Originally Posted by Singu
All science... is statistics!
I like science, but I don't believe everything is a computer, or that transhumanism has a chance.Well apparently you're anti-science, but do you not benefit from science?
All science... is statistics!
I like science, but I don't believe everything is a computer, or that transhumanism has a chance.Well apparently you're anti-science, but do you not benefit from science?
And science... isn't statistics. Maybe statistics is used to test the experiment of a theory.
Again, then what is the mind analogous to? You said that it was magic, which means that apparently, your own thoughts are made up of magic, which will probably disappear in a puff of magic. Reason!
Singu makes my stomach hurt from laughing out loud in irl LOL
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Science is a collection of theories, and theories are a collection of statistics that people find reasonable. It's a good servant and a piss-poor master.
Well, Jung thought it was magic. He used alchemy of all things to describe the mind. Freud thought it was penises though. Computers suck (though maybe I just need to switch to Linux already,) so I'll take either of those over computers. The mind is the voodoo dildo from the voodoo dildo joke.Again, then what is the mind analogous to? You said that it was magic, which means that apparently, your own thoughts are made up of magic, which will probably disappear in a puff of magic. Reason!
lol fuck off. Go study astrology or something, noob. Or you can always try, SOCIONICS.
I thought that was just the cocaine-like amount of caffeine I ingested that makes me think that this is a good idea.
Well obviously, the statistical data in itself don't have any meaning. You interpret the data through the theory.
Well that's why Jung was an idiot, and no one cares about Jung anymore.
Well at least you're learning something.
How many colors are there? You see what you want to see. Sol's going to chime in saying his favorite color is light blue or something now, and not be able to tell apart pink and red. Excuse me while I make a scientific theory about how pink is real, light blue is just blue with white, and Russians suck because they have inferior eyeballs or something. not really
Socionics is based on Jung. Also, so is Star Wars, and Harry Potter, and a lot of actual religious beliefs people have. A Jung is a Jung by any other name.Well that's why Jung was an idiot, and no one cares about Jung anymore.
You can make a theory out of that, but it's likely to be criticized because it doesn't really contain any good explanations of how things work. And you're talking about opinions.
Yes, so Jung is fiction, and so is Socionics.
Give me time and I'll give you a quality explanation of the inferiority of Russian eyeballs to Western ones.
Yes. Socionics is MBTI for Slavs and hipsters. That's the point. Are we supposed to replace our elaborate BuzzFeed quizzes with Geek Rapture? What are you proposing?Yes, so Jung is fiction, and so is Socionics.
Well you're going to have hell of a time explaining that, because you'd have to explain *how* blue eyes *cause* supposedly inferior or superior traits in people.
Btw, does Socionics do that job of explaining how things work? Well no, because it's just based on mere observations of people. Inductivism doesn't work.
Well I already told you, one of the ways of doing that is by understanding the values and ideas of people.Yes. Socionics is MBTI for Slavs and hipsters. What are you proposing?
Btw, I think this is already being done in areas such as cognitive sociology, like the "theory of self-efficacy".
It's based on an incredibly simple idea, that says if one has a belief that he can achieve something, then it is likely that he will not give up and hence actually achieve it (such as quitting smoking). It may seem obvious, it's somewhat useful.
The belief in Self-efficacy is created from these various ideas:
1. Experience. The personal experience of a mastery or a successful experience will increase his own belief in ability to achieve something. The experience of a failure will decrease it.
2. Modeling. Such as identifying with gender role models, that says "If they can do it, then so can I", which increases one's own self-efficacy.
3. Social persuasion. If they're encouraged or persuaded from the people around them, then they will likely believe that they can do it.
etc.
So the BELIEF in self-efficacy, is an independent, static variable which we measure to predict the behavior of a person.
Socionics has got it backwards, because the PERSON is dynamic, not static, but IDEAS, VALUES and BELIEFS are static concepts which may be able to predict certain behaviors out of it through the if-then construct. This is deduction and not induction, so it's better.
Last edited by Singu; 04-18-2018 at 04:46 AM.
It's not the blueness of the eyes. It's what people see. And if people are seeing colors that aren't there and not seeing ones that are, their eyes are inferior.
This guy thinks he's invincible. That means that when he walks in the street, he'll be extra careful and not get run over by a car.Well I already told you, one of the ways of doing that is by understanding the values and ideas of people.
Btw, I think this is already being done in areas such as cognitive sociology, like the "theory of self-efficacy".
It's based on an incredibly simple idea, that says if one has a belief that he can achieve something, then it is likely that he will not give up and hence actually achieve it (such as quitting smoking). It may seem obvious, it's somewhat useful.
The belief in Self-efficacy is created from these various ideas:
1. Experience. The personal experience of a mastery or a successful experience will increase his own belief in ability to achieve something. The experience of a failure will decrease it.
2. Modeling. Such as identifying with gender role models, that says "If they can do it, then so can I", which increases one's own self-efficacy.
3. Social persuasion. If they're encouraged or persuaded from the people around them, then they will likely believe that they can do it.
etc.
So the BELIEF in self-efficacy, is an independent variable which we measure to predict the behavior of a person.
Yeah, so you just proved that if one has a belief that he's invincible, then he will likely do reckless things.
But you said that if someone believes they can quit smoking, they'll quit smoking. If someone believes they can quit smoking, they might also believe that it's OK for them to smoke one more time because they can quit the next time. How does belief translate into action without any consideration of things that don't have beliefs?
Well then you can just look at the evidence, and see that the people who were told that they can quit, were able to quit more than the people who were told that it is incredibly difficult to quit smoking (even lower for people who received no treatments). It became a self-fulfilling prophecy:
I hope you don't think I'm deprecating crackpottery. Long live crackpottery. But yours seems to be an obsession... you seem hellbent on demeaning socionics (as of late), and I would like to know your motivation. What I would like to know is why you're doing this. You think the theory is wrong? You don't agree with what you have experienced with ITRs? Or...?
Either you're trolling or you insist on bringing up the same pointless argument over and over again without comprehending even the most basic aspects of socionics. In either case there is no point responding to you.
So still no explanation, then, lol. So much for the supposedly "genius" LII or an "NT". You can't even explain how supposedly types or functions cause behavior, because there is none. Socionics is a theory based on the wrong idea of inductivism, or through observations.
But as I have explained in this thread, it is not the "type" that is static, as a person is dynamic, but rather it is the concept of ideas and values and beliefs that are static. You cannot predict behaviors from types.
I think he got the socionics that transhumanists at Google are using confused with Aushra's socionics, which are actually different things with the same name, and is wondering how we're going to upload people's minds into robots now. I didn't come here to upload my mind into a robot, but if it's really possible, that would be kind of cool. But socionics is just Slav/hipster MBTI. That's all.
NO U
And this makes you LSE Ni-POLR CONFIRMED
JUST ACCEPT IT. IT'S YOUR DESTINY.
Ni POLR CONFIRMED
good bye
Wait, does this all mean socionics is over now?
IM FREE NOW
good bye
Well I think the idea of making observations to come up with a hypothesis is fucking stupid (also, not science), so I don't think that's very LSE. Not that that sort of thing is actually "LSE", but you get the point.
Well I don't think getting at people's motivations is a good idea, since you can just cut to the chase and say, "That's wrong. Here's why" instead. I probably shouldn't have demeaned or made fun of it, and for that I apologize. But as for my motivation, well there are many motivations, obviously, but the main idea is that I think that Socionics is totally, completely and absolutely wrong, and I can explain why.
1. is the problem of induction. You do not make a theory out of observations and making generalizations. You don't observe something, then you make a theory out of it. That's inductivism, and that's not how science works. Rather the way science works, is through explanations, through deductions.
Here's a basic definition of science, from Wiki:
I happened to have randomly stumbled upon a video (transcript) of Noam Chomsky, and I happen to agree with what he had to say:
2. Well that's about it really, but the common excuse for Socionics is something like, "Well it's not supposed to be objective blah blah blah... it's subjective!". Actually, it's worse than just subjective, since the theory is based on fucking observations. It's not subjective at all. It's EMPIRICISM, in the worst sense.
When you say, "See this video here, this is Fe", then that's a fucking observation, NOT an explanation. And we are rather seeking explanations, WHY that happened, WHY he did that, HOW did it cause that behavior, etc, etc. NOT observations. We don't really care about observations, other than to test and experiment the theory, which is a particular interpretation of reality.
See that's why u r LSE.
ALL IS REVEALED
good bye
Singu what you say about observations and hypothesis is absolute gibberish. Making observations and making hypothesis are the basics of science and scientific method. It's like 2 + 2 = 4. You cannot tell that such basic fundamentals are not true because that's utter nonsense. There's something very alarming about your thoughts and I am being very serious about it.
No they're not, and you're wrong. Inductivism is wrong and it doesn't work. You cannot extrapolate generalizations from observations and expect to work the same way over and over again, because "the future does not resemble the past". Try again.
2 + 2 = 4 = deduction. Try again.
you might say "2 + 2 = 4 IS deduction" but not "2 + 2 = 4 = deduction" since deduction is not equal to 4.
Well Einstein was right, no matter how dense an object is they still have the same gravity force. But you have to understand that people do not work this way, they are a cluster of variables. The laws of physics is what allowed humans to exist (probably if not on the 6th day of existence). But humans are dynamic and in a few hundred years will behave a bit different.
Yeah, and that's why deduction doesn't really work.
"Thus, you will never find in all nature two identical objects; in the natural order, therefore, two and two can never make four, for, to attain that result, we must combine units that are exactly alike, and you know that it is impossible to find two leaves alike on the same tree, or two identical individuals in the same species of tree.
That axiom of your numeration, false in visible nature, is false likewise in the invisible universe of your abstractions, where the same variety is found in your ideas, which are the objects of the visible world extended by their interrelations; indeed, the differences are more striking there than elsewhere."
—Honoré de Balzac
Singu, if there was an objetive proof of people having types (for instance, a machine that reads the brain patterns and notices the differences between one type and another), would this satisfy your qualms?
upvotes for balzac
Why not? Generally, a random sample is considered better than a biased one. Also, Chomsky is senile.Non-science starts with just collecting data and trying to make inductive generalizations from it, and it gets absolutely nowhere. You just can't do it.
its like Trump read chomsky and thought manufacturing consent was a guide book
I say its like because we all know trump doesn't read
its like chomsky was motivated by the fears arising out of his subconscious orientation to his dual
PoLR moments. I should start thread: How socionics can show us that there is no hope for humanity.
Dunno but are we trying defeat all calculus based science?
Someone, please, bring Newton back to life.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Scientific method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
So whatever you are doing it bottom up or top down depends on the specific case and sometimes one works better sometimes the other. You can't say that inductive is wrong because it's sometimes the only option available and it does produce results. It's just style of work. Some people prefer top down some other bottom up. Both are just styles of thinking and it really depends on personal preference but it doesn't mean it isn't science or it's kind of some problem.
It's also very fuzzed the way that you never fully do bottom up or top down. To formulate the theory you need some data based on observations first and you cannot invent theory having no data because this equals no theory. So it usually works the way that there's some initial data on which theory is developed and then based on that theory there are experiments done, and then based on the results the theory is corrected.
I think if you want to better understand how this things work research what are the actual processes in research, science, engineering, it's usually a cycle and it does involve both deduction and induction.
I am telling you this from practical view of hard science and not philosophy or soft science. Maybe the fact socionics is soft science makes you frustrated.
Both methods are valid and there isn't single method which would apply to all branches of science.
Last edited by falsehope; 04-18-2018 at 08:34 PM.
What is this thread about?
Right, and yet deduction is the only tool we have since we can't have a direct access to reality, and we can't ever prove something from evidence. It's what's used in pretty much all of science.
Well I guess Balzac didn't know that there were such thing as atoms, as they're what you would call, er, fungible, and it doesn't matter which atom it is, as atoms are interchangeable with another. So yeah, Balzac was wrong.
Again, you're looking at the problem in the wrong way. There CAN be no "proof" of something (other than in math and logic). If a machine reads something, then that's an OBSERVATION, not an explanation! What does it mean if a machine reads some brain patterns? That doesn't mean anything, unless you can explain what it means (in prior, mind you). Those differences in patterns only mean something if they're given interpretations (i.e. explanations) in the first place!
Instead of extrapolating generalizations from observations, we rather seek explanations through logical causality and consequences.
You're saying that types already exist, and we should look for evidence to confirm that supposition. But we can't "confirm" anything from evidence. You're only trying to do that, because you're trying to "prove" something to be true. But we can never prove, because we will never know if something is true or not. So the entire question was wrong, it needed to be framed in a different way.
This is why you're an idiot, and don't know what you're talking about. Also: Socionics is wrong.
Read this:
- "Problem-solving and the problem of induction", in Rethinking Popper
On the contrary, this is a completely nonsensical way at looking at things. Without a theory, what are we supposed to observe first?
Last edited by Singu; 04-19-2018 at 01:39 AM.
put me back in your sig
What the hell Singu ... what do you mean by saying that there "is not proof" of anything. Do you believe we live in matrix-esque simulation? That your eyes only deceive you? That reality is not real, only math is real? Then why do you even bother to make this thread?
This thread is about how Socionics is true and proven, because induction is true and logic is evil and subjective.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
