "talking shit" until singu came around to pass judgement
the verdict is in and its this particular incestuous citation network of academic figures he accidentally landed among (in time) that get the objective™ seal of approval
Only if it has survived many criticisms during that time. Look at the history of physics, no improvement in thousands of years and people have been believing in the wrong things as being true.
You're right that I didn't think of it, somebody else did, and I'm just sharing the information. Problem? Go read Judea Pearl's Causality if you cared so much about causality, which you don't nor you even understand as a concept.
Oh yeah blame passing the judgment... it has nothing to do with truths or something.
Look all I'm saying is, if you're reasonably intelligent then sooner or later, you will realize that this whole thing is just a bunch of hocus pocus. But you are free to believe whatever you want, so whatever. The proof is in the pudding.
Some people here act like as if obtaining outside information is "heresy". The entire community acts just like a cult.
Se Te baby, I agreeThe proof is in the pudding.
the problem is your mode of critique is only valid when properly oriented toward a prior beta hegemon, so you're all mixed up. you're leveling it at all the wrong theories while meanwhile propping up a corrupt social heirarchy which is the exact opposite of your proper purpose. in other words, you need to direct yourself at the right cult, which is where you're going wrongSome people here act like as if obtaining outside information is "heresy". The entire community acts just like a cult.
Already ahead of you, moron.http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r350.pdf
IEI's understand statistics well enough then fail at thelevel of Causal Logic. If you expect to capture multiple fields of study as an interdisciplinarian then you will need stronger tools than Interface Design and Classification Schemes.
Can you actually prove anything outside of Socionics? No? Ok...
Mr. pseud.
Explain how causality works. Demonstrate it.
the entire point is you just beg the question on proof. you need to bust out of your little circle or forever be frustrated
do you really think science wants your cut rate logic anyway? and you're jobbing by ethically promoting them in the least useful most counterproductive way possible. if the proof is in the pudding you can shut the fuck up any time
u mad bro? Why can't you use any outside information to prove Socionics, Bertrand? Is it because you are too stooooopid? That's what I thought.
yeah super mad
you're just proving my point, maybe that would work on someone inclined to get mad at your antics like SLE, but I just feel bad for you--I always have
not only does it not work the underlying critique is misplaced.. its like jeez man, sort yourself out
Why are you still using Socionics arguments on me, when you haven't even proved that Socionics is true? Lawl.
You're still not proving anything, I mean proving in a way that matters, and not in a way of sophistic quibbles like you always do. You can't prove, because you don't have nearly the talent nor the intelligence for it. Too bad. You're too stuck in a kind of System 1, "intuitive" thinking and you can't lawgic or math, lawl.
yeah we get it you reject socionics, but spend a great deal of time posting here, that's the problem, its always been the problem
He thinks he can excuse any behavior that he likes and force an argument onto poorly misguided Te-grounds. As if proof, logic, math, or causality means anything to people that don't already understand it.
its interesting because I'd love to see someone actually be convinced by that sort of bleating. it would be like magic to me. there's no substance to any of it yet he's acting as if its really important and substantial
@fox Can we get a thread split? There was an insightful question for once and it devolved into a flame war that isn't even about the question.
@Bertrand - not saying that I agree with you on every thread but you were my ray of light in this specific instance. <3I guess on some level I assume there are third parties that might be heartened by hearing my perspective because they're likewise worn down by these kinds of people, such that maybe I can cast a ray of light into their life by objecting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote