Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 241 to 280 of 329

Thread: Why idontgiveaf is SEE?

  1. #241

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    well I think the Ni base perspective reduces all Se to one dimension, but then retains for itself the ability to manipulate power on the level of abstract perception. so they submit to the biggest bully because its not really submission, its more like infiltration, and the reason they pick the biggest bully is because when they control it they control the most powerful force, i.e.: they pick people for the work they can do for them. in other words, the bully and the inability to directly challenge them is not a problem, nor is any of their literal statements or positions, because Ni base just believes it can twist all that into whatever it wants anyway, mainly through Fe and Ni in the case of beta. Which is really to say no more than SLE is easily manipulated via displays of emotion and not obvious abstract strategery, such as play on meanings and kinds of "prophecies"
    I was asking about the Fe bit specifically if you can say what you meant by it.

    How does SLE get manipulated via play on meanings lol that's something I find hard to imagine too. Did you actually observe this before? And if so what did it look like?


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    This is why these "Socionics arguments" go nowhere, lol. It's like there's no use arguing with people who are into Socionics. They make a bunch of assumptions and they just get things completely wrong.
    Assumptions without checking them in reality are never good, Socionics or not.

  2. #242

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

    Default

    Damn I have to go, will check back later, you two enjoy tho'!

  3. #243

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    If you never believed in Socionics why are you so upset about where it's wrong now?
    I said I used to believe in it, but I no longer do, for simple reasons that it doesn't work. Why do you assume that I must be upset about it? It has been good for me that I no longer believe Socionics to be true, and so I do think that it would be good for others, as well. Now is this going to be successful, well probably not, but it would help me with my own understanding as well. But there are going to be some "defectors" of Socionics because of this, and I think that would be a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I just think you were less adamant before about the issue of science vs Socionics. It's as if you are trying to prove something to yourself about this.
    I've started looking into science, because I wanted to find out exactly why Socionics didn't work. I've been looking into science lately, and it has been interesting. I do think that it's a good idea to talk about it with people who have the exact opposite views and opinions, because then it would really test your understanding, instead of just talking about it with people that would only agree with you or think the same things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Assumptions without checking them in reality are never good, Socionics or not.
    The problem is that Socionics is entirely about making assumptions. You type people, and observe them. They act a certain way, so you assume that there must be a pattern. And you apply that pattern to the people that you type in the future. That's entirely an assumption that they're going to be acting the same way as those other people of the same type.

    And that's just their behavioral observations. It has nothing on their cognitive and psychological processes. All of them are simply assumptions.
    Last edited by Singu; 05-06-2018 at 11:33 AM.

  4. #244

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    well I think the Ni base perspective reduces all Se to one dimension, but then retains for itself the ability to manipulate power on the level of abstract perception. so they submit to the biggest bully because its not really submission, its more like infiltration, and the reason they pick the biggest bully is because when they control it they control the most powerful force, i.e.: they pick people for the work they can do for them. in other words, the bully and the inability to directly challenge them is not a problem, nor is any of their literal statements or positions, because Ni base just believes it can twist all that into whatever it wants anyway, mainly through Fe and Ni in the case of beta. Which is really to say no more than SLE is easily manipulated via displays of emotion and not obvious abstract strategery, such as play on meanings and kinds of "prophecies." the fact that its all 1d is just because from the point of view of Ni base it really is all the same for their purposes of personally leveraging it, i.e.: somewhat useless and unimportant. this is how 1d functions arent just reductions of norms but categorically unique, because its not just normatively inferior, its actually a kind of synthetic and unique take on power--they're not totally blind to it since more is more when it comes to finding the baddest chief to mind control, rather its this idiosyncratic blend that characterizes their Se. that this is kind of a bad life strategy is sort of a Te blindspot (by this I mean there are significant practical shortcomings that are immediately obvious to most people, such that it seems like I'm straightforwardly denigrating them but I'm really not, in going about life in this way) and non valued Fi to boot. in any case you could say there is a kind of determinism at work here where people I think become like this in response to an environment that left them few options. thats basically what late stage beta turns into, a total gulag or kafkaesque castle--so IEI is kind of organic to that and can hardly be blamed
    It's like I don't understand why you think that you can come up with all these "insights" on your own, and not realize that you are actually talking about yourself and your own emotional landscape. Those thoughts are so foreign to me that it's actually simply quite bizarre and somewhat frightening that someone could even conceive of such a thing.

    You are obviously some kind of a parasitic and inhuman sociopath with some bizarre thoughts and no real human emotions, so you have my pity, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  5. #245

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I said I used to believe in it, but I no longer do, for simple reasons that it doesn't work. Why do you assume that I must be upset about it? It has been good for me that I no longer believe Socionics to be true, and so I do think that it would be good for others, as well. Now is this going to be successful, well probably not, but it would help me with my own understanding as well. But there are going to be some "defectors" of Socionics because of this, and I think that would be a good thing.
    You sound upset when you really get into claiming how everyone here is delusional, it's really overemotional exclamations.

    I'm glad if you don't think anymore that all those bs nuances of the obscure models are true, btw

    Defector??? lol what an emotional view of things again. "A defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state in exchange for allegiance to another, in a way which is considered illegitimate by the first state. More broadly, it involves abandoning a person, cause, or doctrine to which one is bound by some tie, as of allegiance or duty."

    Who cares about all that crap. Allegiance and duties to Socionics? Seriously? I prefer objectivity instead.


    I've started looking into science, because I wanted to find out exactly why Socionics didn't work. I've been looking into science lately, and it has been interesting. I do think that it's a good idea to talk about it with people who have the exact opposite views and opinions, because then it would really test your understanding, instead of just talking about it with people that would only agree with you or think the same things.
    That's actually cool if trying to understand Socionics led you to science of psychology. I'd like that to happen more often to people here Because it allows you to gain a better overall understanding than if you stay stuck inside the rabbitholey nuances of obscure speculations by Gulenko and the likes of him lol


    The problem is that Socionics is entirely about making assumptions. You type people, and observe them. They act a certain way, so you assume that there must be a pattern. And you apply that pattern to the people that you type in the future. That's entirely an assumption that they're going to be acting the same way as those other people of the same type.

    And that's just their behavioral observations. It has nothing on their cognitive and psychological processes. All of them are simply assumptions.
    No, it's not necessary to assume things any more with Socionics than with any other ideas or theories. You can observe and test instead of assuming, in Socionics too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It's like I don't understand why you think that you can come up with all these "insights" on your own, and not realize that you are actually talking about yourself and your own emotional landscape. Those thoughts are so foreign to me that it's actually simply quite bizarre and somewhat frightening that someone could even conceive of such a thing.

    You are obviously some kind of a parasitic and inhuman sociopath with some bizarre thoughts and no real human emotions, so you have my pity, and may God have mercy on your soul.
    Too much truth in his statements?

    Jk.

  6. #246

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

    Default

    @Singu Okay, I saw the moderator note now in the mental imagery thread, please reply to my above post in a thread where it's more on topic.

    Say, this one (I didn't read that thread yet btw, but maybe later) http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-reality/page5

  7. #247
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idontgiveaf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Myst
    lol, so you don't want an ILI for your dual


    Depends if he's hot.. But usually they are hard to deal with
    You are dealing with the wrong subtypes (DCNH), I'll say I felt the same way given that I couldn't not get along with an SEE dude on a project. The dude projected malice on me simple because when I think of solutions, I start from the perspective of everything that could go wrong, working in reverse to devise a solution. He found that weird thinking I was just raining on his parade, when he just failed to see that I'm contributing with the opposite emphasis.

    BTW I don't quite relate to ILI descriptions in general when they talk about the weaknesses, or even quadra values. Given my fixation on alpha values too.

  8. #248
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idontgiveaf View Post
    Yes i am! A lazy one. Why?!
    I always felt Viktor was wrong when he started delineating acumen with type, plus the idea that SEEs lack logic or abstract thinking. BTW John Linneman is ESE, with his interest in languages and analysis doesn't fit with the idea of the type which was clearly written by none representatives.
    https://www.eurogamer.net/authors/1117

    I've gotten rid of the "S/N" dichotomy, replacing it with "Direct-perception vs Interpretive-perception", direct "S" percievers take information as it is, whilst interpretive "N" percievers distort details through interpreting. On logic everyone is logical but:
    *Pedantic "T" logicians are as the name says, obsessed with details in their reasoning, justification.
    *Conceptual "F" logicians are focused on the general ideas in their reasoning and justification.

    It's not surprising to see that most of the basic banal stuff attributed to other types is actually shared.

  9. #249
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    Actually the autistic I have seen in people is not dependent on type.

    They can be very hard people to deal with but not all of them are like that.


    You know people who are totally devoid of any sort connection to the rest of the world of people. They do as they want etc and they might mutilate others with random objects. No ability to co-operate while they might have some phenomenal skills. It varies.
    Oh that's my ex crush. He's a good example of autism. He just friendzoned me. Lol 😂

  10. #250
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    And IEI?
    Autistic people regardless of type is hard to deal with

  11. #251
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    You are dealing with the wrong subtypes (DCNH), I'll say I felt the same way given that I couldn't not get along with an SEE dude on a project. The dude projected malice on me simple because when I think of solutions, I start from the perspective of everything that could go wrong, working in reverse to devise a solution. He found that weird thinking I was just raining on his parade, when he just failed to see that I'm contributing with the opposite emphasis.

    BTW I don't quite relate to ILI descriptions in general when they talk about the weaknesses, or even quadra values. Given my fixation on alpha values too.
    Nahh...it's not really type related.

    Some autistic people are just hard to deal with in real life.. Like, i don't know.. They're thinking of themselves too much. They fail to empathize..

  12. #252
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    I always felt Viktor was wrong when he started delineating acumen with type, plus the idea that SEEs lack logic or abstract thinking. BTW John Linneman is ESE, with his interest in languages and analysis doesn't fit with the idea of the type which was clearly written by none representatives.
    https://www.eurogamer.net/authors/1117

    I've gotten rid of the "S/N" dichotomy, replacing it with "Direct-perception vs Interpretive-perception", direct "S" percievers take information as it is, whilst interpretive "N" percievers distort details through interpreting. On logic everyone is logical but:
    *Pedantic "T" logicians are as the name says, obsessed with details in their reasoning, justification.
    *Conceptual "F" logicians are focused on the general ideas in their reasoning and justification.

    It's not surprising to see that most of the basic banal stuff attributed to other types is actually shared.
    That's why socionics is stupid dude.

  13. #253

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idontgiveaf View Post
    Autistic people regardless of type is hard to deal with
    It was actually a joke when equating ILI with autism lol

    So, IEI as dual? Would you handle their erratic emotionality and lack of pragmatism okay? Or do you want someone more pragmatic and less emotional-feely?

  14. #254
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    3,978
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    shes not a thinker omg.. shes all over the place and emotional

  15. #255
    Spiritual Advisor Hope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Celestial Sli
    Posts
    3,448
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well this is really a matter of... a frame of thinking. Me and idontgiveaf are supposed to be different types... even completely different types, we have never really interacted before and yet there is a kind of an understanding.
    1DTi?

  16. #256

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
    1DTi?
    Yes, well these "1D Ti" people have better logical abilities than you (or even me).

    There's just no evidence that just because one types as a "T" type, he/she is more right or more logical. And that's why you have so many people who self-type as a "T" type, who think that it must mean that they're automatically smart or factual or logical. When what they're doing is they just think that they're right. Who will be the judge? Certainly they'll realize that when they step outside of this forum.
    Last edited by Singu; 05-07-2018 at 12:01 PM.

  17. #257
    Spiritual Advisor Hope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Celestial Sli
    Posts
    3,448
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yes, well these "1D Ti" people have better logical abilities than you (or even me).

    I meant yours more than hers. My, I even have to explain that what you have in common is 1DTi, thats why its hard for you to grasp theory and then you want hard "evidence", as if it were some scientific field. You can't handle it in its scheme. Thats 1DTi. Internal structure just works in first person.

    There's just no evidence that just because one types as a "T" type, he/she is more right or more logical. And that's why you have so many people who self-type as a "T" type, who think that it must mean that they're automatically smart or factual or logical.
    No, thats a wrong understanding of elements.

  18. #258

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
    I meant yours more than hers. My, I even have to explain that what you have in common is 1DTi, thats why its hard for you to grasp theory and then you want hard "evidence", as if it were some scientific field. You can't handle it in its scheme. Thats 1DTi. Internal structure just works in first person.
    Ok, so what we have in common in our understanding is our 1D Ti, and yet it doesn't have to do with what we have in common (for the record, I neither claim nor deny that I have 1D Ti, as that is quite irrelevant). Nice logical reasoning, there.

    I understand the "theory" perfectly well, and I even understand where it gets things wrong, what its flaws are, and I can also explain why. Something that you haven't managed to do. However I wouldn't necessarily chalk that up to lack in logical abilities, but it's more like a lack in knowledge and misconceptions.

    By "evidence", I mean something as simple as an observation. There just seems to be no correlation between logical abilities and their types, or what we think their types are.

  19. #259
    Spiritual Advisor Hope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Celestial Sli
    Posts
    3,448
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Ok, so what we have in common in our understanding is our 1D Ti, and yet it doesn't have to do with what we have in common. Nice logical reasoning, there.
    You are not saying anything.

    I understand the "theory" perfectly well, and I even understand where it gets things wrong, what its flaws are, and I can also explain why.Something that you haven't managed to do. However I wouldn't necessarily chalk to this up to lack in logical abilities, but it's more like a lack in knowledge and misconceptions.

    By "evidence", I mean something as simple as an
    and their types, or what we think their types are.

    I'd love to see how you understand socionics perfectly. Because at this point all what I've seen is verbal diarrhea without any kind of support, more or less what you accuse socionics and all of us of doing, btw. Not even observational since the observations of all of us and socionics theorists are different than yours. So, if you have managed some 'enlightment' about why socionics is not science (lolz) and how you 'got in' and 'get out' from its theory and prove it wrong remains unrevealed, i.e. chatterbox. Translation: you are not more scientifical than socionics, neither your reasoning, you can't prove anything wrong because there is nothing wrong to be proved, repeating something over and over doesnt make it true, and you say you understand theory but I havent seen anything that proves that. So please explain theory. Explain functions. Explain dimensionality. Explain types. Explain itrs, then, explain why all of that is perfectly wrong. Its simple. And you said you already did it, so it must be easier for you. If you dont/cant/want to do that, no one is going to take you seriously since you have 0 support. Until that day you'll just remain as a good living example of 1DTi.

  20. #260

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
    I'd love to see how you understand socionics perfectly.
    Well I've been talking about this with Myst in couple of my last posts. My view is that a "type" is basically something that is observed. You observe a bunch of people, and if there are similarities in their personalities, behaviors and traits, then you call that a "type", like an EII. And if a person fits that "typical" personality, behavior, and trait of an EII, then we'll call him an EII. It is a system of categorization.

    "Functions" basically work in the same way. You observe for example "Se PoLR" as a weakness in physical abilities.

    This is basically what the description of functions say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Se PoLR
    The individual tends to overreact to aggressive or confrontational behavior, taking it as a personal threat when it may only be a knee-jerk reaction or the result of a bad mood. He tends to avoid intruding on others' space or engaging in behavior that may be perceived as coercive, and tries hard to handle his needs by being disciplined and well-prepared himself - rather than relying on others to do things for him. If these strategies fail, his efforts at dealing with the resulting conflict make him look actively pushy in a way that appears awkward and unnatural to others. This opens him up to painful criticism and feelings of weakness and helplessness.
    http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/i...on_elements/Se


    "ITR", is also based on observations. You observe personality X and personality Y conflicting, thereby we call it relationship Z.

    I'm not necessarily saying that it's wrong because Socionics isn't "science". Socionics may be perfectly fine as data, although not exactly a very reliable or efficient data, as it doesn't employ any statistical methods, they're all based on personal observations and anecdotes.

    But why wouldn't Socionics be "science"? It's because basically, science is in interest of explaining things, explaining how things work. And you explain things through a theory. As Socionics is mostly just observational data, it's not explaining things much. It can hardly be called a "theory".

    So, is that a problem? Not necessarily. But people try to make Socionics more than what it is. It pretends that Socionics is explaining things, when it doesn't. What does it exactly mean, when you say that "Your behavior is explained by Ti PoLR"? That's not actually an explanation of anything.

  21. #261
    Spiritual Advisor Hope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Celestial Sli
    Posts
    3,448
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well I've been talking about this with Myst in couple of my last posts. My view is that a "type" is basically something that is observed. You observe a bunch of people, and if there are similarities in their personalities, behaviors and traits, then you call that a "type", like an EII. And if a person fits that "typical" personality, behavior, and trait of an EII, then we'll call him an EII. It is a system of categorization.
    Yes, though, you are defining type through an observational typing method. There are other methodologies (non observational) for typing such as test.
    Anyway, the real matter is if types or behavioral patterns exist or not, and if they are, it must be possible to observe and analyse them as happens with must stuff in nature, which is what socionics attempts to do. Thats the main nature of psychology. Its the same with the other psychological categorizations, for example disorders. They are observed so the person can be considered into a classification depending in his/her patterns of behavior and thought. If you have a problem with this, you have a problem with psychology in general more than socionics.

    Then, saying that socionics is categorization and observation doesnt mean that you actually understand how each of those categories and observations works. You still not proving that you understand socionics theory and how and why it supposedly works in practice.

    "Functions" basically work in the same way. You observe for example "Se PoLR" as a weakness in physical abilities.
    Wrong understanding. Where are you getting that? Thats not what the text that you posted says at any rate. Try again.

    Originally Posted by Se PoLR
    The individual tends to overreact to aggressive or confrontational behavior, taking it as a personal threat when it may only be a knee-jerk reaction or the result of a bad mood. He tends to avoid intruding on others' space or engaging in behavior that may be perceived as coercive, and tries hard to handle his needs by being disciplined and well-prepared himself - rather than relying on others to do things for him. If these strategies fail, his efforts at dealing with the resulting conflict make him look actively pushy in a way that appears awkward and unnatural to others. This opens him up to painful criticism and feelings of weakness and helplessness.


    This seems to be the main root. Thats why you and op have problems with socionics. In an attempt to oversimplify and make information more bearable, you create your own interpretation of terminology that has anything to do with the real meanings and the observable behavior that it portrays. Thats why I was saying that you dont understand socionics theory and how it works and that you must prove opposite if you dont want to be consider as a chatterbox. Anyway, wrong understanding of elements and theory is all over this forum, indeed, the forum often doesnt help, since a lot of ppl do that in here, even "logicals". Thats why I get mad once in a while with ppl in here too.



    "ITR", is also based on observations. You observe personality X and personality Y conflicting, thereby we call it relationship Z.

    I'm not necessarily saying that it's wrong because Socionics isn't "science". Socionics may be perfectly fine as data, although not exactly a very reliable or efficient data, as it doesn't employ any statistical methods, they're all based on personal observations and anecdotes.
    Socionics is not reliable as data, its just fine as theory.

    But why wouldn't Socionics be "science"? It's because basically, science is in interest of explaining things, explaining how things work. And you explain things through a theory. As Socionics is mostly just observational data, it's not explaining things much. It can hardly be called a "theory".

    Again, you are inventing meanings.

    Ok, some hate me for going into "semantics" but I often need to do it especially when ppl make their own definitions of things so we need a common ground for understanding.

    Data: facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

    Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

    A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.


    Based on the definitions, socionics is not observational data. It doesnt have statistics collected to make a reference of analysis. Thats why its not science. Its a theory, its a supposition which try to explain some observable patterns in behavior aka personality. "Observable" that Jung and socionics theorist have observed and the random adepts had observed too. But there are no statistics or facts, no real data. Its theorization behind patterns that some had observed. Anyway, socionics goes in the same realm as other or most psychological categorizations.

    So, is that a problem? Not necessarily.
    Well, it is a problem for you, apparently. I wonder the real why. Not the one from below, but the personal one. Why socionics bothers you?

    But people try to make Socionics more than what it is. It pretends that Socionics is explaining things, when it doesn't. What does it exactly mean, when you say that "Your behavior is explained by Ti PoLR"? That's not actually an explanation of anything.
    I dont think that most are taking socionics as more than "what it is", since most dont even go beyond Se= physical and Se PoLR= weak physical. Then, again, your own lack of understanding of theory doesnt let you see that socionics is trying to explain personality through a model. It doesnt explain the origin of personality of course, it explains partially a reason for, the "why" of personality or behavioral patterns.

    What does it exactly mean, when you say that "Your behavior is explained by Ti PoLR"? That's not actually an explanation of anything.
    Of course it does, you cant see it because you dont want/cant understand what you are reading and apply it in several levels aka, dimensionality.

    Ti as Vulnerable Function

    The individual has a tendency to either completely reject or completely embrace a source of theoretical knowledge, but does not like to reveal the source or his adherence to it. He prefers to limit the number of theoretical categories he works with and tends to see new terminology, systems, and rules as being arbitrary and unnecessary until he at last discovers their necessity for himself through extensive personal experience. He may be able to express his views clearly when given the time, but he is not prepared to deal with people who challenge his views and draw him into logical arguments and disputes. For this reason, he is reluctant to publicize new determinations and opinions until he is absolutely sure that they are right and that he can support them thoroughly to anyone who challenges them.

    Ti as Suggestive Function

    The individual has great admiration for people with well-developed systems of views. He especially likes clear and concise explanations of concepts, rather than a lot of background information about them that is not directly pertinent. He wants his actions to make sense, and thus needs external assurance that the conceptual understanding behind them is correct. If he cannot find a source of certainty, he may become flustered and unable to act rationally at all.


    So socionics is fine as a called personality theory and it doesnt go beyond that, if someone lives it as a religion well, is not because of socionics, is because of the person decisions. But your rant goes in all directions and hardly motivates such ppl to consider socionics in a more relaxed way. It brings the opposite effect, actually. Since you seem so invested. 3d law of newton, figuratively, ofc.



    TL;DR?

    Your frequent rants about socionics are gratuitous and it can be categorized as 1DTi.

    You prove you dont understand theory or functions meanings and its application.
    Socionics attempts to portray and explain the psychological structure that motivate some patterns in behavior (personality).

    End from my side, the rest would be pointless.
    Last edited by Hope; 05-07-2018 at 10:59 PM.

  22. #262

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Crystal Well unfortunately, you still don't understand how things like science and theories work. You got some things right, from some research on your part, but it takes more than that to understand it. If you would like me to explain why, I would be happy to.

    If you just want to abruptly end things and claim "victory", then that's not going to help with anything.

  23. #263

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    tl;dr People with no understanding of science or theories thinking what they're doing is working. It's just "cargo cult science".



    And they wonder why Socionics hadn't improved in decades. They wonder why the plane that they built isn't suddenly taking off.

  24. #264
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol cargo cult is like Se Fe in a nutshell. you're essentially having a conversation with your own projections. "as far as I know everything should be there"--this is not what psychology is, psychology is the opposite in fact because it penetrates to the essence of things. you're just weirdly against it because it hasn't been reduced to atoms, which is itself a Se notion. the whole point of all of this is there's more than you can see under a microscope. trying to science out the psyche is cargo culting it. if you want cargo cult socionics looks to k4m's and other Se dom people's "typologies"--those are the people you should be leveling your critiques at. meanwhile you don't even know what Crystal is talking about, but taking her for your dumbass dual

    the crucial mistake: thinking looking at the appearance of a thing through a microscope has actually penetrated to the essence of things. its just another layer of Se

    the point of socionics or more accurately jung is that its turtles all the way down, at bottom is our cognitive framework interpreting the world, your entire spate of posting is characterized by trying to jump above your own neck. by claiming some sort of victory over that premise with recourse to an idea that is completely encapsulated by the premise you hope to defeat, you can't help but act out the truth of socionics over and over

  25. #265

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    "as far as I know everything should be there"--this is not what psychology is, psychology is the opposite in fact because it penetrates to the essence of things.
    Nah, you actually don't understand how psychology works. Sorry.

  26. #266
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    well since you have like reverse credibility I'll take that as an indicator I'm really on the right track

  27. #267

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    well since you have like reverse credibility I'll take that as an indicator I'm really on the right track
    Ok, you can keep trying with that kind of sophistry. It's just the exact kind of "cargo cult science", lol.

  28. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why idontgiveaf is not EIE?

    she seems annoying and not reasonable enough for this, imho

    Quote Originally Posted by idontgiveaf View Post
    That's why socionics is stupid dude.
    it's not with the correct types and correct application, what needs correct theory, skills and good thinking

  29. #269

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Echo View Post
    shes not a thinker omg.. shes all over the place and emotional
    That statement doesn't exclude her being a Logical type. Devil's in the details.


    @Singu wow you really are not applying fair tactics here. You consistently and conveniently skip every reasoning provided to you that would have the risk of refuting any of your claims and you just keep repeating and parroting a few ideas and no more. You are either unable and/or unwilling to consider the reasonings we've given you in this thead. I'm pretty sure a large part is lack of willingness though. That's wrong because it basically means we wasted our time. It's also disrespect towards your debate partner if you keep ignoring their points and not even responding to any of them. And you just make yourself look stupid, too.

    The only one thing I don't agree with from the above reasonings you were provided now is you being 1D Ti, no, I think you are Ti HA, but you do take a really long time to update your understanding of things. Might not be lack of ability as much though and might just be a big amount of bias and lack of willingness to consider more.

    BTW just one note, as I won't waste time fleshing out reasoning in detail to you again, it's sad how you think that using statistical methods it automatically and magically is going to make all data and conclusions valid. lol...


    Aaand, one last thing, where you were referring to me.

    I'd love to see how you understand socionics perfectly.
    Well I've been talking about this with Myst in couple of my last posts.
    And you proved your lack of understanding of the model and I repeatedly told you so and I explained it. You ignored it all. Seriously, fuck off. I won't waste more time on you out of good will like I did before. I used to respect your thinking a while ago but lately you just got overemotional ignoring input and reasoning from others in a weird way like I didn't see it before, though sure maybe I just missed those posts of yours.

  30. #270

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well it's ironic really, for a supposed "theory" about understanding people, there's very little understanding of why people act the way they do. In fact all these labels and assumptions just get in the way of understanding people, because they're non-explanations.

    But let's just forget about things like "science" for a minute. What I'm suggesting, is that Socionics, or anything else really, should be explaining things. How else are you supposed to understand people? Are you supposed to be able to magically predict how people act and how relationships are going to unfold? Well no, obviously. You can only do that by offering explanations for things. You would need an explanation for why people act the way they do. You would need an explanation for why certain relationships head in a certain way.

    Is this a reasonable explanation? (to the question, "Why is the couple fighting?"):

    A) "The couple is fighting, because they're Conflictors"

    Or this?

    B) "The couple is fighting, because the husband cheated on his wife"

    We can ask further, "But why?"

    "The wife got mad at him for cheating on her. And she had the value and the belief that one should not keep secrets in a relationship, and so she felt betrayed by him."

    And on and on... and you can get deeper and deeper into the explanations until you get a satisfactory answer. The A) is a non-explanation that doesn't actually explain anything, or at least it's not exactly the answer to the question.

  31. #271

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Why idontgiveaf is not EIE?

    she seems annoying and not reasonable enough for this, imho
    Lol so to you EIE = annoying and unreasonable

    Nice typing methods.

    Btw she's not EIE because she's got no foresight of the Ni type and she's more uncontrolled in her expressions than an EIE

  32. #272

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well it's ironic really, for a supposed "theory" about understanding people, there's very little understanding of why people act the way they do. In fact all these labels and assumptions just get in the way of understanding, because they're non-explanations.

    But let's just forget about things like "science" for a minute. What I'm suggesting, is that Socionics, or anything else really, should be explaining things. How else are you supposed to understand people? Are you supposed to be able to magically predict how people act and how relationships are going to unfold? Well no, obviously. You can only do that by offering explanations for things. You would need an explanation for why people act the way they do. You would need an explanation for why certain relationships head in a certain way.

    Is this a reasonable explanation? (to the question, "Why is the couple fighting?"):

    A) "The couple is fighting, because they're Conflictors"

    Or this?

    B) "The couple is fighting, because the husband cheated on his wife"

    We can ask further, "But why?"

    "The wife got mad at him for cheating on her. And she had the value and the belief that one should not keep secrets in a relationship, and so she felt betrayed by him."

    And on and on... and you can get deeper and deeper into the explanations until you get a satisfactory answer. The A) is a non-explanation that doesn't actually explain anything, or at least it's not exactly the answer to the question.
    You still think the model is supposed to be applied in that manner as in A) in this example. Wow... okay

  33. #273

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    You still think the model is supposed to be applied in that manner as in A) in this example. Wow... okay
    How else would you apply it?

    Obviously, it's an oversimplification. But getting "deeper" into it, doesn't solve the problem of offering an appropriate explanation to the question at hand.

  34. #274

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    How else would you apply it?

    Obviously, it's an oversimplification. But getting "deeper" into it, doesn't solve the problem of offering an appropriate explanation to the question at hand.
    OK first off, are you going to respect our conversation by responding to all points of mine, even if you disagree? Disagreement on its own isn't a problem but I want you to consider what I say or I'm not gonna waste my time again.

  35. #275

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    What does it exactly mean, when you say that "Your behavior is explained by Ti PoLR"? That's not actually an explanation of anything.
    Gonna put this here for other people, not for you, also because it's possibly relevant to the thread lol, if OP is SEE.

    So the idea of Ti PoLR is that there is an extreme difficulty in processing information in the Ti way (which way is defined specifically in the theory, I am only making a reference to that definition right now) and so that has consequences cognitively and then that influences behaviour too. To be sure the specific behaviour of a specific person is actually influenced by the Ti PoLR, one does usually have to investigate more closely.

    EDIT: Alright I should specify what the Ti way means or people are going to go "Ti PoLR = idiot" while that's not what it means lol. So it means ignoring the attitude on seeing logical regularities in things and adhering to rules based on those. So instead the Ti PoLR person manages their life by finding opportunities and utilizing those without conforming to logical rules much. (This is also due to more than just Ti PoLR: it's Se or Ne.) If the person has good intelligence for figuring out how to manage things in their own way (instead of Ti) it may still mean a very good adaptability to the environment, Ti is not the only way to adapt to it and not even the most flexible way lol

  36. #276
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Lol so to you EIE = annoying and unreasonable
    yep. Fe is my nonvalued, Te is their nonvalued.

    > Nice typing methods.

    thanks. fits to IR theory

    > Btw she's not EIE because she's got no foresight of the Ni type and she's more uncontrolled in her expressions than an EIE

    J types having ADHD or alike may behave more chaotically.
    I suspect F and N in her. Among those EIE fit better.
    For example, S type will not whine "hugs>sex". S type just does sex how it likes.
    She mostly emotionally floods on the forum and says not much reasonable. So F seems as more possible.

  37. #277

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    yep. Fe is my nonvalued, Te is their nonvalued.

    > Nice typing methods.

    thanks. fits to IR theory
    I was kind of almost sarcastic there lol.

    So anyone who annoys you has to be Fe type, wow okay... And Fi types are the polite ones. Alright.



    > Btw she's not EIE because she's got no foresight of the Ni type and she's more uncontrolled in her expressions than an EIE

    J types having ADHD or alike may behave more chaotically.
    I suspect F and N in her. Among those EIE fit better.
    For example, S type will not whine "hugs>sex". S type just does sex how it likes.
    She mostly emotionally floods on the forum and says not much reasonable. So F seems as more possible.
    Prove she has ADHD.

  38. #278
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    It was actually a joke when equating ILI with autism lol

    So, IEI as dual? Would you handle their erratic emotionality and lack of pragmatism okay? Or do you want someone more pragmatic and less emotional-feely?
    Hm dunno. I don't believe in matchmaking socionics. Doesn't work

  39. #279
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yes, well these "1D Ti" people have better logical abilities than you (or even me).

    There's just no evidence that just because one types as a "T" type, he/she is more right or more logical. And that's why you have so many people who self-type as a "T" type, who think that it must mean that they're automatically smart or factual or logical. When what they're doing is they just think that they're right. Who will be the judge? Certainly they'll realize that when they step outside of this forum.
    That's true. They think they're right when in fact they doesn't really make any sense. They just blindly follow something because they think it's right.

  40. #280
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Why idontgiveaf is not EIE?

    she seems annoying and not reasonable enough for this, imho



    it's not with the correct types and correct application, what needs correct theory, skills and good thinking
    Eie. Wtf. 😑

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 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
  •