New name for psychorelativity needed

[tcaudilllg]

The idea of the crosstype phenomenon was originally conceived of by me as beign a sort of "black hole" of personality. It seemed no coincidence that the person who designed the theory of relativity (Einstein) talked of energy being transformed into matter and vice versa. Thinking of matter as J and energy as P, I crossed the two to create an explanation for Einstein's world view. If J could be transformed to P, then why not T to F, N to S, and I to E? Although reluctant to admit these conclusions, I eventually consented to their existence and created from them the first crosstype theory. This theory, owing to its existence the premise of transformation of energies, was christianed "psychorelativity" to reflect its basis on that premise, which itself stemmed from Einstein's relativity principle.

Further applying this principle, "for every system k, k'", I inferred the existence of the contextual lines, with one line contrasting the observing line, and two corresponding lines existing as per system k to the original k, k' contrasting system. Thus to every persistent worldview ( made it clear that these exisited) there existed a counterpart, and to that system of contrasts another counterpart. The counterpart to the counterpart was the original, thus completing the archetype of "wholeness" as stipulated by Jung.

Using socionics as a base, I began trying to see the transformations of energy as relationships between functions. Thus inevitably it became obvious that the transformations of energy could be thought of as alternating between matter into energy and then energy into matter, and thus the information metabolism-exertion theory began to become apparent.

At this point, the theory can explain the derival of relativity itself. It need not rely on "for k, k'" as its justification for existence, because it infers the existence of " for k, k'" of its own accord by correctly modeling Einstein's thought process. The theory is no longer "psychorelativistic" because relativity is merely one case of it, and not the premise for its validity.

The question remains then, what to call it? Is this the "super-socion" as opposed to Augusta's "socion" of 16 types?

[aestrivex]

who deleted my comment you motherfucking bastards?

[tcaudilllg]

At psychorelativity forum I wouldn't have to deal with this crap. Someone call the moderator?

As far as I can tell, UDP, labcoat, oyyburger, thehotelambush, and several INTps and INFps are the scope of interest in the information metabolism-exertion theory we once called "crosstypes". I have little question that the progressive forces in this forum would have little difficulty removing themselves from this stalemate to a place where the environment is, say, more tightly controlled. That doesn't mean I'm going to leave, but it does mean I'll be a lot less active here.

There are several others things I want to accomplish also: a wiki for the IM-IE theory which registered users can use to add their own contributions to the theory (and accredit themselves for their contributions simultaneously) while providing an easy-to-access resource of IM-IE knowledge. I also need to find a flow-chart/diagramming program by which I can demonstrate the theory visibly.

[Creepy-bg]

At psychorelativity forum I wouldn't have to deal with this crap. Someone call the moderator?

As far as I can tell, UDP, labcoat, oyyburger, thehotelambush, and several INTps and INFps are the scope of interest in the information metabolism-exertion theory we once called "crosstypes". I have little question that the progressive forces in this forum would have little difficulty removing themselves from this stalemate to a place where the environment is, say, more tightly controlled. That doesn't mean I'm going to leave, but it does mean I'll be a lot less active here.

There are several others things I want to accomplish also: a wiki for the IM-IE theory which registered users can use to add their own contributions to the theory (and accredit themselves for their contributions simultaneously) while providing an easy-to-access resource of IM-IE knowledge. I also need to find a flow-chart/diagramming program by which I can demonstrate the theory visibly.

this is a public forum about socionics and as such it draws all kinds of people. You're just going to have to let your skin thicken a little for when you do post here because this place is what it is... Like it or not your theory is fringe to socionics and to expect everyone here to just play along with you is extreamly naive and self-centered. What Niffweed said is far far far far from how bad it could be if people were truly attacking you and your system. My suggestion is to learn to deal with it or get used to being pissed all the time... your choice.

[UDP]

I don't know enough about your theory to be of use, and I doubt I'll have any substantial time until the summer. I really don't know how to interpret this thread, but I feel compelled to say that you've still got a lot more work cut out for you tcau, and it seems like you are the only one who can do it. But if you're sure about what you see, go for it.

[aestrivex]

At psychorelativity forum I wouldn't have to deal with this crap. Someone call the moderator?

As far as I can tell, UDP, labcoat, oyyburger, thehotelambush, and several INTps and INFps are the scope of interest in the information metabolism-exertion theory we once called "crosstypes". I have little question that the progressive forces in this forum would have little difficulty removing themselves from this stalemate to a place where the environment is, say, more tightly controlled. That doesn't mean I'm going to leave, but it does mean I'll be a lot less active here.

good. your presence will not be missed, i assure you. good luck finding people with any kind of knowledge of socionics and a competent grasp of english at any other locale.

please shut the door on your way out.

[aestrivex]

As far as I can tell, UDP, labcoat, oyyburger, thehotelambush, and several INTps and INFps are the scope of interest in the information metabolism-exertion theory we once called "crosstypes". I have little question that the progressive forces in this forum would have little difficulty removing themselves from this stalemate to a place where the environment is, say, more tightly controlled. That doesn't mean I'm going to leave, but it does mean I'll be a lot less active here.

this is a public forum about socionics and as such it draws all kinds of people. You're just going to have to let your skin thicken a little for when you do post here because this place is what it is... Like it or not your theory is fringe to socionics and to expect everyone here to just play along with you is extreamly naive and self-centered. What Niffweed said is far far far far from how bad it could be if people were truly attacking you and your system. My suggestion is to learn to deal with it or get used to being pissed all the time... your choice.

well said words embark upon an epic odyssey to their deaths.

[Exodus]

I don't know enough about your theory to be of use, and I doubt I'll have any substantial time until the summer. I really don't know how to interpret this thread, but I feel compelled to say that you've still got a lot more work cut out for you tcau, and it seems like you are the only one who can do it. But if you're sure about what you see, go for it.

Ditto.

[Kim]

As far as I can tell, UDP, labcoat, oyyburger, thehotelambush, and several INTps and INFps are the scope of interest in the information metabolism-exertion theory we once called "crosstypes". I have little question that the progressive forces in this forum would have little difficulty removing themselves from this stalemate to a place where the environment is, say, more tightly controlled. That doesn't mean I'm going to leave, but it does mean I'll be a lot less active here.

This is how I see it: you have ideas that are new and that need to be communicated to a potentially interested audience. Of course people will criticize you. Innovative ideas always get heat and creators get insulted. I don't like how people attack you, but you probably alienated a few people today who might have been interested because you dismiss their preferred function as not capable of adding to the debate. Are you really that limited in your approach?

You cannot develop any branch of any personality theory solely through Ti. And nobody can create any sort of meaningful theory involving people and their personalities without absolutely believing that no type is more capable of contributing than another. All these functions and types are there for a reason. You dismiss ideas that you don't deem worthy of your Ti constructs. But the limitation does not lie in those alternative ideas using alternative functions to process information, but in your unipolar (or should I say unifunctional?) approach to the matter. This is about people and Ti will only get you so far. You will eventually have to allow your ideas and systems to be processed through minds that prefer functions other than Ti or you will be stuck with a Ti construct that might be internally logical, but that remains meaningless as long as it is not placed within a Te-created framework of practical application, which again needs to be informed by Se and Si, checked against Fi-processed input and so on. Ti only goes so far.

[niveK]

At psychorelativity forum I wouldn't have to deal with this crap. Someone call the moderator?

Another notable distinction between a scientist and pseudoscientist. A scientist welcomes criticism. The whole idea of the peer-review system for journals is to have a bunch of people do their damnedest to shred the scientist's ideas. What's valid and true will withstand the criticism and remain while the chaff gets tossed to the wayside.

Meanwhile the pseudoscientist seeks sycophants. The pseudoscientist avoids true criticism, and offers fallacious efforts when confronted. There's a noticeable hubris in the pseudoscientist. He'd rather have people declare his "genius" unquestioningly than disagree with him.

Your whole foundation for "psychorelativity" is fallacious. Einstein's observations of physics have no relationship to the structure of this nebulous concept of personality. Indeed, the theory of relativity CANNOT be applied to personality. You make a completely non sequitur jump to this idea that the four basic dichotomies can somehow "cross." And it was obvious in the way in which you initially defined your crosstypes. You simply set forth a list of all permutations of "crossing" functions, and then made up descriptions for all of them. It's speculation at best. There's nothing here worth serious consideration. It's bad reasoning based on faulty premises. There's nothing of value to be found in your system. That is why I criticize it.

[Jarno]

I don't see the relations between the things as described in your crosstypes theory.

I also don't like it when someone uses the word relativity. It's like putting the sign of Ferrari on your own car to get the selling price higher.

Reading you writing language and use of words it may be fair to conclude that you are an intelligent person but still some things that i've read in your crosstypes theory are made of kindergarden reasoning. (i don't want to offend you, but that's the first reaction that comes up in me).

Of course it could be that i'm missing some essential parts of it, so maybe it would help if you could give more clear and concrete examples of the working of your theory. Without using to much hypothesis, but rather things that could be proven in some kind of logical way or in real life experience.

[tcaudilllg]

At psychorelativity forum I wouldn't have to deal with this crap. Someone call the moderator?

Your whole foundation for "psychorelativity" is fallacious. Einstein's observations of physics have no relationship to the structure of this nebulous concept of personality. Indeed, the theory of relativity CANNOT be applied to personality. You make a completely non sequitur jump to this idea that the four basic dichotomies can somehow "cross." And it was obvious in the way in which you initially defined your crosstypes. You simply set forth a list of all permutations of "crossing" functions, and then made up descriptions for all of them. It's speculation at best. There's nothing here worth serious consideration. It's bad reasoning based on faulty premises. There's nothing of value to be found in your system. That is why I criticize it.

Actually the premise of gestalt psychology completely refutes this statement. A person is always attempting to communicate their personality to others with everything they do. Einstein's work inevitably demonstrated the substance of his personality.

And Jung made the suggestion of undifferentiated functions nearly a century before I did. There are so many holes to be pointed into your argument, niveK. And why did I create the system I did in the first place? If you had been paying attention to my arguments over these past two years, you would already know the answer. Come now, niveK: remind us of your peerless ability to grasp the substance of the socionics functions. Oh dear me, why, two years ago, before Rick's translations of Augusta's notes reached us, we were completely at peace with their meaning and flush with limitless understanding weren't we? It must all be Rick's fault for making that damnably true information available.

You cannot develop any branch of any personality theory solely through Ti. And nobody can create any sort of meaningful theory involving people and their personalities without absolutely believing that no type is more capable of contributing than another. All these functions and types are there for a reason.

That's not true at all, but some of the NeFis here seem to break structure by every breath they take. Discussion in an unstructured environment is difficult for LIIs, if not impossible. And it's not just them either: there is a very large group of people here who apparently believe that unless an idea is published in a peer reviewed journal (something only an individual with a masters or a doctorate can manage) then it either does not exist or should not be considered. I don't really need to discuss my ideas with such stubborn people.

[Kim]

You cannot develop any branch of any personality theory solely through Ti. And nobody can create any sort of meaningful theory involving people and their personalities without absolutely believing that no type is more capable of contributing than another. All these functions and types are there for a reason.

That's not true at all, but some of the NeFis here seem to break structure by every breath they take.

How is it not true and how do NeFis here break structure (example?) and how are the two related, anyway?

Discussion in an unstructured environment is difficult for LIIs, if not impossible. And it's not just them either: there is a very large group of people here who apparently believe that unless an idea is published in a peer reviewed journal (something only an individual with a masters or a doctorate can manage) then it either does not exist or should not be considered. I don't really need to discuss my ideas with such stubborn people.

It is not impossible for those LII who are willing to stretch and go outside of their comfort zone. I realize that you might not be comfortable with that, but you cannot blame participants for communicating to you in a way that is difficult for you to deal with. It's not a flaw on their part, but a lack of understanding on yours.

As for publishing in peer-reviewed journals: that has nothing to do with degree, but with the credibility of your idea. You will not be able to publish your idea about personality theory unless you place it within the context of exisiting ideas. Publishing means to contribute to a debate, but you refuse the enter the debate in the first place. Why? Are you that afraid of criticism? And are you that limited in how you can communicate and understand things? How can you then claim to develop groundbreaking theories about the interaction and behavior of people? You don't even seem to understand why other types communicate the way they do, which, to me, is essential for even getting started on the matter. And the best way to get started is to engage rather than reject.

[CuriousSoul]

@tcaudilllq

Nobody should start to undertake a large project. You start with a small _trivial_ project, and you should never expect it to get large. If you do, you'll just overdesign and generally think it is more important than it likely is at that stage. Or worse, you might be scared away by the sheer size of the work you envision. So start small, and think about the details. Don't think about some big picture and fancy design. If it doesn't solve some fairly immediate need, it's almost certainly over-designed. And don't expect people to jump in and help you. That's not how these things work. You need to get something half-way _useful_ first, and then others will say "hey, that _almost_ works for me", and they'll get involved in the project.

Linus Benedict Torvalds (born December 28, 1969) is a computer programmer, best known as the creator of the Linux kernel.

I think you should rethink your focus.
What is it that your system can do and socionics currently cannot?
Once you can demonstrate some real improvements - however small - people will come to you.

[UDP]

^ well said.

[niveK]

Actually the premise of gestalt psychology completely refutes this statement. A person is always attempting to communicate their personality to others with everything they do. Einstein's work inevitably demonstrated the substance of his personality.

Bullshit. The result of Einstein's work reflects the reality of physics. His process reflects very little of his personality You can't just make theories up, they must reflect reality. Relativity further explained the natural laws of physics. It can do nothing else without corrupting its integrity as a model reflecting reality.

And Jung made the suggestion of undifferentiated functions nearly a century before I did. There are so many holes to be pointed into your argument, niveK. And why did I create the system I did in the first place? If you had been paying attention to my arguments over these past two years, you would already know the answer. Come now, niveK: remind us of your peerless ability to grasp the substance of the socionics functions. Oh dear me, why, two years ago, before Rick's translations of Augusta's notes reached us, we were completely at peace with their meaning and flush with limitless understanding weren't we? It must all be Rick's fault for making that damnably true information available.

Jung was hardly a consummate scientist. His methodology sucked. Nothing but anecdotal evidence and intuition, very little room for solid evidence. I require no full knowledge of socionics to know your idea is baseless and a waste of time. It's so horribly flawed that its invalidity is evident. I find no more reason to further consider your theory than to consider the position of flat-earthers, 9/11 conspiracists, or moon hoaxers.

Besides, I don't exactly have any trust in the socionics system either. It's an interesting descriptive system, but I've yet to see anything confirming its predictive value.

That's not true at all, but some of the NeFis here seem to break structure by every breath they take. Discussion in an unstructured environment is difficult for LIIs, if not impossible. And it's not just them either: there is a very large group of people here who apparently believe that unless an idea is published in a peer reviewed journal (something only an individual with a masters or a doctorate can manage) then it either does not exist or should not be considered. I don't really need to discuss my ideas with such stubborn people.

I'd be willing to say anyone can get something into a peer-reviewed paper, as long as it's quality material. The reason people with masters or doctorates are pretty much the only people doing it is because there's so much prerequisite knowledge that it takes that kind of study to have the information available to make a meaningful contribution. Of course, that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Science is a rigorous, tough process. They don't just let anyone with an idea into a good journal. If your work was worth consideration, I wouldn't care if it was in a peer-reviewed article. However, I'd wonder why you don't make the effort. At any rate, I don't believe things without some reasonable evidence. Call me stubborn if you want, but I'm less demanding than professional scientists and peer-reviewers. If you're unwilling to deal with people like me, you and your hypotheses would never make it in the real science world.

[tcaudilllg]

Maybe because I'm a student with no formal credentials? What would it be like for a "nobody" to walk up to a bunch of established psychologists and say "hey I've got a lot of answers you've been wondering about for the last century or so. Wanna hear them?"

[aestrivex]

fuck you morons stop deleting my insults. i have a right to insult the man if i think his theories are braindead.

[Creepy-bg]

Niffweed... Just put him back on ignore for the sake of both of your sanities

[Kim]

Maybe because I'm a student with no formal credentials? What would it be like for a "nobody" to walk up to a bunch of established psychologists and say "hey I've got a lot of answers you've been wondering about for the last century or so. Wanna hear them?"

Write it up and get in contact with people. Search university websites for faculty members who might be interested and get in touch with them. Or better even, search calls for papers and send in an abstract of a paper you could present. You could start with a graduate student symposium (no, you generally don't have to be a graduate student). Attend a conference as an auditor and approach people who might be interested.

Just don't tell people you found the ultimate truth and have all the answers. That does not go over well in academia and for good reason.

I would still like to know what exactly it is that ENFps are doing with the structure around here.

[Exodus]

there is a very large group of people here who apparently believe that unless an idea is published in a peer reviewed journal (something only an individual with a masters or a doctorate can manage) then it either does not exist or should not be considered.

That has nothing to do with it. As far as I know, Expat has not published anything on socionics, yet his statements are taken very seriously. It is because of your poor methodology and obscure reasoning that you are not taken seriously.

You have some lofty and admirable goals for personality typing, but you will not reach them this way.

[Creepy-bg]

I think that's it too Tcaud... also maybe try to tone down the philosophy and "a new age of humanity!" stuff and people will take you a little more serriously

[Jarno]

That has nothing to do with it. It is because of your poor methodology and obscure reasoning that you are not taken seriously.

I agree 100%

[aestrivex]

Niffweed... Just put him back on ignore for the sake of both of your sanities

his stupidity is too funny.


i've already put three people on ignore the last week. that should be enough.

[tcaudilllg]

I've found a program called Dia that can make diagrams very easily. (well, at the very least it's easy to use. Making the diagrams themselves takes a little time and planning.) With this program I've made some 9-10 visual illustrations of my ideas.

Does anyone know of a good wikihost were I can post these? Or do you think I should just set up a site?