I already clarified what my position was.Originally Posted by sbbds
I already clarified what my position was.
Ok. Who’s done that here?
thehotelambush.
To be honest, I think it may as well happen regularly because since nobody can read another's mind, it's too easy to attribute anything to Socionics. I could probably walk into someone's house here, take a big, tumbling shit on their rug, and they'd try to find a way to make it Socionical to match their preconceptions, because typically, when someone attempts to type someone, it's not about what's in front of them (it can't be, because we're not mind readers) - rather, it's about attributing behavior to preconceptions.
Do you have a specific quote in mind?
I don’t want this to turn into a witch hunt, mind you. The DSM is full of issues as well, and there’s a lot that’s yet to be explained by medical science, but especially when it comes to the psychiatric field.
I just had dinner the other day with a top doctor at the top university in Japan (an SLE-leaning beta ST btw) and I deal with international high-ranking medical professionals FWIW wrt where my perspective on this comes from. Not just talking out of my ass here.
A bit later on though, just like how you edited your post a bit later on after just mentioning thehotelambush’s name, a single user even after saying “userS”. It’s too little and too late.
Hope you don’t wrongly accuse me of misinterpreting you or putting words in your mouth again here too.
I'm rather deterministic eheh : )
(yes, we have a good deal of freedom in most things involving choice, yet we can't choose how we'll react unconsciously; we can only choose the final expressions of those things, how to appear, what to say, what to do, but those are only the results of something over which we have little control).
My point is that you don't know whether a person will be "Ne Polr" or "Ne base" in the future, that's an "unknown". Nor do we know how the person will act in different situations where "Ne" isn't necessary or appropriate, in which the determinant "Ne" would be totally useless.
About the only thing that you could do to predict the person's behavior, is if we could determine how certain beliefs will translate into certain behavior, and in what way, and in what situations. And only then, we could say that if the belief either stays the same or is introduced to the person, we could say that that a certain behavior will be created in the future.
The fact that you interpret it as such says more about you than it says about me. This isn't the first time you accused me of "complaining" about something when I did no such thing. Just a short time ago, you accused me of "complaining" about hostility on the internet, and made my comment all about you by assuming that I even had you in mind. In reality, I was simply making a neutral observation about internet user activity, calmly pressing keys on my keyboard. But I'm sure that won't stop you from assuming you can read my mind the next time around, or assuming that my comment has something to do with you.
It doesn't take credentials or connections to understand that the DSM undergoes revisions because it's fallible, and the medical community requires updated iterations of the DSM to accommodate for new findings and refined ways of understanding mental disorders.
I'm not going to directly quote thehotelambush because doing so would escalate into a witch hunt by poking him with a notification. You want to find out what his stance on the DSM is, or his stance on psychology is in general? Look through his posting history. You don't want to start a witch hunt? Don't ask me to drop names.
But let's look at a comment made earlier in this thread, that "negativity=negativism."
Was it assumed that negativity was due to contra-flow instinct? No.
Was it assumed that negativity was due to counterphobic traits? No.
Was it assumed that negativity was due to introversion and therefore psychological distance from objective factors, such as conventional wisdom? No.
Was it assumed that negativity was due to depression? No.
Was it assumed that negativity had anything to do with legitimate criticisms? Absolutely not.
Because Reinin is Jesus Christ on a cracker.And Reinin demands that we overlook the general psyche to accommodate for Reinin. Which means that we overlook factors that determine compatibility.
And most importantly, Reinin demands that legitimate criticism be ignored and contorted to conform to Reinin's theory. Because that's the only way Reinin will give us salvation.
You did wrongly misinterpret me. "Too little too late?" Lol.
Tfw introverts (or really just you) have no concept of the standards for knowledge and communication in society.The fact that you interpret it as such says more about you than it says about me. This isn't the first time you accused me of "complaining" about something when I did no such thing. Just a short time ago, you accused me of "complaining" about hostility on the internet, and made my comment all about you by assuming that I even had you in mind. In reality, I was simply making a neutral observation about internet user activity, calmly pressing keys on my keyboard. But I'm sure that won't stop you from assuming you can read my mind the next time around, or assuming that my comment has something to do with you.
It doesn't take credentials or connections to understand that the DSM undergoes revisions because it's fallible, and the medical community requires updated iterations of the DSM to accommodate for new findings and refined ways of understanding mental disorders.
I'm not going to directly quote thehotelambush because doing so would escalate into a witch hunt by poking him with a notification. You want to find out what his stance on the DSM is, or his stance on psychology is in general? Look through his posting history. You don't want to start a witch hunt? Don't ask me to drop names.
But let's look at a comment made earlier in this thread, that "negativity=negativism."
Was it assumed that negativity was due to contra-flow instinct? No.
Was it assumed that negativity was due to counterphobic traits? No.
Was it assumed that negativity was due to introversion and therefore psychological distance from objective factors, such as conventional wisdom? No.
Was it assumed that negativity was due to depression? No.
Was it assumed that negativity had anything to do with legitimate criticisms? Absolutely not.
Because Reinin is Jesus Christ on a cracker.
And most importantly, Reinin demands that legitimate criticism be ignored and contorted to conform to Reinin's theory. Because that's the only way Reinin will give us salvation.
You did wrongly misinterpret me. "Too little too late?" Lol.
You don’t need to ping @thehotelambush to quote them. Remove the name and post tag. It’s not hard, Mr. Information Security. Or you can cop out now after making your accusation towards him.
Well, at least you're being forthright by pinging him. He and I have already had this discussion, but whatever.Tfw introverts (or really just you) have no concept of the standards for knowledge and communication in society.
You don’t need to ping @thehotelambush to quote them. Remove the name and post tag. It’s not hard, Mr. Information Security. Or you can cop out now after making your accusation towards him.
You’re relying on other people to be forthright and speak clearly for you. It’s apparent that you’re used to this kind of treatment, but don’t get too comfortable. Pain is a necessary part of life!
Well hey, you're the one who said you didn't want to start a "witchhunt", but obviously, you're too duplicitous to remain consistent on the matter.
Erm.... lol I think someone is projecting here painfully and sadly obviously.
I said that and finished in the next sentence in defense of his position already, hence already cancelling out any witchhunt effect that may result from it.
Last edited by sbbds; 01-02-2019 at 06:45 PM.
I'm not the one projecting.
You’ve been whining about your fear of seeming dupliticious since changing your Sociotype, and again since changing your stance from being gung-ho about Socionics LOL.
Wtf is going on in your head to make you think this way?!
And you've said you think I'm LSI in private, but continue to imply that I'm not in public!
It's refreshing to actually be asked this, instead of told.
Quote where I have, God. I will explain the posts to you as it’s apparently necessary. I wasn’t even being sarcastic in some cases. That’s how low your understanding of context when communicating is I guess.And you've said you think I'm LSI in private, but continue to imply that I'm not in public!
I’ve never thought you were non-LSI since speaking to you over voice.
I mean, your comments about negativism, as it relates to the OP, and your challenging attitude with regards to Atari's beta criteria. I wouldn't be surprised if she still thinks I'm an ILE or something.
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Be more clear with the connections here. No idea where these leaps are coming from.
Whatever it is, it was not intentional.
I agreed with her comments on you being contradictory. It doesn’t mean I think you’re not LSI, and I don’t even know what Atari thinks about your type now, nor would that have been at all relevant to my posts.
And my lines about negativism were utterly unrelated to the OP lol or even to Socionics negativism.
All of these. Incoming post...
negativism ^
Uhhh... Well this is awkward.
This is not meant to be about Socionics negativism. Although Gulenko did build his theory around the same concept.
Even if this were the case, how would I be implying you were a Socionics positivist from this? Just based on me saying I think a negativist approach makes more sense? And LSIs are positivists as well so... I don’t get you. You really should take a chill pill.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jors.2012.58 Perhaps I used the wrong or a confusing term though, but my intention was only to use discourse that I knew you guys would understand. That’s an educational link for @Singu and you too if you’re interested.
It’s your own damn fault.
I'm very sorry.
This is why I haven’t dated any white guys since 2014.
Any Delivery Charge is not a tip paid to your driver. Please reward your driver for awesomeness. Drivers carry less than $20. You must ask for this limited time offer. Minimum purchase required for delivery. Delivery charge and tax may apply. Prices, participation, delivery area and charges may vary, including AK and HI. Returned checks, along with the state's maximum allowable returned check fee, may be electronically presented to your bank. ©2018 Domino's IP Holder LLC. Domino's®, Domino's Pizza® and the game piece logo are registered trademarks of Domino's IP Holder LLC. "Coca-Cola" and the Contour Bottle design are registered trademarks of The Coca-Cola Company. The Ice Breakers® Mints trademark and trade dress are used under license. Apple, the Apple logo and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc. Android is a trademark of Google Inc. Windows® Phone is a registered trademark of the Microsoft group of companies.
Domino's pizza made with a Gluten Free Crust is prepared in a common kitchen with the risk of gluten exposure. Therefore, Domino's DOES NOT recommend this pizza for customers with celiac disease. Customers with gluten sensitivities should exercise judgment in consuming this pizza.
Domino’s menu items are prepared in stores using a common kitchen. As a result there may be cross contact between allergens. Customers with an allergen concern should exercise judgement in consuming Domino’s menu items. For a listing of allergens that may appear in Domino’s stores, please visit our Allergen Page.
Domino's Piece of the Pie Rewards® is open only to US residents 13+ with a Pizza Profile account who order from participating Domino's locations. Point redemption only valid online at participating locations in the US. *Limit: one order of $10 or more (excludes tip and donations) per calendar day can earn points. For complete details visit dominos.com/rewards.
Our Guarantee: If you are not completely satisfied with your Domino's Pizza experience, we will make it right or refund your money.
Domino's Carryout Insurance program is only available to carryout customers who return their damaged order, uneaten, in its original packaging (inclusive of an order label or receipt) to the store from which it was originally purchased within at least two hours of the time of purchase. Damaged orders will be replaced with identical products and no substitutions will be permitted. This is a limited time offer and store participation may vary.
To easily find a local Domino's Pizza restaurant or when searching for “pizza near me”, please visit our localized mapping website featuring nearby Domino's Pizza stores available for delivery or takeout.
If you are using a screen reader and are having problems using this website, please call 800-252-4031 for assistance.
CA Transparency in Supply Chains Act Disclosure
The Domino’s menu features specialty pizzas, pizzas with gluten free crust, oven-baked sandwiches, chicken, salads, desserts, drinks, and more. If customization is your style, our pizza menu includes a build your own pizza option that lets you choose from amazing toppings, sauces and cheeses. It will have you thinking about different pizza menu combinations for days. Or, you can keep it simple with a pepperoni pizza. Check out the Domino’s Pizza menu to see all of the amazing options that will take lunch, snack time or dinner to the next level.
unacceptabru
what is going on, is this Se?
...Did you actually read that?
Karl Popper and critical rationalism says that:
- All observations are theory-laden. Everything is a theory. You start with a theory, and not observations.
- Induction, as in making claims that things observed in the past will repeat again in the future, is logically and rationally untenable ("the problem of induction").
- There's no such thing as a "justified, true belief". You can never "prove" something to be true. All theories and knowledge are tentative and are subject to error.
- Knowledge is created by a process of conjectures and refutations. Or making "guesses" that are not based on anything (unjustified, untrue, unbelief), and then criticizing it to make it better.
knock knock
We know what Popper said already.
I read the abstract and intro so far, and skimmed the free PDF available. I thought it looked interesting and would make a nice New Year gift for you.
Who's there?
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
...I'm already familiar with Karl Popper. Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time is Popperian. If you think that's interesting, then I'd just suggest reading "Conjectures and Refutations".
The article applies his works and analyzes it in relation to engineering (‘OR’ basically, here).
It was cited 12 times in several different journals too.Conclusions
In moving its attention from theory to practice CR has to consider the implications for both the theory (theory- for-practice) and practice (action) itself. Induction is rife within OR but this can be made logically acceptable by always containing statements about the assumed relationship between parts and the whole, and between the past and the future within the theories and proposals being considered. Decision-makers can then judge whether to accept such assumptions or not. If the theory is accepted so are the assumptions. Thus the CR concern to avoid a transcendent acceptance of induc- tion can be met. [...]
I don't see what the problem is. It accepts the claims and the premise made by criticial rationalism.
Also critical rationalism has properly addressed the claims made by postmodernism and relativism, which is what the paper seems to be mainly about.It may be possible for OR to avoid the problem of induction and to desist from making justificatory claims but subjectivity is an integral part of managerial decision-making and cannot be ignored or assumed to be eliminated by the pursuit of an intersubjective ideal. The critical rationalist tries to minimise the subjective element and in many respects this is precisely what OR consultants try to do on a day-to-day basis: they help decision-makers place more weight on evidence and analysis and less on personal guesses and intuition.
It’s not a refutation. Just adding information. It’s a present, God.
So you agree with what I've been saying about Popperian critical rationalism.
Idk.
It’s a theory, which can’t be proven.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote