Super-Cycles

[Lao Tzunami]

This is why I'm not sold on the idea of quadra progression: the dual pairs cycle in both directions (through the benefit-supervision super-relation). For quadra progression to be real, there has to be a reason why the process dual ring is dominant over the results dual ring.
quadra progression is a lie.png

If you reverse the direction of either the supervision or benefit relation, the clubs cycle in a similar way as the quadra ring. I remember Gulenko talking about how the beneficiary transfers information to the benefactor, and it would make sense that the supervisor would transfer information to the supervisee. The arrows in the diagram show this combined transfer of information. This might be a two way street, so please comment if you have any ideas what the opposite direction could mean
Alvero issa genius.png

[Bertrand]

https://socioniks.net/article/?id=28
https://socioniks.net/article/?id=160

is this what you're looking for?

[Singu]

This is why I'm not sold on the idea of quadra progression: the dual pairs cycle in both directions (through the benefit-supervision super-relation).

Not to mention the simple impossibility of trying to predict the future by analyzing or extrapolating the patterns of the past... That would only work if the past patterns continue indefinitely into the future, which is obviously something that does not actually happen.

It's sheer ridiculousness that Socionics is an axiomatic system, as if it were a mathematical model and not a theory. That could be why Socionists are so obsessed with "math", as if directly applying mathematics into the model would somehow bolster the "axiomatic truths" of Socionics, such as that it is self-evidently true that simply Conflictors Conflict and Duals Get Along, or Fi and Ti conflicts.

But in reality, mathematics are actually an abstraction of reality rather than the other way around, and the proofs and the correctness of mathematics depend entirely on the imperfect theories of reality, such as physics.

You cannot model reality from axiomatic truths, as nothing is certain and there are no Ultimate Truths, and that is why Socionics has no choice but to become so dogmatic and ideological. You'll only need to look at someone like Sol to see its fanaticism at its full force: that one should only stick to the "correct" Classical Model, and the rest are heresy. Socionics is a kind of "Scientific ISIS" in its radicalism and fanaticism. It truly is a New Religion.

I'd like to see anyone being able to legitimately refute these claims, that Socionics is NOT another kind of a religion or a cult.

[The Reality Denialist]

Math is independent of reality but needs reality because you can not generate something in void (or can you).
Physics and calculus seems quite synthetic. Sometimes it is synthesis sometimes it is application sometimes it is total make belief. You can not draw clear separation.

[Sol]

This is why I'm not sold on the idea of quadra progression

It relatively is seen on Russian history of the recent times.
Beta state ideology and significant leaders (Trotskiy EIE, Stalin LSI, Hruschev SLE, other were close: Lenin mb LIE, Brezhnev SEI): 1917-1989
Gamma (Gorbachev SEE, Yeltsin SEE, Putin ILI): 1989-2061

> For quadra progression to be real, there has to be a reason why the process dual ring is dominant over the results dual ring.

there can be other explanations besides some doubtful Augustinavichiute fantasies

[Muddy]

Idk about the Gulenko stuff tbh. To me it seems he tries too hard to use socionics as a means to explain nearly everything about human behavior and ends up spreading his theories too thin in doing so.

The stuff he says is interesting but I personally don't take it all that seriously myself. I think it is better to just stick with the basics of socionics like recognizing IEs then get caught up in all the extraneous junk he tends to talks about.

[Lao Tzunami]

How do you even know that these relationships are correct or that info travels between these pairs?

It's just a hypothesis suggested by one of my friends on facebook. The main observation is that the beneficiary and supervisee of a dual pair is another dual pair, and this cycles in both directions around quadra.

[falsehope]

I think socionics relationships define mainly psychological comfort. There is no real flow of information like my supervisor telling me meaningful things. If that would be true, it would be perpetum mobile, once people from different quadras were arranged in circle, they would have super-intelligence. This is not working this way. For example, I have my own concepts on life and they are very NTish, and I discard most of the things which are not NTish because of various reasons. I am very selective in accepting information and it doesn't have anything to do with socionics relationships but cold, rational analysis.

[Bertrand]

I think one of the major points of socionics is that information exists and is communicated across a multiplicity of channels half of which are irrational

in other words there's more to life than thinking style argumentation and you may be undisputed champion of the debate team, but still get supervised by the first girl with big tits who is nice to you or whatever the case may be

[falsehope]

I think if information would travel in this circle it would become destroyed, made meaningless etc. I think my supervisors and beneficiaries are not so good. I think these asymmetrical relationships are just illusions and are not meaningful in any way because they don't help me build something I find meaningful by myself. It's just not helpful.

And these relationships make me more disgusted than actually making me believe in their truths. I see EII as irrational types without any logic and LSEs as exaggerating things which are no issue. And in these two types I can see it more clearly which is putting me more off than with other types.

This way I am avoiding of accepting information from EII and LSE the most and I consider it most threatening to my ideals. I know it's a illusion of asymmetrical relationships. It's also really the opposite of what socionics says for ILE - LSE / EII relationships. I think this is the best way to approach these relationships. Don't get fooled.

[Bertrand]

you're saying because you don't value what these types on the other side of asymetrical relations value they can't help you, which implies that you only allow that which you value to influence you as if any other form of control (i.e.: non consensual) does not exist.. the whole point of these relations are that you're subject to them despite not liking it. you can declare that not to be the case but Im sure if we followed you around with a camera we'd see it is not so. inasmuch as all ITR and socionics itself is a description of what essentially amounts to maya, i.e.: is fundamentally psychological phenomena, I think you are ok to call it illusory. it just seems weirdly selective, because while you are technically not wrong you have spoken up and brought to bear a very general point on a very specific topic. this sort of targeted application of a very broad point is kind of like aiming a canon at a fly unless you consider that the fly is actually something quite large in your mind. I guess what I'm hinting at is your method suggests deep insecurity--that anyone might have some form of leverage over you

[Singu]

Still no answer that why should Socionics be an axiomatic system, wow.

There are two systems in the world that are axiomatic. One is math/logic, and the other religion/cults.

Good luck trying to make Socionics "scientific". You will learn the hard way that that is impossible.

[Bertrand]

all systems are axiomatic and the axioms are grounded in subjective belief... the one that is most arguably not a matter of belief is pain, and socionics incorporates that nicely. and even monks light themselves on fire, which goes to show you can choose not to believe in anything (as you so often demonstrate)

[Singu]

You are wrong.

[Lao Tzunami]

Good luck trying to make Socionics "scientific". You will learn the hard way that that is impossible.

I know how to objectively and fairly test socionics, and I'm currently developing it into something hopefully everyone can use.

[Singu]

I know how to objectively and fairly test socionics, and I'm currently developing it into something hopefully everyone can use.

But axioms aren't objective, that's the whole point. The correctness of Socionics depend entirely on the correctness of its axioms. And if the axioms aren't correct, then it has no relation to reality. And Socionics was supposed to be based on empirical observations in the real world.

I'm sure that you'll also realize in math/logic, that its axioms are as good as it has relation to what you're trying to describe.

[Lao Tzunami]

But axioms aren't objective, that's the whole point. The correctness of Socionics depend entirely on the correctness of its axioms. And if the axioms aren't correct, then it has no relation to reality. And Socionics was supposed to be based on empirical observations in the real world.

I'm sure that you'll also realize in math/logic, that its axioms are as good as it has relation to what you're trying to describe.

You can test if a model makes correct predictions.

The inspiration for the socionics types can be traced back to Schopenhauer, who made the observation that people have certain characteristic differences, that Jung also observed when working as a psychologist. No one has ever said they know why these differences are there, only that they are observable. The logic in socionics is a way of organizing these observations. The utility of the logic can be tested, but its too meta to require someone to justify logic itself.

[Singu]

You can test if a model makes correct predictions.

But that observation will be "explained" by Socionics. So you are only really trying to fit observation to the system. The only way to know something is really related to reality, is to investigate its axioms. So like mathematic and logic, this has to be done outside of Socionics. Maybe some theories of psychology can do this, but of course they generate no axioms; only tentative hypotheses.

Socionics is really no different than a mathematical or a logical system, and they're only the deductions and the logical consequences of its axioms. The correctness of Socionics rest entirely on its axioms, and it's absurd that these axioms are never investigated or changed (not to mention the absurdity of having axioms in the first place, but we'll let that pass). And if we do change its axioms, then obviously it will no longer become Socionics.

[Lao Tzunami]

@Singu ok, I think I see the disagreement, but it is still really meta. You think that socionics is an arbitrary categorical system, that imagines the definitions first, and then imposes them on reality (there are no correct definitions, and type change based on how you define it). I am assuming that the socionic types are an archetypal feature of psychology that Schopenhauer, Jung and Augusta all noticed, and then attempted to classify (they can get it wrong, and there are some definitions that work better than others).

None of this matters in terms making the best application of socionics, and then testing it against reality.

[Singu]

@Singu ok, I think I see the disagreement, but it is still really meta. You think that socionics is an arbitrary categorical system, that imagines the definitions first, and then imposes them on reality (there are no correct definitions, and type change based on how you define it). I am assuming that the socionic types are an archetypal feature of psychology that Schopenhauer, Jung and Augusta all noticed, and then attempted to classify (they can get it wrong, and there are some definitions that work better than others).

None of this matters in terms making the best application of socionics, and then testing it against reality.

Are you really to tell me, that these observations are eternal and unchanging? Do Fi and Ti conflict for all of eternity? What if some observation or new knowledge contradicts it? Tell me a single theory that has remained unchanged for all of its existence. They are called religions.

There is no reason why Jung's types and functions shouldn't change in a century, and Socionics shouldn't change in decades. Sure, like with anything, there is some grain of truth in Socionics. But it would also mean that there will never be any progress in Socionics.

It is reasonable to think, that in Jung's times, there have been philosophical assumptions that logic and morality are different, and that you can't derive an ought from an is, etc. But now, I do think that morality and logic are of the same, because all truths contain logic, and there is logic in morality.

[Bertrand]

Fi and Ti only conflict in the sense that they process the same occurrence in ways giving rise to a different experience, but its not like we gain anything by denying that this happens because its unhappy. the truth is we would be worse off to deny it rather than acknowledge it and then try to rise above it. defining it out of existence is just denial. a better way to handle it is they are both subordinate functions of the self and thus the conflict is dissolved at a higher level, so you still get your happy ending

[Lao Tzunami]

Are you really to tell me, that these observations are eternal and unchanging? Do Fi and Ti conflict for all of eternity? What if some observation or new knowledge contradicts it? Tell me a single theory that has remained unchanged for all of its existence. They are called religions.

There is no reason why Jung's types and functions shouldn't change in a century, and Socionics shouldn't change in decades.

It is reasonable to think, that in Jung's times, there have been philosophical assumptions that logic and morality are different, and that you can't derive an ought from an is, etc. But now, I do think that morality and logic are of the same, because all truths contain logic, and there is logic in morality.

You are still applying your assumption I disagree with. I don't think the heart of socionics is the theoretical system I think the heart is human psychology. And typology is not inert, it is evolving all the time (which is why we have to deal with so much nomenclature). The nature of introverted ethics and logic is based on human psychology, not axioms. I assume ancient human psychology was similar to modern humans, but I'm not an anthropologist. I don't assume our definitions are perfect, but from my own personal experience, they have a lot of merit and utility. If we come up with a better system, we should switch to that.

[Singu]

You are still applying your assumption I disagree with. I don't think the heart of socionics is the theoretical system I think the heart is human psychology. And typology is not inert, it is evolving all the time (which is why we have to deal with so much nomenclature). The nature of introverted ethics and logic is based on human psychology, not axioms.

But they obviously are axiomatic, as we take these observations as being "self-evidently true", such as Conflictors Conflict and Duals Get Along, and that's the definition of an axiom. And in a genuine theory, we take nothing for granted that things are simply "self-evidently true". Nothing is. They all deserve an explanation for why that is the case.

I assume ancient human psychology was similar to modern humans, but I'm not an anthropologist. I don't assume our definitions are perfect, but from my own personal experience, they have a lot of merit and utility. If we come up with a better system, we should switch to that.

They are the same, but the knowledge about them changes over time. We might say that an optical illusion is "self-evidently true", even though what we're seeing have nothing to do with what actually exists in physical reality. Same with all the other cognitive biases.

And I don't think that a "type" is a mere psychological phenomenon, it's as if to say that actual physical differences in brain structure or something actually exist.

[Singu]

Those aren't axioms. Those are conjectures based on the model. The axioms are the definitions of the functions and other stuff that my Ti PoLR can't understand.

They are based on observations that we (or Jung or Augusta) see as being "self-evidently true". In the beginning, those "Types" are based on Jung's axioms that feelings and thinking, intuition and sensing, are diametrically opposed and conflicting.

[falsehope]

you're saying because you don't value what these types on the other side of asymetrical relations value they can't help you, which implies that you only allow that which you value to influence you as if any other form of control (i.e.: non consensual) does not exist.. the whole point of these relations are that you're subject to them despite not liking it. you can declare that not to be the case but Im sure if we followed you around with a camera we'd see it is not so. inasmuch as all ITR and socionics itself is a description of what essentially amounts to maya, i.e.: is fundamentally psychological phenomena, I think you are ok to call it illusory. it just seems weirdly selective, because while you are technically not wrong you have spoken up and brought to bear a very general point on a very specific topic. this sort of targeted application of a very broad point is kind of like aiming a canon at a fly unless you consider that the fly is actually something quite large in your mind. I guess what I'm hinting at is your method suggests deep insecurity--that anyone might have some form of leverage over you

My only point is that these relationships are not meaningful and positive but toxic and make people stupid. And because of asymmetry it is easy to get some wrong ideas from someone because it sounds so good. It's toxic because supervisors and beneficiaries think there is something wrong with something while in fact it isn't and try to influence with something which would destroy something I worked so hard to build it and what I value most.

[Lao Tzunami]

@Singu every empirical observation requires unprovable assumptions, and most modern science is a search for the fundamental laws of reality. Normally, a mathmatical model is created a priori first, and then the output is compared with reality. These are not problems with Model A, the problem is it is too complicated to formally test and refine against reality, so the actual testing has been neglected.
/
Out of curiosity, do you have a thought first and then find words to express it, or does your actual vocabulary / language limit what you are able to think in the first place?

[Bertrand]

My only point is that these relationships are not meaningful and positive but toxic and make people stupid. And because of asymmetry it is easy to get some wrong ideas from someone because it sounds so good. It's toxic because supervisors and beneficiaries think there is something wrong with something while in fact it isn't and try to influence with something which would destroy something I worked so hard to build it and what I value most.

I think there is probably some truth to this but why do you think an alpha bubble doesn't just go on forever if there's nothing to be gained from input from other quadra. I concede that supervisors may create what is felt as a negative experience, but I would just argue that negative experiences are (or at least can be) constructive and meaningful. this idea that negative is absolute and you don't need any of it is precisely the flipside to the kind of anti-gnostic Christianity that wants to push out satan as being on the level of Jesus, but Jungs entire point is this is what leads to neuroticism (i.e.: is ultimately toxic and makes people stupid). In other words, its one sidedness of this kind that pushes things underground that makes people act in psychologically unhealthy ways. supervision in some ways may punch holes in the floodgates, but its like blaming the messenger, the stupidity and toxicity is in us. not coincidentally I think ILE does come across as crazy one sided much of the time, and would easily invite the label of "toxic and stupid"--saying such a thing goes away if you simply deny it from within the safety of a bubble set up not to challenge you, is to compound the error in many ways. its is the definition of an infantile response. I've always disliked then people that enable this. I think beta in "invading" and tearing this bubble down does the world a service, and perhaps beta would not be so aggressive if alpha didn't set things up such that it was required to punch through their silly walls. to say well if beta never came along we'd be perfect, is like saying if we never left the womb or the garden everything would be perfect. its the naive morality of dawkins, "just get rid of all religious institutions!" its childish regression

[Singu]

@Singu every empirical observation requires unprovable assumptions, and most modern science is a search for the fundamental laws of reality. Normally, a mathmatical model is created a priori first, and then the output is compared with reality. These are not problems with Model A, the problem is it is too complicated to formally test and refine against reality, so the actual testing has been neglected.

Well, it's not true that they're "unprovable" (of course, nothing can be "proved" technically). It is true that they're assumptions, but the whole point of an observation is to test that assumption. The whole point is that we take these things to be "self-evidently true". And what is self-evidently true? Nothing is. Anything that is grounded on that is based on a very shaky foundation. Why do we not test or criticize the first assumptions?

Honestly, I don't see how it can't be tested. It seems like Jung made an assumption that F/T, S/N are contradicting, and made a logical jump from there and concluded that there must be 16 types because of that. But why didn't he first test his assumption that F/T and S/N are actually contradicting? He might have concluded: Because of observations. But he only made those observations, because he had made those assumptions in the first place.

I think Jung and Socionics lack a kind of honesty that would allow them to disprove and improve those theories. Maybe there is something to it, but if the theory can't improve, then it will be doomed. It's like we build a boat, and it kinda floats but it's also leaking, so we'll need to make some improvements. But if we don't, then it will sink.

[Lao Tzunami]

It seems like Jung made an assumption that F/T, S/N are contradicting, and made a logical jump from there and concluded that there must be 16 types because of that.

Jung only described 8 types. Augusta's model has 16 types.

It seems like Jung made an assumption that F/T, S/N are contradicting

A great example of a hypothesis that could be tested

we take these things to be "self-evidently true".

Maybe you do, but I don't. I was very skeptical of socionic, and pretty rigorously tested it out on my self and people I knew first, before agreeing with most of it. I started with the assumption there were no differences between type / they are unidentifiable, but realized that wrong when I tried to apply it. This is naturally anecdotal, but since I was able to verify it, I think there is a way to formalize what I did in a universal and objective way. Please stop asserting your bias I disagree with on to me. If you have problems with socionics because you apply it axiomatically, that is your problem, not mine.

It is annoying when people want to complain without offer constructive solutions. Either use socionics as it is for its current utility, reject it - leave and spend your time learning one of the many other angles on psychology, or work toward making it scientific.

[Singu]

Maybe you do, but I don't. I was very skeptical of socionic, and pretty rigorously tested it out on my self and people I knew first, before agreeing with most of it. I started with the assumption there were no differences between type / they are unidentifiable, but realized that wrong when I tried to apply it. This is naturally anecdotal, but since I was able to verify it, I think there is a way to formalize what I did in a universal and objective way. Please stop asserting your bias I disagree with on to me. If you have problems with socionics because you apply it axiomatically, that is your problem, not mine.

It's actually the theory that does.

You can't "test" Socionics, because you are only looking to "confirm" the observation. And if you look for a confirmation or a pattern, then you will naturally find it everywhere. It's like you decided to look for black cats, and you searched the entire town looking for black cats. And you found 5 black cats in a day, and you decide that this has some sort of a statistical significance. It's the same when you type someone as a "Fe type", and suddenly, you can "confirm" that he shows Fe everywhere, and you will only conclude that your typing was correct, and also the fact that Fe exists was correct.

[Adam Strange]

Jung only described 8 types. Augusta's model has 16 types.


A great example of a hypothesis that could be tested


Maybe you do, but I don't. I was very skeptical of socionic, and pretty rigorously tested it out on my self and people I knew first, before agreeing with most of it. I started with the assumption there were no differences between type / they are unidentifiable, but realized that wrong when I tried to apply it. This is naturally anecdotal, but since I was able to verify it, I think there is a way to formalize what I did in a universal and objective way. Please stop asserting your bias I disagree with on to me. If you have problems with socionics because you apply it axiomatically, that is your problem, not mine.

It is annoying when people want to complain without offer constructive solutions. Either use socionics as it is for its current utility, reject it - leave and spend your time learning one of the many other angles on psychology, or work toward making it scientific.

I took the same approach to Socionics and came to the same conclusion. Vortical-Synergetic cognition?

[Bertrand]

It's actually the theory that does.

You can't "test" Socionics, because you are only looking to "confirm" the observation. And if you look for a confirmation or a pattern, then you will naturally find it everywhere. It's like you decided to look for black cats, and you searched the entire town looking for black cats. And you found 5 black cats in a day, and you decide that this has some sort of a statistical significance. It's the same when you type someone as a "Fe type", and suddenly, you can "confirm" that he shows Fe everywhere, and you will only conclude that your typing was correct, and also the fact that Fe exists was correct.

first of all, just because you're looking for something doesn't mean you can't fail to find it. Its like, people fail to find what they're looking for all the time. I don't even see how this is an plausible hypothesis. Not everyone just substitutes anything lacking with pure fantasy, some people can actually discern what is there from what is not. Second if I'm looking for black cats and I found 5, I can say with confidence there exist at least 5 black cats. To apply this to socionics people can get a rough understanding of what a cognitive function is, then go looking for it, maybe they'll never find it, or maybe they'll run into it. Then they can say oh yeah I've experienced an interaction with x type. Its no different than a black cat, because "black" and "cat" are just rational categories that are completely made up. Its the association that has meaning, and its the intersubjective communicability of the concept that is useful. Thus everyone here is presumably talking about something in common. True people may be talking about rats and not cats, or grey and not black, because mistakes and misunderstandings happen, but ultimately that's the nature of any human enterprise. The trick is to work it out and contribute. In a way one can't not contribute, even your constant criticism has I think enlightened a lot of people and brought up a lot of issues that people perhaps didn't realize were there, but that in being addressed provide clarity and help people out. If you keep this up I'm going to think you're more Te than Fe valuing, since I think Fe valuing would have stopped peeing in the kool aid by now. Identifying oneself with the process of making things better, and learning from mistakes, is so much more healthy than identifying oneself with a perfect unchanging ideal and defending it as a kind of dogma. In that sense criticism of socionics is fine, because its obviously not perfect and this stuff is good to hash out. Still the room for criticism is often equal to the scope of the project. Socionics is trying to do something incredibly difficult so it stands to reason it will be easy to punch holes into it. if it were easy it would be done by now and have worked out any possible flaws. are there flaws? of course there are... perfect is the enemy of good in this case, if on the grounds its not perfect is cause to reject it

[Lao Tzunami]

I took the same approach to Socionics and came to the same conclusion. Vortical-Synergetic cognition?

That's really interesting, I'm not sure. It could also be introverted intuition.

*Honestly, I expect everyone to try to evaluate socionics first by applying it to themselves and to people they know before trying to discuss, but that causes argument, and I don't want to force my standards onto people with other approaches. I do think it is ridiculous if someone claims to be able to type other people, but not themselves - everyone is just as complicated and convoluted as they are, but they know even less about them.

[Singu]

first of all, just because you're looking for something doesn't mean you can't fail to find it. Its like, people fail to find what they're looking for all the time. I don't even see how this is an plausible hypothesis. Not everyone just substitutes anything lacking with pure fantasy, some people can actually discern what is there from what is not. Second if I'm looking for black cats and I found 5, I can say with confidence there exist at least 5 black cats. To apply this to socionics people can get a rough understanding of what a cognitive function is, then go looking for it, maybe they'll never find it, or maybe they'll run into it. Then they can say oh yeah I've experienced an interaction with x type.

Well it would be impressive, if you could predict what I'm going to do or say next, and explain why. But Socionics doesn't, and can't do that. It can only "explain" things after the fact. And you can explain anything after the fact.

Again with the black cats, if you could predict that you'll find 5 black cats at a specific location in a town, without ever looking for them in a town first, because you've analyzed the migrating pattern of black cats or something, then again, that would be pretty impressive, and maybe there is something to it. If all you do is to say "I'm going to look for black cats", then find 5 black cats, then that wouldn't be very impressive, in fact you would say that it's simply obvious.

Some people might say something like, "Well you're just criticizing Socionics because you're an ILI, Socionics has PREDICTED your behavior!". Not true. Nobody could have predicted that the ILI would start criticizing Socionics, when the ILI was still into Socionics. It could be just a coincidence that he happened to be an ILI.

The way Socionics "predicts" things is that since you're using or showing "Fe" right now, you'll be showing Fe in the future. Again, not true. You can't predict that the person will keep using Fe, just because he has been using Fe in the past. You can't predict that just because a certain relationship has been conflicting in the past, it will always conflict in the future.

In short: The only way to "test" something, is to predict how something is going to happen in the future, and explain why. You can't predict something by just observing things and "confirming" the observation.

[Singu]

So I'll try to be more "constructive". How can you "test" Se, for example?

Well for one, you'll have to come up with how this "Se" exactly works, by coming up with a bold conjecture on how this thing actually works. At first it could be just a wild guess, and then you'll just keep revising it until it seems like it's heading somewhere and it becomes more and more concrete, where you can't easily edit something without breaking the whole explanatory system.

And saying that Se just "exists" in a person seems to be too broad, you will have to be able to define this Se, by saying when will a person be typically showing this "Se"? It has to be reproducible, it has to be able to say that this person will show Se whenever the person is doing X. So you may be able to test this "Se" in a controlled setting.

So all you're going to be doing is the endless repetition of conjectures and refutations, by first coming up with a conjecture or a hypothesis, then test it in a controlled setting where the person will show Se. And if the prediction doesn't match the observational experiment, then you will keep revising the hypothesis until it seems like it matches the prediction, and the explanation seems satisfactory, for now. And you can't fool yourself, if the prediction is too broad, then it's no good use, it would be better if the prediction is more specific. And the whole point is to constantly trying to falsify it, trying to prove it wrong, and not trying to prove it right or "confirm" the hypothesis by saying that at least it matches with something or it's partially confirmed.