Is much of Jung's work "true, but pointless"?

[Singu]

What Jung did was, he basically made a bunch of observations of people. And he may have made a faithful recreation of those observations. He may have made an astute observation that is true to the fact.

So Jung noticed that some people were more emotional than others, so he generalized this pattern and called them Feeling types. And he also noticed that some were more thoughtful or quieter than others or whatever, so he called them Introverted types. And so you put them together, and they were Introverted Feeling types, or Fi types (this is a gross simplification, you can make it as complex as you'd like).

Basically, he made a neat system of categorization, and he categorized people accordingly. This is all good and fine.

But the question is, so what? All he did was made a bunch of collections of observations, which is neatly categorized and ordered, but he never made a system of a theory of such. He didn't take a guess at why and how that was such a case. They only became certain data points, and data in of itself don't have any meaning, until we interpret them through a theory. What we are really interested in is, how do something work, and why. And we can use that information to predict the future, if we wanted (to solve certain problems).

But we don't have that. What we have instead, is the assumption that since a type has been this way, they will always remain that way in the future. But that is unlikely to happen, because we are not animals with limited sets of actions, where we can't do no more than what we are programmed to do. What separates the animal from humans is our creativity, which is our ability to do or come up with something that has never been done before. And that something, is the key to predicting the future, since the future is something that has not occurred yet. That something is our ability to explain how something works. We are by nature, universal explainers that can explain both our own selves, and the workings of the entire universe.

[Pallas]

“The final mystery is oneself. When one has weighed the sun in the balance, and measured the steps of the moon, and mapped out the seven heavens star by star; there still remains oneself. Who can calculate the orbit of his own soul?” — Oscar Wilde

Actually, you can't explain yourself. And for how little I care about identity politics, I don't identify as an explainer. Down with that. Doooooown. The future is not predicted. It is created. Science is just a new version of magic. That's why science means knowledge, and being a wizard or being wise meant knowing magic before there were other things to know.

Also, stop discounting the use of phenomenology. It gave us CYMK printing and other awesome stuff. Jung also gave us archetypes. What has ranting about how awful socionics is given you?

[Bertrand]

If some great idea takes hold of us from outside, we must understand that it takes hold of us only because something in us responds to it and goes out to meet it. Richness of mind consists in mental receptivity...

[Singu]

The future is not predicted. It is created. Science is just a new version of magic. That's why science means knowledge, and being a wizard or being wise meant knowing magic before there were other things to know.

How do you solve the problems that it creates? Science is in the interest of solving problems, which can be done by understanding the problem and giving the explanations for something. Whenever there's a problem, there's going to be a solution, which then will create new problems. And we solve those problems, and soon enough we have discovered a whole bunch of ways to solve problems, and that becomes knowledge. This process just keeps on repeating forever. And science is just that.

[Pallas]

How do you solve the problems that it creates? Science is in the interest of solving problems, which can be done by understanding the problem and giving the explanations for something. Whenever there's a problem, there's going to be a solution, which then will create new problems. And we solve those problems, and soon enough we have discovered a whole bunch of ways to solve problems, and that becomes knowledge. This process just keeps on repeating forever. And science is just that.

Stop creating problems you drama king

[squark]

He had some interesting ideas that imo haven't yet been developed fully by anyone. The information aspects I think are an improvement on Jung, and those are being explored and tested just not under the specific names given. For example a research article won't say it's comparing Xi and Xe, instead they'll talk about differences between spatial reasoning and object reasoning (which is the difference between Xi and Xe aspects.) This goes directly to how people actually think, and skips the stereotype crap.

You can categorize people, and test how well a large sample of people fit your categories, but usually this is indeed pointless. Once you have people labeled, now what? But it seems everyone wants a label. And when you add social nonsense into it, it just becomes stupid. The way people categorize others, and the ludicrous things people will say, and accept is unbelievable. For example @Bertrand wrote

values don't have to necessarily be some emotional commitment, they can just as easily be some rule based abstract construction or ideology. or they can just outsource their values entirely and be a tool of society, but to be willing to become such a thing in the first place is a primary value. a kind of slave morality, since it requires a master in order to direct one's life.

and

this is precisely why LSI must outsource their values, because its only by doing this they find inclusion in any system at all, given that their ego is subjective to the core and their methods are uncompromising.

What kind of person would ever be able to agree with statements of that kind lol? And while Bertrand is on the extreme end, there's a whole range of this kind of thing. So, it can get really dumb. But none of that is Jung's fault. He didn't intend his ideas to be used that way at all. Taken as they are, they're interesting ideas, and give a basic framework or place to start from which to observe, test and explore further.

[Singu]

If some great idea takes hold of us from outside, we must understand that it takes hold of us only because something in us responds to it and goes out to meet it. Richness of mind consists in mental receptivity...

Well I guess this is another one of your great Jung quotes, but ironically this doesn't work, because the way to accurately perceive reality depends on the accuracy of our own theories about how the world works. So it's not just about randomly perceiving things, but it's also about perceiving it accurately. We can't "perceive" Quantum mechanics no matter how hard we try, but we can try to understand it, and explain how it works. And of course this is tested and experimented, then when it gives us false results, then we know that it is wrong. And if we don't understand Quantum mechanics in the first place, then our whole "common sense" ideas about the world would be wrong.

[Pallas]

Well I guess this is another one of your great Jung quotes, but ironically this doesn't work, because the way to accurately perceive reality depends on the accuracy of our own theories about how the world works. So it's not just about randomly perceiving things, but it's also about perceiving it accurately. We can't "perceive" Quantum mechanics no matter how hard we try, but we can try to understand it, and explain how it works. And of course this is tested and experimented, then when it gives us false results, then we know that it is wrong. And if we don't understand Quantum mechanics in the first place, then our whole "common sense" ideas about the world would be wrong.

I can perceive Quantum mechanics. You just lost an electron. You need to do Quantum meditations with Niels Bohr and Deepak Chopra, then you can come to see Quantums too. and time travel.

[strangeling]

I don't know why I keep trying, but

Singu,
Jung was a psychologist and so he studied how meaning influences people's thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, actions, etc. to understand and help them (and himself). This has nothing to do with science or predicting people 100% or explaining them scientifically. If you don't like that, so be it. But it's anything, but pointless.

[Singu]

Jung was a psychologist and so he studied how meaning influences people's thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, actions, etc. to understand and help them (and himself).

What exactly does "how meaning influences people's thoughts..." mean? And how would that help them understand themselves?

[Bertrand]

although Singu abuses the notion sometimes, individuals have dignity precisely because their reality doesn't depend on what some consensus bound theory about reality and what in turn that theory says about them. in some sense they are bound by laws whether they like it or not such as gravitation, but they're free to come up with new laws, which is precisely how the old laws were generated in the first place. it was always some individual trying to do better, and only later did the collective recognize it. so it has to be this way, that the laws don't conclusively determine another person's reality so much as set the objective values the society they're surrounded by is governed with, i.e.: the rules they've accepted as a collective. they can impose these rules unto death but the point is with every new generation the ability to overturn them is born again. its in that sense you can see Singu's statements are simply an acknowledgement of his own personal concession to the collective, i.e.: personal statements of values giving up complete authority to the state. in essence the collective defines for him what is true, and in a certain sense that is the necessary counterstroke to his radical subjectivity. you could say all that talk is just that, because we have a person who ultimately does not really abide by their own message, which is precisely why the message is so overblown, this is precisely whats known as split mind where the two halves diverge strongly, albiet in some sense unconsciously. I suppose all this behavior seems perfectly normal, as it tends to from the point of view of the schizophrenic patient. this doesn't mean that people can't be wrong, but there's always a chance they're right. individual cases are less important because its this idea in principle that tells us about all theories, where they come from, reality, and the role of the individual as such

[Singu]

Bertrand still doesn't get it. It sounds like he hasn't actually studied philosophy or epistemology much.

Just look at how he desperately tries to make sense out of his confusion.

[Bertrand]

I actually think you can perceive quantum mechanics intuitively, just not the literal language the theory is formulated in, as if one was born being able to recite it. but the psychological outlook that quantum mechanics represents as an ordering principle goes way back to people like heraclitus. they understood quantum mechanics on the level of perception, but not as nested within a scientific framework as it stands today (just like they didn't have airplanes and all other modern inventions at their disposal). what a lot of science is trying to do is integrate these varied perspectives precisely because of the leverage they provide over the environment. but people embodied them as long as there have been people. you see similar processes in law and the humanities, where the goal is essentially the same

[Singu]

I actually think you can perceive quantum mechanics intuitively, just not the literal language the theory is formulated in, as if one was born being able to recite it. but the psychological outlook that quantum mechanics represents as an ordering principle goes way back to people like heraclitus. they understood quantum mechanics on the level of perception, but not as nested within a scientific framework as it stands today (just like they didn't have airplanes and all other modern inventions at their disposal). what a lot of science is trying to do is integrate these varied perspectives precisely because of the leverage they provide over the environment. but people embodied them as long as there have been people. you see similar processes in law and the humanities, where the goal is essentially the same

I don't think people ever thought Quantum mechanically before Quantum mechanics was discovered, and if they did, like how some Hinduist or Buddhist thoughts (apparently) resemble Quantum mechanics interpretation of the world, then it's more likely than not just coincidences.

Also you really don't understand science, so it's better to either just shut up about it, or learn how it actually works.

[Pallas]

although Singu abuses the notion sometimes, individuals have dignity precisely because their reality doesn't depend on what some consensus bound theory about reality and what in turn that theory says about them. in some sense they are bound by laws whether they like it or not such as gravitation, but they're free to come up with new laws, which is precisely how the old laws were generated in the first place. it was always some individual trying to do better, and only later did the collective recognize it. so it has to be this way, that the laws don't conclusively determine another person's reality so much as set the objective values the society they're surrounded by is governed with, i.e.: the rules they've accepted as a collective. they can impose these rules unto death but the point is with every new generation the ability to overturn them is born again. its in that sense you can see Singu's statements are simply an acknowledgement of his own personal concession to the collective, i.e.: personal statements of values giving up complete authority to the state. in essence the collective defines for him what is true, and in a certain sense that is the necessary counterstroke to his radical subjectivity. you could say all that talk is just that, because we have a person who ultimately does not really abide by their own message, which is precisely why the message is so overblown, this is precisely whats known as split mind where the two halves diverge strongly, albiet in some sense unconsciously. I suppose all this behavior seems perfectly normal, as it tends to from the point of view of the schizophrenic patient. this doesn't mean that people can't be wrong, but there's always a chance they're right. individual cases are less important because its this idea in principle that tells us about all theories, where they come from, reality, and the role of the individual as such

Bertrand is the perfect Uebermensch

[Singu]

Bertrand just throws in some Socionics ideas, and think that's actually how things work in reality. He types me as Beta, and so he acts as if I act accordingly, and yet I keep on saying the exact opposite things of what he thinks I'm going to say, so he's constantly proven wrong. So I have no idea why he just doesn't simply conclude that his hypothesis is wrong.

[Pallas]

Why don't you conclude that your hypothesis is wrong? He sounds like he's responding to you to me. "You can't perceive quantum mechanics!" "Yes you can!" If you could explain how he's actually twisting what you say, that'd be good. You just sound like you say "Science, bitches! Read Karl Popper!" over and over, and he says something kind of long-winded and annoying but that also has a good point in response.

[Singu]

Why don't you conclude that your hypothesis is wrong? He sounds like he's responding to you to me. "You can't perceive quantum mechanics!" "Yes you can!" If you could explain how he's actually twisting what you say, that'd be good. You just sound like you say "Science, bitches! Read Karl Popper!" over and over, and he says something kind of long-winded and annoying but that also has a good point in response.

I don't have a hypothesis. I don't think that reply was anything about Quantum mechanics. Well his sentences are too confusing and that's why he creates so many misunderstandings.

Ironically Bertrand says some Popperian ideas here and there, but I don't think he actually understands Popper.

Also I don't particularly care about what you have to say, because you're similar to Bertrand in that you both become confused in some philosophical musings.

[Pallas]

I don't have a hypothesis. I don't think that reply was anything about Quantum mechanics. Well his sentences are too confusing and that's why he creates so many misunderstandings.

Ironically Bertrand says some Popperian ideas here and there, but I don't think he actually understands Popper.

Also I don't particularly care about what you have to say, because you're similar to Bertrand in that you both become confused in some philosophical musings.

If I've confused something you've said, I'd like for you to explain. If you ignore my requests for more clarity, you can't complain.

[Singu]

If I've confused something you've said, I'd like for you to explain. If you ignore my requests for more clarity, you can't complain.

Well you know, people say that "Science isn't everything", etc. But science has been solving problems for centuries, do you think that they haven't TRIED that non-scientific method? However it's true, that science alone can't solve all problems. Sometimes the problem is philosophical, an epistemological problem. So you need to frame the problem in a different way.

So basically you have three basic methods of solving problems: philosophical, scientific and mathematical. You need all of them, so you can't be dogmatic and just think that one can solve all the problems but not the others.

But if we were to solve problems, then I think that it's best to first look at how science solves problems, because it's undeniable that they have been enormously successful at doing so.

[Tigerfadder]

Well you know, people say that "Science isn't everything", etc. But science has been solving problems for centuries, do you think that they haven't TRIED that non-scientific method? However it's true, that science alone can't solve all problems. Sometimes the problem is philosophical, an epistemological problem. So you need to frame the problem in a different way.

So basically you have three basic methods of solving problems: philosophical, scientific and mathematical. You need all of them, so you can't be dogmatic and just think that one can solve all the problems but not the others.

But if we were to solve problems, then I think that it's best to first look at how science solves problems, because it's undeniable that they have been enormously successful at doing so.

And the hundreds of thousand of people been working on it. Try to think when Pythagoras lived and how people was doing church and just do what they did back then. But then, math isnt really science?

You can not type people with science yet, what is you arguing really?

[Aramas]

This is just me talking, but: the only thing Jung got right was the psychological types stuff. Everything else is nonsense.

[Bertrand]

that's funny because I think his psychological types stuff is awesome, but probably the least important of his work. its a testament to his genius that even his cast off is gold

[Aramas]

that's funny because I think his psychological types stuff is awesome, but probably the least important of his work. its a testament to his genius that even his cast off is gold

It's just based on my experience tbh. I've analyzed my own dreams extensively. Did a thing years ago where i recorded hundreds of pages of them. My own opinion of dreams, based on that, is that they're just random and based on waking association.

The idea of a collective unconscious can be useful.

[Singu]

And the hundreds of thousand of people been working on it. Try to think when Pythagoras lived and how people was doing church and just do what they did back then. But then, math isnt really science?

You can not type people with science yet, what is you arguing really?

Eh, what? Why would you think that typing people is the solution to the problem?

[strangeling]

[Tigerfadder]

Eh, what? Why would you think that typing people is the solution to the problem?

Whats ur problem?

[Singu]

People who are the fiercest defenders of Socionics, often have the least to say.

What many people still miss, is that looking at the facts first is pointless, because then you're going to have multiple, if not an infinite amount of theories that could interpret the fact. So you're going to have to check if the theory "confirms" the facts, which is an impossibility, since if you look for it, then you can confirm anything. And so you may want to "prove" that the theory is right or wrong, and then what? How do you know that that theory is the right one? You're going to have many many other theories to go through, ad infinitum.

Obviously, that method doesn't work. What you should do instead, is to come up with a theory first. And then you can check if the theory is false by testing it, by making it able to be falsified, even in principle. And if it fails, then you can simply come up with a new theory, or revise it.

This is a really interesting blog by a female scientist/philosopher of science, for all you feminists out there:

Facts and their interpretation.

What you make of these empirical facts -- the picture of the world you start to put together from these clues -- can't be the end of the process, at least not for a scientist. Any such picture, on its own, is your subjective interpretation of what the facts mean. And a scientist wants to pull this interpretation back into the arena where it can be examined objectively by a community of scientists.

[Muddy]

Let's go on a crusade against masturbation next since it is pointless.

[Pallas]

Let's go on a crusade against masturbation next since it is pointless.

Don't forget TV and video games, and sports, and music, and fine art, and reading, and eating, and drinking, and breathing, and being alive, and being dead... We just need to never be born, and also make sure no one accidentally imagines us either, because everything is so pointless.

[Pallas]

I looked at that blog and it's awful. It's just going to lower people's opinions of female scientists like Hillary Clinton would've lowered people's opinions of female Presidents.

But it is not at all important that one's interpretation of the data--from the standpoint of posing a hypothesis that is consistent with the data--turns out to be correct or not. All that matters is that the hypothesis that is posed be "interesting", in the sense of pointing the way to further illuminating experiments.

No one really cares if experiments are "interesting" [sic] to ivory tower farts. People care if they lead to cures for cancer and faster cars and more realistic video games and stuff like that, and this is what people would refer to as being correct. I couldn't even read past that sentence. This is why we hate Popper. And I don't think feminists are going to care much if a female can parrot some dead dude's lousy philosophy of science that he made because he hated Marx really well when there's already Marie Curie who actually did stuff.

[Singu]

Let's go on a crusade against masturbation next since it is pointless.

Er, what? How is not being able to find anything from facts first, the same thing as masturbation? I'm not seeing the connection here.

[Singu]

No one really cares if experiments are "interesting" [sic] to ivory tower farts. People care if they lead to cures for cancer and faster cars and more realistic video games and stuff like that, and this is what people would refer to as being correct. I couldn't even read past that sentence. This is why we hate Popper. And I don't think feminists are going to care much if a female can parrot some dead dude's lousy philosophy of science that he made because he hated Marx really well when there's already Marie Curie who actually did stuff.

Well unfortunately, you still don't get it, because you don't understand how it works.

What exactly do you think he is talking about? (that's a quote, not by her) How can we be "correct"?

Perhaps you might want to read, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper:

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-te...-discovery.pdf

And you do realize that practically every scientists praise Popper, right?

[Pallas]

Well unfortunately, you still don't get it, because you don't understand how it works.

What exactly do you think he is talking about? (that's a quote, not by her) How can we be "correct"?

Perhaps you might want to read, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper:

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-te...-discovery.pdf

And you do realize that practically every scientists praise Popper, right?

I don't get why doing frivolous experiments is important, because I don't get why doing frivolous experiments is important. OK, foolproof logic there...

We can be correct if the results of our experiments are useful outside of science. Maybe scientists just need more non-scientist friends or something.

And sure, I'll read that, but it looks boring.

[Singu]

It kind of is "boring", because he writes it in such an ordinary, "common sense" way, but the stuff he writes makes too much sense to be ignored. And so you wonder, "How did I not think it in this way before?". Or perhaps you already did think it in that way.

[Pallas]

It kind of is "boring", because he writes it in such an ordinary, "common sense" way, but the stuff he writes makes too much sense to be ignored. And so you wonder, "How did I not think it in this way before?". Or perhaps you already did think it in that way.

Not really or I wouldn't be arguing with you so much. I know Popper is fashionable among scientists but Jesus. If this is what classical liberalism leads to, I think I'm converting to Marxism right now.

[Muddy]

Er, what? How is not being able to find anything from facts first, the same thing as masturbation? I'm not seeing the connection here.

I'm just refering to the title, I didn't bother to read any of the other bull doo-doo you posted here as I really don't give a fuck about whatever argument you are trying to make in all these threads you keep creating. What I mean is that if ur criticizing Jung/socionics/typology/whatever for being pointless, you might as well go on crusade against masturbation among other things that could be considered pointless from an objective PoV. Why not go off and attack those things instead of trying to piss off the forum with these convoluted anti-typology debates that no one here gives a fuck about?
P.S I'm aware that masturbation reduces the risk prostate cancer but whatever I hope you get the point

[idontgiveaf]

That's right. The bad thing about psychology mainstream theories i observed, is that a "thinking" types usually have low emotional quotient whilst "feeling" types have lower IQ. Which is stupid.. Plain stupidity.
And when you are tagged as a "feeler" type, they would not listen to any of your arguments and will call you, "Ti polr" which is fucking insulting as if their ideas make sense. When in fact they all just based their observations and judgements base on mere assumptions.. Without any fact or basis.
They mostly judge the reactions over the reason why the reaction is made.

[Pallas]

I'm just refering to the title, I didn't bother to read any of the other bull doo-doo you posted here as I really don't give a fuck about whatever argument you are trying to make in all these threads you keep creating. What I mean is that if ur criticizing Jung/socionics/typology/whatever for being pointless, you might as well go on crusade against masturbation among other things that could be considered pointless. Why not go off and attack those things instead of trying to piss off the forum with these convoluted anti-typology debates that no one here gives a fuck about?

He wants to convert everyone to huffing Popper and waiting for the transhumanist rapture. I'd rather not be so harsh but he can't list a single reason we should follow his belief other than "it's true!" Well, everyone thinks their beliefs are true, so he's going to need more than that.

[Singu]

I'm just refering to the title, I didn't bother to read any of the other bull doo-doo you posted here as I really don't give a fuck about whatever argument you are trying to make in all these threads you keep creating. What I mean is that if ur criticizing Jung/socionics/typology/whatever for being pointless, you might as well go on crusade against masturbation among other things that could be considered pointless from an objective PoV. Why not go off and attack those things instead of trying to piss off the forum with these convoluted anti-typology debates that no one here gives a fuck about?
P.S I'm aware that masturbation reduces the risk prostate cancer but whatever I hope you get the point

Alright, so you're criticizing things that you don't even understand.

What I mean by "pointless", is that it's not sound, and it doesn't work. What I'm criticizing is the method, obviously.

And if you don't get this point, then well I can't help you. Maybe I will try to make the points simpler, maybe not.