Futile.
Futile.
You're in a very small minority when you consider the claim that ISTjs are not likely to be "dreamy" to be among the ridiculous ones.They're not impossible, and I don't think anyone is advocating against their use. The issue is: Which of these 'distinctive measurements' are relevant and accurate, and which are asinine and flat-out ridiculous?
About this discussion as a whole:
- it turns out Goebbels had a disfigured leg that retarded his bodily development.
- the comment about him being "dreamy" was made by a poster here on the forum (Plynex) and I don't know exactly where he drew it from, and whether the statement only applied to Goebbels' childhood.
Like what? Tell me something that isn't subjective. You'll always end up falling back on consensus and/or authority, both of which are what type- and IE-descriptions are based on.There's plenty you can base knowledge on.
Yes, and (in the absence of experimental conditions for empirical proofs) it is consensus and authority that are the only things that can elevate one subjective judgment over the other. Type descriptions exist to institutionalize such consensi and authority. This is why these descriptions are the main measure of determining the worth of arguments in socionics. whether you're using type descriptions or descriptions of "how the information elements and functions work", you always fall back on descriptions one way or another. Either that, or you propone a subjective view which you can only profess and apologize for.It isn't a matter of what's subjective or not—evaluating Socionics subjectively is unavoidable because we have no means of making objective measurements about it.
Regardless, not all forms of subjective evidence and inquiry are epistemically equivalent.
But the notion of being "dreamy" fits the common socionics definitions of intuition perfectly.No, I just think that assertions of whether some type is "dreamy" or not, is a pointless parameter to base an argument around. There's better ways to approach the topic.
Of which only empiricism and testing in experimental conditions are non-subjective. But neither of them is happening on this forum. After the process of elimination, consensus and authority are the only things available to tell bad opinions apart from good ones in socionics. These heuristics and principles you mention themselves involve consensus and authority when you analyze them thoroughly. That is, if they don't involve empiricism.Appeals to consensus and authority are fallacies of reason in any field, regardless of whether empirical research methods exist or not.
There are many sound rational heuristics and methodological principles which can (and should) guide good thinking, without resorting to what you advocate.
You're describing the subjective method; the method that doesn't lend itself to being shared with others. You can not prove that you have succeeded at any of these things without falling back on the fact that others reach the same conclusions as you do (consensus building) or that you have more experience with the theory or are fit to make these judgments for some other reason (exalting yourself as an authority).It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
A 3rd way would be to take all the descriptions with a grain of salt, bearing in mind that some but not all of it may be true to varying degrees. Through your own observation, experiences, and faculties of reason, you can recognize what fits and what doesn't. Over time, you should be dynamically adding to and revising your framework of understanding as necessary towards increasing clarity and sensibility.
Where the arbitration of a difference of opinions is concerned, this method doesn't provide any help because the opinions themselves were reached by means of that process and yet yielded different results. In practice it turns out that people reach different conclusions via this method all the time. Of course, where they don't, you've got a consensus.
wank wank wank
lolOriginally Posted by Starfall
can't decide between Ti-LII and LSI leaning towards LII
edit: after watching the H!tler's Henchmen documentary I'm going with LII-Ti so/sp 6w5. Goebbels was portrayed as an "armchair warrior" and a misanthrope who pined for Fuhrer's approval, yet there was always a distance between them, he wasn't close to him personally ("I think H!tler valued Goebbels highly as a very devoted follower, as a committed National Socialist, and as an incredible propaganda minister. But I never saw any sign of friendship or even friendliness in their relationship.") which is more congruent with a LII typing.
Last edited by silke; 07-09-2014 at 08:25 AM.
SLI or maybe LII
EIE?
If you are in context of Entp as ass...well there it is. Entp ILE.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote