Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 161 to 177 of 177

Thread: Demonstrative and Mobilizing functions are Accepting NOT Producing.

  1. #161
    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 Singu View Post
    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
    Rationalisation isn't restricted to justifying "behaviour" but generally making sense of a premise - although I do see how rationalism can be a complementary perspective of the general idea.

    Constructivism is essentially another way of reiterating the point that both empiricism and rationalisation (or rationalism) - the application of reason onto the empirical data, are important.

    Dude you have a serious blindspot that's making it impossible for you to analyse the axioms of your worldview, nevermind applying the most rudimentary logical consistency verification of the premise you need others to believe.

    To claim falsification is not routed empiricism (with rationalism) is cookie to say the least. In particular the empiricism in falsification requires a comprehensive procurement of all relevant observations, relevant data (not just supportive observation), so that the rationale procured can be the most logical; with Popper actually saying consistency of inferred premises is so rudimentary, without it there's no falsification to speak of.

    Do you not see your claim as crack pipe derived when you say - they figured out the earth was going around the sun simply by establishing out of nowhere a premise and axioms that determines it? Some one could rationally establish axioms and a premise that Zeus created the world all in their mind and then proceeded to prove this via deduction from the established premises (none of which routed in empiricism) but are logically correct because of consistency in such derived premise. To quote you - that's a pretty asinine view of modern science.

    Having an epistemological culture neither routed in empiricism or rationalisation, is the reason why scientific knowledge was much slower before the last 300 years - negating the overall heritage of the wisdom of previous civilisations.

    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.
    Last edited by Soupman; 05-24-2018 at 09:31 AM.

  2. #162

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

    Default

    @Soupman Ok, you're not even talking about scientific epistemology anymore, by using words like "rationalisation" instead of "rationalism" (rationalisation is a psychological terminology created by people like Freud, much later. It's a defense mechanism.). At this point, you're just making stuff up to pretend to know what you're talking about. You are confused indeed.

    Constructivism has nothing whatsover to do any of this. Constructivism is more often used in an anthropological context.

  3. #163
    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 Bertrand View Post
    lol you're the poster child for IEI lost in the sauce, good luck with that
    I still think he's ILI, though his accepting function is all out of whack - on that part IEI and ILI do look the same when they force people to accept their ideas when they haven't vetted through "Ne" which means they have a poor connection to reality.

    He understands "Te" but there's not much of it relevant or going on, because he needs to sell the idea that scientific knowledge emerges out of thin air in the mind. That's a rough idea to look for justifying evidence on.

    IEIs usually bring a logically consistent but irrelevant explanation for their idea, simply because they've heard it from somewhere. Whereas he keeps trying to pick various justifications for his idea, none of which justify his hard to swallow premise.

  4. #164

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

    Default

    Look @Soupman, what the heck does RATIONALISATION, which is a defense mechanism created by Freud, has anything to do with this? Don't talk crap, I'm just disappointed by what a dishonest charlatan you were.

    And what do you think FALSIFICATION means? It means falsifying a H Y P O T H E S I S, which means that you guessed it, a CONJECTURE. A theory. A guesswork.

  5. #165
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    I still think he's ILI, though his accepting function is all out of whack - on that part IEI and ILI do look the same when they force people to accept their ideas when they haven't vetted through "Ne" which means they have a poor connection to reality.

    He understands "Te" but there's not much of it relevant or going on, because he needs to sell the idea that scientific knowledge emerges out of thin air in the mind. That's a rough idea to look for justifying evidence on.

    IEIs usually bring a logically consistent but irrelevant explanation for their idea, simply because they've heard it from somewhere. Whereas he keeps trying to pick various justifications for his idea, none of which justify his hard to swallow premise.
    i think polr is when you subconsciously make something your life's mission and that's where you're seeing the Te

    to me its got this deeply recessed quality under-riding a bunch of Fe noise, athough you may ultimately be right and I have it switched

    I feel like he's essentially verbalizing what amount to feeling judgements and its hook is the "lyrical" quality to them--its the inviting appearance of substance, but there never is any. I feel like ILI would be throwing out plausible hypothesis, but these aren't actually plausible, they're more like thinly veiled conspiracy theories. its these synthetic descriptions arising out of feeling premises aimed at the logical theories themselves (in their capacity almost as ethical individuals--there's a shade of anthropomorphism here) have an implicit aim, but none of it is logical its quixotic to the max, the kind of Te that is Te polr and is in keeping with how I think beta closes itself out.. by this I mean this is what it takes to unwind an endless bureaucracy and not go insane. balzac just submits, which I think is the basis for their admiration of maxim, in a brutal depraved kind of way, in other words, balzac recognizes the futility, or if not futility prohibitive effort at the onset to try and fight maxim, and secretly envies him for that fact, and can do that because the logic dominates the ethic, if it weren't so he would simply fight it for the abomination it is

    I just don't think balzac stands for this particular brand of weirdness, this seems more like normative Ti. and this is where the plausibility thing comes in, I think he'd have a real shot if the Ti were 4d because it would stand a chance of developing things on the level of logic, but there's no logical novelty or development here--there's no real contribution or even an attempt at contribution, he's not going to the logic he's talking about the logic, its not like developing a further theory that criticizes it in order to replace it, its more like the science-populizer kind of talk--the ethical supplement to the real logical workers, this time on the offense in a more negative capacity. its rote recitations of existing logical concepts applied to bizarre feeling based premises as far as I can tell. they may not even be that bizarre, its like if you take the premise that socionics causes more harm than good and have observed as much in your own life, it seems like people might try to be a reverse-evangelist to the people and try to redirect them onto science. I think balzac is characterized by a high degree of fatalism too, like I have a friend that I can see pieces of Singu in, but they would never devote this kind of effort to the task because they could see how it ends, up front. I think ethical intuitions work differently but thats a whole other thing. suffice to say balzac is more fatalistic so-why-bother, IEI is fatalistic but totally ok with that fact for some crazy reason, probably because they're tripping on ethics (aesthetic feelings) the whole time anyway

    niehls bohr didn't just shit talk einstein, etc. maybe that's the manifestation of "unhealth" but I don't feel like that's it at all, this feels more like a misplaced attempt at involution for some ethical purpose
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-24-2018 at 09:48 AM.

  6. #166

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

    Default

    Well you can't reason with people who actually think that Socionics is Literally True.

    And the entire irony is that they're imposing their Socionics knowledge onto the world. They're seeing the world through the lens of Socionics.

  7. #167
    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 domr View Post
    I already said, he hates induction (Te) because it requires making an inference from the limited observations and hates deduction (Ti) because it requires believing in axioms. Consequently he will criticize all logic (T).
    You make a good point but I was (and still is) having a little dissonance recognising that fact and fitting it back to my preconceptions.

    Something is weird about his thinking.

  8. #168
    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 Singu View Post
    Look @Soupman, what the heck does RATIONALISATION, which is a defense mechanism created by Freud, has anything to do with this? Don't talk crap, I'm just disappointed by what a dishonest charlatan you were.

    And what do you think FALSIFICATION means? It means falsifying a H Y P O T H E S I S, which means that you guessed it, a CONJECTURE. A theory. A guesswork.

    II. Rationalism vs. Empiricism vs. Constructivism


    Math provides a good illustration of rationalism: to a rationalist, you don’t have to observe the world or have experiences in order to know that 1+1=2. You just have to understand the concepts “one” and “addition,” and then you can know that it’s true. Empiricists, on the other hand, argue that this is not true; they point out that we can only rely on mathematical equations based on some experience of the world, for example having one cookie, being given another, and then having two.

    Rationalism and empiricism both play a role in science, though they correspond to different branches of science. Rationalism corresponds to mathematical analysis, whereas empiricism corresponds to experiments and observation.

    Of course, the best route to knowledge combines rational contemplation and empirical observation. Rationalists and empiricists agree on that; they just disagree on which one is more important or “primary.”

    Constructivism is an effort to combine empiricism and rationalism. According to constructivists, we can observe the world around us and gain a lot of knowledge this way (that’s the empiricist part), but in order to understand or explain what we know, we have to fit it into an existing structure. That is, we have to construct a rational set of ideas that can make sense of the empirical data (that’s the rationalist part). Constructivism is a popular idea among teachers, who find it helpful in structuring lessons: constructivist teaching involves presenting new information in a way designed to fit in with what the student already knows, so that they can gradually build up an understanding of the world for themselves.
    http://philosophyterms.com/rationalism/

  9. #169
    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 Bertrand View Post
    i think polr is when you subconsciously make something your life's mission and that's where you're seeing the Te

    to me its got this deeply recessed quality under-riding a bunch of Fe noise, athough you may ultimately be right and I have it switched

    I feel like he's essentially verbalizing what amount to feeling judgements and its hook is the "lyrical" quality to them--its the inviting appearance of substance, but there never is any. I feel like ILI would be throwing out plausible hypothesis, but these aren't actually plausible, they're more like thinly veiled conspiracy theories. its these synthetic descriptions arising out of feeling premises aimed at the logical theories themselves have an implicit aim, but none of it is logical its quixotic to the max, the kind of Te that is Te polr and is in keeping with how I think beta closes itself out.. by this I mean this is what it takes to unwind an endless bureaucracy and not go insane. balzac just submits, which I think is the basis for their admiration of maxim, in a brutal depraved kind of way, in other words, balzac recognizes the futility, or if not futility prohibitive effort at the onset to try and fight maxim, and secretely envies him for that fact, and can do that because the logic dominates the ethic, if it weren't so he would simply fight it for the abomination it is

    I just don't think balzac stands for this particular brand of weirdness, this seems more like normative Ti. and this is where the plausibiltiy thing comes in, I think he'd have a real shot if the Ti were 4d because it would stand a chance of developing things on the level of logic, but there's no logical novelty or development here--there's no real contribution or even an attempt at contribution, he's not going to the logic he's talking about the logic, its not like developing a further theory that criticizes it in order to replace it, its more like the science-populizer kind of talk--the ethical supplement to the real logical workers, this time on the offense in a more negative capacity. its rote recitations of existing logical concepts applied to bizarre feeling based premises as far as I can tell. they may not even be that bizzarre, its like if you take the premise that socionics causes more harm than good and have observed as much in your own life, it seems like people might try to be a reverse-evangelist to the people and try to redirect them onto science. I think balzac is characterized by a high degree of fatalism too, like I have a friend that I can see pieces of Singu in, but they would never devote this kind of effort to the task because they could see how it ends up front, I think ethical intuitions work differently but thats a whole other thing. suffice to say balzac is more fatalistic so-why-bother, IEI is fatalistic but totally ok with that fact for some crazy reason, probably because they're tripping the whole time anyway

    niehls bohr didn't just shit talk einstein, etc. maybe that's the manifestation of "unhealth" but I don't feel like that's it at all, this feels more like a misplaced attempt at involution for some ethical purpose
    You maybe right but I'm weary of typing people who don't understand/disagree with me as IEI (or another type), because 6 years ago Roan "Aestrivex" LaPlante called me an IEI after I kept voicing my disagreements with him about socionics and quadra values. It's a pretty significant and toxic memory.

  10. #170
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hate the way people are reactive with typings, but I get it, because I do it too in my weaker moments... but I think someone is crazy if you represent to them IEI in any way shape or form. I think it goes to the fact that until it gets firm measurements socionics is a very holographic theory. I think fine shades of meaning between kindred is very indicative of how tiny differences in perspective can flip the type. I don't think it really matters, because I think the essence of what's going on: re the pertinent issue, which is the legitimacy of socionics itself vis-a-vis this form of attack leveled at it, is grasped... but I do think if we really wanted to investigate this we need to get more background on Singu, maybe he holds gamma values we don't know about that would shed some light on the mystery. I feel like Singu is actually somewhat collateral to the main issue, which is a perverse way to acknowledge his success at becoming a mere mouthpiece for something more, and having the reverse of intended effect to boot

  11. #171

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

    Default

    @Soupman Ok... and how do you think you can "test" something that was inductively "derived"... as that is just a summary of an observation? You can't test summaries. Summaries are not theories.

    This isn't a fundamental disagreement due to differences in thinking etc, it's just a common misconception. I used to think that "science" had to do with "empiricism" and all that crap, but I looked into it and it turns out that that wasn't the case. Empiricism is a rather old and outdated philosophy, and science has largely moved onto rationalism, critical rationalism and falsificationism.

    Just look up the "problem of induction". Google it. If you don't understand this problem first, then you're not going to get it. You're just going to be stuck in a lower dimension of thinking and running around in circle, trying to "justify" empiricism.

  12. #172

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

    Default

    Constructivism is an epistemological philosophy created by the psychologist Piaget, mostly to be applied to education, sociology and psychology. It has nothing to do with scientific epistemology.

  13. #173
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,800
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    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.

  14. #174

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

    Default

    lol @ Bertrand pretty much saying the same thing that I'm saying, just months ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    the standard is "wow we predicted planets existing before we could observe them--not x planet will be at y location down the exact coordinates"-- it is enough that the planet be predicted to be there, that allows the theory sufficient acceptance to be later refined. it is precisely through this imaginative process that new knowledge is created, the idea that you can only proceed linearly from observation in developing theory cuts an entire half off of the development of human knowledge. it would essentially limit all potential knowledge to the currently accepted paradigm, which is stupid
    - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-reading/page8

    Yes, this is the rationalist method, which I would pretty much agree with.

    I guess he'd just been doing some cut-and-paste job of Kuhn or something, so he didn't even digest what he was apparently saying. But of course what I'm saying is Popperian, not Kuhnian. Kuhnian "paradigm shift" is nonsense, and that's not how science actually progresses. No comment for this is necessarily Bertrand, as it would be yet another clusterfuck.

  15. #175
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    [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.

  16. #176

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

    Default

    What I'm saying is nothing more than Popperian. Popper was the fiercest critic of inductivism:

    Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper

    5. Back to the Presocratics

    ...

    There is a widespread belief, somewhat remotely due, I think, to the influence of Francis Bacon, that one should study the problems of the theory of knowledge in connection with our knowledge of an orange rather than our knowledge of the cosmos. I dissent from this belief, and it is one of the main purposes of my paper to convey to you some of my reasons for dissenting.

    At any rate it is good to remember from time to time that our Western science—and there seems to be no other—did not start with collecting observations of oranges, but with bold theories about the world.

    III

    Traditional empiricist epistemology and the traditional historiography of science are both deeply influenced by the Baconian myth that all science starts from observation and then slowly and cautiously proceeds to theories. That the facts are very different can be learned from studying the early Presocratics. Here we find bold and fascinating ideas, some of which are strange and even staggering anticipations of modern results, while many others are wide of the mark, from our modern point of view; but most of them, and the best of them, have nothing to do with observation. Take for example some of the theories about the shape and position of the earth. Thales said, we are told, ‘that the earth is supported by water on which it rides like a ship, and when we say that there is an earthquake, then the earth is being shaken by the movement of the water’. No doubt Thales had observed earthquakes as well as the rolling of a ship before he arrived at his theory. But the point of his theory was to explain the support or suspension of the earth, and also earthquakes, by the conjecture that the earth floats on water; and for this conjecture (which so strangely anticipates the modern theory of continental drift) he could have had no basis in his observations.

    We must not forget that the function of the Baconian myth is to explain why scientific statements are true, by pointing out that observation is the ‘true source’ of our scientific knowledge. Once we realize that all scientific statements are hypotheses, or guesses, or conjectures, and that the vast majority of these conjectures (including Bacon’s own) have turned out to be false, the Baconian myth becomes irrelevant. For it is pointless to argue that the conjectures of science—those which have proved to be false as well as those which are still accepted—all start from observation.

    However this may be, Thales’ beautiful theory of the support or suspension of the earth and of earthquakes, though in no sense based upon observation, is at least inspired by an empirical or observational analogy. But even this is no longer true of the theory proposed by Thales’ great pupil, Anaximander. Anaximander’s theory of the suspension of the earth is still highly intuitive, but it no longer uses observational analogies. In fact it may be described as counter-observational. According to Anaximander’s theory, ‘The earth … is held up by nothing, but remains stationary owing to the fact that it is equally distant from all other things. Its shape is … like that of a drum. … We walk on one of its flat surfaces, while the other is on the opposite side.’ The drum, of course, is an observational analogy. But the idea of the earth’s free suspension in space, and the explanation of its stability, have no analogy whatever in the whole field of observable facts.

    In my opinion this idea of Anaximander’s is one of the boldest, most revolutionary, and most portentous ideas in the whole history of human thought. It made possible the theories of Aristarchus and of Copernicus. But the step taken by Anaximander was even more difficult and audacious than the one taken by Aristarchus and Copernicus. To envisage the earth as freely poised in mid-space, and to say ‘that it remains motionless because of its equidistance or equilibrium’ (as Aristotle paraphrases Anaximander), is to anticipate to some extent even Newton’s idea of immaterial and invisible gravitational forces.

    IV

    How did Anaximander arrive at this remarkable theory? Certainly not by observation but by reasoning. His theory is an attempt to solve one of the problems to which his teacher and kinsman Thales, the founder of the Milesian or Ionian School, had offered a solution before him. I therefore conjecture that Anaximander arrived at his theory by criticizing Thales’ theory. This conjecture can be supported, I believe, by a consideration of the structure of Anaximander’s theory.

    ...

  17. #177

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    244
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get it now. Accepting/Producing is a band-aid fix to explain duality:

    Your dual's leading is accepting & creative is producing. If suggestive is accepting and mobilizing is producing then it perfectly mirrors your dual's ego block functions = perfect match.

    The problem is this total breaks other relationships such as quasi-identical. Your leading is accepting & creative is producing. If your demonstrative is accepting and ignoring is producing then this mirrors your quasi-identicals ego block functions = perfect conflict.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •