thats a funny way to ask nicely for me to dumb things down for you
the problem is like I said, I can't. if that makes me "unwilling to conform to Fe" in your eyes, you're right thats absolutely what it is, and its why Fe is stupid. literally
can't wait to see your book
lol, probably almost no one actually reads Bertrand's posts, while he is in his own bubble thinking that he's a unique genius.
Originally Posted by Singu
yeah domr relax, the mob doesn't even care
if your book accomplishes what I could have but failed to do no one will be happier than me, godspeed domrAnd when you see my work, you'll realize that maybe you could have made these discoveries if you only cared to improve yourself.
its true, give me your ideas domr, I want to abuse them
It's trivially simple to make things more complex, any fool can make things more complex. It takes a real genius to make things simple and find elegant solutions to problems.
That's why it takes very little computation to multiply numbers, while it takes an inordinate amount of computation to factorize numbers (essentially the backwards of multiplication). That's why it's so difficult to find large prime numbers.
I guess he is like how Jung described the "Introverted Intuitive Type":
But of course, the real problem is that Bertrand is TOO MUCH of a genius for the rest of us, and if we find what he writes incomprehensible, then that only proves the true genius of Bertrand even more. We are simply unable to comprehend his level of intelligence. IT'S TOO MUCH.
Good quote - haven't read it in years.
Jung's work is incomplete and fails to explain the mess, that becomes the inclusion of the "ID" functions were the dominant socionics perspective is that those functions interact with the conscious ones with bizarre symbiosis.
IXTP (SLI & ILI) have a dominant and subordinate "Ti" that is much stronger and influential than "Te". Socionics doesn't have "Dominant & Auxiliary", but the more accurate yet confusing "Management, Creative, and Demonstrative". @Betrand explained this to you in a quite verbose "Ti" explanation that XLIs have 4D products of thoughts that get summarized in an incomplete 3D manner were people are left with only the essential factoids they need to know. Nevertheless if you ask XLI to explain their "Te", without them being in a crappy mood - since there they'll be frustrated and simply repeat the same facts to you, instead you'll be given the 4D Ti that connects the facts together.
For example lets say an XLI Doctor says: "smoking causes cancer so don't do it", that's "Te" creative selling an intellectual informational Si/Ni worldview. Ask them to fully explain why that is if feeling annoyed - they'll reply with more disparate facts expecting you to fill in the blanks; ie - because of tar,... the tobacco, the cigarettes... all of this is just bad (creative Te). Or instead use their intricate 4D Ti product that explains how statistics from lifestyle/life expectancy... analysis of organ health... (in short a complete explanation about how everything links together - in other words 4D Ti of the most rational explanation, around a subjective perspective of how everything makes sense)
"Dominant and Auxiliary" - that's MBTI terminology, derived from an interpretation and expansion of Jung.
He actually did, it is his extremely odd epistemological foundation that observations DO NOT lead to knowledge. Given that the core axiom is that don't go looking for stuff, it makes the process of figuring socionics impossible because the observations we make are not knowledge nor can they amount to knowledge.
The creative function makes the correction but it is not strong intellectually since that instead is the Demonstrative. Assuming you are EII, it is your intellectual "Ni" that tells you were to look for observations - information, which your "Ne" retrieves. However your "Ne" doesn't just retrieve the information "Ni" wants, it retrieves all the information it deems relevant. Some of what relevant information is what is used to add sanity to your accepting conjecture "Fi".
In extroverts it's pretty odd, there the creative function applies analysis - looking for contradictions in the premises set out by the management - accepting function.
yes, there's a constant flow from the unconscious to the conscious (and then back to it again). it makes sense on many levels: from when we're little and absorb the world and that becomes the foundation of our character/ego; from Jung's view of how we're seen to look like our unconscious from the eyes of who observes us; ultimately from Augusta's model that tells us that the model starts by combining the E elements with the I, the two strongest elements of one of the two groups then will be mirrored in their E/I reflection. Augusta's model gives a very similar weight to the base and the demo, demo that then can become the auxiliary.
And you're obviously unfamiliar with the problem of induction. This is a rather famous epistemological problem.
How can observations alone lead to any new knowledge? Unfortunately, the myths and the misconceptions of inductivism and empiricism are so strong in our culture, that people think that's the way people actually create new knowledge.
Dude we PM'd these past two days, I got to understand your worldview - your perspective; it has these key axioms I've summarized lucidly put as "knowledge can't be generated from observations". You oddly interpret the ideas you use to justify your worldview relative to that axiom under the assumption that your interpretation of those ideas is the only logical one - questioning that axiom is just people not getting it. You believe there's only one interpretation against induction - which is that it's always wrong.
The anecdotal point of Newton's observation of an apple falling from a tree, and how that lead to the theory of gravity - is in your worldview proof that observations and knowledge generated lack causal a relationship. To you knowledge is some mysterious attribute impossible to derive from observation - and you reiterate this by referencing esoteric conclusions from complex scientific theories - such as that gravity is objects being attracted to each other.
Once people accept that axiom, then the subsequent rationalizations make sense.
It's not an axiom... it's about the only way to create any new knowledge. I would like to know how you think you could come up with a theory on your own, by observations alone.
So please, try to come up with any kind of a theory by observing the things around you.
You're still making an assumption about how Newton came about creating that theory, without actually knowing how he did it.
You might want to Google what axioms are as well as tautology.
The assumption about Newton comes from the premise that modern science, stemming from the enlightenment period, is based on empiricism and rationalisation. It's the main reason, Europe triggered this rapid advancement in science present today.
No longer is it appropriate for claims to be made and simply believed. Naturalism instead, or the empirical basis, is the foundation for claiming and falsifying everything. That's the contactenated view - yes knowledge can be derived from speculation and guesswork, nevertheless as much or this as possible must be routed in empiricism. Epistemology is a complex and fascinating subject.
If you want an example of a scientific theory derived from observations, well I can create one. The earth looks and appears to be flat ad infinitum - hence from these observations it makes sense to scientifically conclude the earth is flat. Refutations to this scientific theory can arise with the introduction of more complex observations thus subsequently complex rationale.
(I'm not a flat earther, nevertheless I don't care about exploring the proof either way mainstream science concludes in peer reviewed journals)
Last edited by Soupman; 05-23-2018 at 11:49 PM.
yes that's an excellent example: on one hand the earth looks flat, on the other we have this entire body of observations that suggests its not. its not that we throw out observations as being fundamentally of no help because they sometimes appear to conflict. its that we resolve the apparent paradox (this is in essence throwing out observations in some sense--by "eliminating" the "apparent" paradox, we've used a form of logic and intuition to reframe the observations in a way that are consistent). this is the proper way to "throw out" observation. this is nothing less than the wheel of the socion turning, that when SLE has implemented all it can via its preferred methods, it flips the ball back to NTs, and on and on it goes
Yeah the SLE is back to dispel the apparent paradox. I haven't seen enough IRL examples suggesting demonstrative and mobilizing are accepting within the scope of how accepting and producing are defined, as I've said before. I'm sort of leaving the forum btw, just came back to say this since I was mentioned, I already made my case earlier on in the thread.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
@Singu There are many scientists and academics who eventually turn to god and mysticism actually-- this is fairly well-known.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Falsification is not empiricism. You are still assuming many things about how Newton came up with his theory. You are jumping to conclusions because you have assumptions that science is about "empiricism". Yes, empiricism and inductivism were once useful in rejecting the authority of religion, etc, but Bacon was also wrong and Hume correctly pointed out that inductivism was an impossibility.
The point is that you do not... "derive" anything from observations. If you derive something from observations, then what?
I'm not saying that this is an easy thing to understand. It took me a lot of thinking to finally understand what this all means, and why inductivism is simply logically impossible. Science is after all, supremely counter-intuitive, and defies common-sense view.
I'd assume you meant "rationalism" and not "rationalisation". Rationalism is the opposite of empiricism. You appear to be confused and lacking in understanding of this topic.
Bertrand is out of question, of course. lol.
This is actually a supreme example of why empiricism and inductivism does NOT work.
When Copernicus and Galileo thought that the Earth was round and going around the Sun and not vice versa, their observations were perfectly consistent with the observation that the Earth is stationary. And yet they still knew that the Earth was actually moving. They've never even seen a picture of the Earth from outer space, like we have. But how did they know?
It's because they thought about it. They calculated it in their own heads, that the Earth must be going around the Sun. It was entirely their rationalism that correctly concluded the Earth must be going around the Sun, and not the other way around. Their observations had nothing to with it, in fact their observations were telling them otherwise (of course you need some observations, but they were not "derived" from observations).
None of this was "derived" from observations. The whole point of observations is to test your theory.
@Soupman
Last edited by Singu; 05-24-2018 at 04:24 AM.
lol you're the poster child for IEI lost in the sauce, good luck with that
Nice edit to turn it into yet another predictable ad hominem. I guess you admit that you were wrong then.
yeah I was wrong to try and reason with you, lol
lol, because I can easily prove you wrong. Nice try, though.
But really, this kind of kindergartener level of excuse is just the reason why you fail so much.
yeah I don' know why I didnt realize it sooner
It's okay Bertrand, most people think the same way about you, not the other way around.
Pretty sure this is homoerotic Se-seeking action the way you guys constantly poke at each other trying to get a rise out of each other. More proof of Bert ILI and Dingu IEI.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
I don't think jumping to conclusions of people's "motivations" like that as a "proof" is a good idea.
And dude, you try to get a rise out of me more than anyone else.
I've learned a lot from Singu honestly, its been super revealing. If I had never had the experience I'm not sure I ever would have imagined people can think this way
8====D is it working?
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
in other words, you just came (together)
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
So anyway, why did Galileo think that the Earth was going around the Sun in the first place? Of course, you would need observations to make the calculations. But the whole point is that he assumed, he made a hypothesis that the Earth must be going around the Sun, even though every sensory experience was telling him otherwise, that it is consistent with the experience that the Earth is stationery. He did not "feel" the Earth moving beneath him. He had never even seen the Earth from outer space. None of this was "derived" from observations. The reason why the heliocentrists hesitated from revealing their findings to the public, was mostly because they feared all the ridicule that they would face, and think that they were crazy.
His calculations were also consistent with another hypothesis that the the Sun was going around the Earth, except that the calculations would become very convoluted. You could say, and in fact the Inquisitors (the church) did say, that it was as if it appeared like the Earth was going around the Sun in a very complex motion, but still the Sun revolved around the stationary Earth. This makes unnecessary complications, which you can just chop it off with Occam's razor.
So how you would see the whole thing depends entirely on how you come up with an explanation. You could "explain" that either the Earth is going around the Sun, or the Sun is going around the Earth. You cannot "prove" it either way.
^ Congratulations. That's exactly how we all find Socionics makes sense here lol.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Galileo bought a telescope* and looked at the moons of Jupiter, the positions of which he plotted over several weeks and found that the moons went 'round and 'round Jupiter, sometimes passing in front of the planet, and sometimes passing behind it. This wasn't mentioned in the Church's description of the Heavens.
He also wrote a description of uniform motion which involved a man inside a cabin in a ship on the water and compared that to the earth traveling around the sun.
Galileo was really, really smart.
As to which body revolves around which, physics is indifferent to the frame of reference. It just turns out that the laws of motion are simplest when the Earth goes around the sun, rather than vice versa. But both are possible with the right "laws" of motion.
* He actually bought six telescopes and used the best one. The lens eventually broke, but we still have it and it was recently measured to be about as optically good as a mass-produced telescope today. They had no way of accurately testing lenses back then, other than by using them, and a "star test" is a pretty critical test.
ha yeah I almost started down that road but stopped, because watch singu come in and tie you up with a bunch of crazy interpretations of why that isn't really what happened. its just gonna be the perpetual run-around. and then you realize it doesn't matter that someone has a set of private interpretations that totally lock them into place, a kind of self imposed zeno's paradox. the problem takes care of itself if you just ignore it. its precisely in attracting people for aid that it begins its work, but its only really directed at SLE anyone else is going to have their time wasted
The best way to teach an IEI like this is to wait until they set up their own swords, and provide a gentle push.
I'm pretty energy-efficient as a rule of thumb.
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
It's kind of like you can't think at all, so it really is a waste of time trying to explain things to you.
Get a room you two OMG. steamy AF
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Btw I'm not even really explaining things to Bertrand per se, I'm just writing for anyone who's reading this and anyone who's interested in actually learning, and not simply assuming things. Anyone who can actually think logically or rationally for once. Bertrand is kind of a hopeless case.
It's like imagine teaching physics to Bertrand, he would just not get it and storm off with some weird ramblings.
its actually really liberating to know no matter how well you explain something or how correct you are some people will never get it
Well it's pretty much like how you don't understand how autistic you are
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Well unfortunately you do have to deal with a lot of people that are scientifically illiterate, and it might take a while for them to understand. And scientists have to deal with these stubborn people, that say that science is wrong because they listen to someone on the radio saying vaccines are wrong and evil, or something doesn't match their personal experience, so they won't believe it. But the whole point of science is that it's extremely counter-intuitive, and science makes us look at the world in a completely new and different way, that we've never imagined before. It's the so-called "argument from personal incredulity" or "appeal to common-sense".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote