DCNH rant, my own useful perspective

[Singu]

Which mechanism are you asking about now? The general trend shows there are systems that we can say process separate types of information. A few properties of these systems and on how these systems interact with each other are valid parts of the model in my opinion. The concretely detailed mechanisms beyond these, e.g. how exactly the interactions happen regarding certain details of them, are not going to be explained just by using these principles.

The "general trend" doesn't exactly show any systems or explain any mechanisms, because we're only observing a general trend. It exists, perhaps, but it's only an observation. The general trend in statistics for example only show that those trends are observed at a particular time at a particular place. Socionics is no different than statistics in that case.

The brain doesn't just randomly change like that.

It's not necessarily random, but it sure as hell is influenced and changed by both the environment, and the person's own cognition.

Alpha values != naivety. These principles specify more than just equating Ne/Ti/etc with this generic word "naivety". It would be wrong to equate the two with each other.

What are "Alpha values", then? Why IS Ne or Alpha associated with being "childlike", unless of course you don't believe in Gulenko?

Are Alpha values just valuing logic, emotion, ideas and comfort? Honestly, you could literally come up with ANY kind of values from those 4 ideas, if given enough analysis. You could say that the kings and aristocrats valued all of those things, and yet Alphas are supposed to be "democratic". Unless of course you don't believe in Gulenko and Reinin.

[Myst]

The "general trend" doesn't exactly show any systems or explain any mechanisms, because we're only observing a general trend. It exists, perhaps, but it's only an observation. The general trend in statistics for example only show that those trends are observed at a particular time at a particular place. Socionics is no different than statistics in that case.

The hypothesis of the theory is that there are such systems. To be very clear, I disagree that Socionics is just observations. I however agree with you in that it shouldn't be used to try and explain what it's not meant to explain.

It's not necessarily random, but it sure as hell is influenced and changed by both the environment, and the person's own cognition.

The hypothesis is that certain basic organization does not change after it got developed before birth and during the early years.

What are "Alpha values", then? Why IS Ne or Alpha associated with being "childlike", unless of course you don't believe in Gulenko?

You mean the Infantile romantic style or what?

Are Alpha values just valuing logic, emotion, ideas and comfort? Honestly, you could literally come up with ANY kind of values from those 4 ideas, if given enough analysis. You could say that the kings and aristocrats valued all of those things, and yet Alphas are supposed to be "democratic". Unless of course you don't believe in Gulenko and Reinin.

I don't believe in Reinin, no, and most of Gulenko I also reject.

Alpha values: a certain type of logic, certain type of emotional expression, certain type of ideas... The definitions are available, unless you have specific questions that need an answer, I won't go into them here.

[The Reality Denialist]

Is Singu some sort of advanced AI that was inspired by INTp uncovered profile?

 

INTp uncovered

"Oh my God! This is awesome! I'm so excited! I can't wait! I feel like jumping and screaming and clapping my hands!" behaviour will guarantee you the front seat before INTp firing squad. It is taboo as INTps cannot tolerate enthusiasm and you will soon be punished for openly showing the excitement. If you like something - you should stay quiet, if you don't like something - you must hate it! No emotional attachments or commitments are permitted either.

INTps fear rules and adore them, because what's clear - they fear, unclear - they dear! Nevertheless, they stick to the rules and they demand the same from others. The rules that can be interpreted in many ways guarantee freedom. Ironically, INTps learn about their environment through studying of the limitations. If the rule states you can't say "knee" and INTp decides to respect and obey it they could get extremely annoyed with someone who decides to ignore it.

The rules for INTps often transform into rituals and they have no problems with rituals. Because of this INTps could get comfortable with routine, often mistyping themselves into J types, resulting in many of them thinking of themselves as INTjs. However the most common way is for INTps to type themselves into INTxs, with undecided preference for J or P.

INTps would not accept anything concrete and solid on principle. The more unshakable it seems the more challenging for INTp it appears. Irrefutable truth to them means death. If a sign "Take your hats off" is normally understood as a request to take headwear off, you may suddenly find yourself arguing with an INTp over what is considered a hat. Thanks God for dictionary! INTps respect it - it is printed and it is public. But beware of broad interpretations. A broad interpretation is INTp's ally; exact meaning is INTp's enema.

The arithmetic perhaps is the only discipline where INTps cannot use their powers of ambiguity. 2 + 2 = 4 will always remain true, although it is not inconceivable to assume that at some point an INTp was contemplating a different result. On the other hand, the very foundation of arithmetic was built upon few self evident axioms, and it is the self evident part of course that is very much INTp debatable.

In fact, INTps will debate for the sake of debate. The process becomes more important than the outcome. They often lose the point of a debate when they shift focus to other unrelated subjects in the process. When defeated, INTps can easily do a U turn on something they were arguing just seconds ago. They deserve respect for being able to accept the defeat and disrespect for never being truly committed in their views.

So what is it that makes them so meticulously scrutinising? Being natively intuitive, INTps are not quite able to swallow big chunks of information. They choke on it. Big theories of everything are spam to them and people who make them are instant opponents. The combination of words like "in general", "on principal", "on the whole", "in most cases", "as a general rule" are not friends to INTps, as they befriend "in particular" in particular. They do not like trends, as trends usually encompass more than one tendency, making the trend more "in general" than "in particular". The notion that there are 16 psychological types is also alien to INTps, because in their heads the 16 types could be further dissected into oblivion, thus making them even more "in particular" than "in general".

Finally, INTps have this very special relationship with Socionics. They are like plague, eating its very foundation. They are like ever growing tumour that turns once solid and sound principals into a formless jelly. Just like a bunch of angry termites on rampage, they feed on anything structural, bearing clarity and simplicity... by turning it to dust.

That's all folks, it's a dissection time!

Yes, I know, futile.

[Myst]

Is Singu some sort of advanced AI that was inspired by INTp uncovered profile?

Lol this is mbti INTP too o_o

[Singu]

The hypothesis of the theory is that there are such systems. To be very clear, I disagree that Socionics is just observations. I however agree with you in that it shouldn't be used to try and explain what it's not meant to explain.

A hypothesis comes up with some new information that was not previously known. There is literally nothing in Socionics that was not known prior to its observations. This is why I think Socionics is mostly based on just observations.

The hypothesis is that certain basic organization does not change after it got developed before birth and during the early years.

I would not call that a hypothesis as such, for the same reason above. An assumption that things would stay the same, does not contain any new information.

You mean the Infantile romantic style or what?

Sure, but it could also be "Alpha values", as the Alpha quadra is supposed to be the beginning stage of a human being or something. Or that could also just be something invented by Gulenko.

Alpha values: a certain type of logic, certain type of emotional expression, certain type of ideas... The definitions are available, unless you have specific questions that need an answer, I won't go into them here.

Well I'm not sure if that could be called "values", it would be more like a certain "modes of thinking". And the distinction between Ti and Te "logic" are not clear - if there are different types of logic at all. Logic is logic, it's all fundamentally the same logic. It would be more like different philosophies, if there were such differences.

[Myst]

A hypothesis comes up with some new information that was not previously known. There is literally nothing in Socionics that was not known prior to its observations. This is why I think Socionics is mostly based on just observations.

Incorrect. The hypotheses in Socionics are things that I have never ever seen in any other psychology theory. Why the fuck do you think I'm still on this forum otherwise, as someone who actually majored in psychology previously?

I would not call that a hypothesis as such, for the same reason above. An assumption that things would stay the same, does not contain any new information.

It does contain a LOT. It does matter a LOT whether something is expected to change or not.

Sure, but it could also be "Alpha values", as the Alpha quadra is supposed to be the beginning stage of a human being or something. Or that could also just be something invented by Gulenko.

I don't subscribe to most of those extensions to the basic ideas of Socionics, you will have to discuss those with someone else, not me.

Well I'm not sure if that could be called "values", it would be more like a certain "modes of thinking". And the distinction between Ti and Te "logic" are not clear - if there are different types of logic at all. Logic is logic, it's all fundamentally the same logic. It would be more like different philosophies, if there were such differences.

Preferring a certain mode of thinking is what a value is in this theory.

Te doesn't prioritize logically like Ti, it just uses what it can directly for logical action.

[Singu]

Incorrect. The hypotheses in Socionics are things that I have never ever seen in any other psychology theory. Why the fuck do you think I'm still on this forum otherwise, as someone who actually majored in psychology previously?

I said "prior to its observations". They're all essentially observations by Jung, observations by Augusta, observations by Gulenko, etc. What new things did they come up with, that were not simply based on observations? As in, what are the explanations?

[Myst]

I said "prior to its observations". They're all essentially observations by Jung, observations by Augusta, observations by Gulenko, etc. What new things did they come up with, that were not simply based on observations? As in, what are the explanations?

Sorry, no, you don't know what an observation is and what a hypothesis is. You overall just sound really confused about the scientific method too, throwing around some concepts of it randomly, including your current signature, but display no overarching understanding of all of them together. I apologize but I no longer have the patience to deal with this. I hope one day you will get to put all of it together and see more clearly then.

*Deep breath* OK, I will answer your question, the hypotheses in Socionics/Jung's theory were not present anywhere prior to the creation of these theories. Fragments of observations were floating around but not all fragments were recognized as something that's a law-like regularity, some things were not even noticed much even as consistent observations, and they certainly were never integrated into a theory or hypotheses of a theory.

And I shouldn't have to go into detail about what the basic explanatory principles of the theory are. You have been on this fucking forum for 9 years now. You should be familiar with them, starting from the principle of there being different information types, how these information types will be organized in different ways (pure, "mixed", strong, weak, conscious, unconscious...), and about how these will interface with each other in function dynamics (leading/dual seeking).

PS: And I'm really annoyed right now about something serious yeah, so yeah that affects my capacity to be patient here. Don't take it personally.

[Singu]

Sorry, no, you don't know what an observation is and what a hypothesis is. You overall just sound really confused about the scientific method too, throwing around some concepts of it randomly, including your current signature, but display no overarching understanding of all of them together. I apologize but I no longer have the patience to deal with this. I hope one day you will get to put all of it together and see more clearly then.

Jesus fuck, no, you don't understand what an observation/hypothesis is. You really need to stop talking as if you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

*Deep breath* OK, I will answer your question, the hypotheses in Socionics/Jung's theory were not present anywhere prior to the creation of these theories. Fragments of observations were floating around but not all fragments were recognized as something that's a law-like regularity, some things were not even noticed much even as consistent observations, and they certainly were never integrated into a theory or hypotheses of a theory.

You're confusing regularities as "hypotheses". Needless to say, mere observations of regularities are not hypotheses. A hypothesis is a CONJECTURE, not an observation. It explains the observation. Also, regularities don't suddenly become law-like, without having an explanation for why it should be law-like. Obviously, the explanations shouldn't be self-referential, like "it's law-like because it repeats itself". It requires outside explanations that can objectively explain the cause for the regularity.

And I shouldn't have to go into detail about what the basic explanatory principles of the theory are.

You are frustrated, because clearly you can't answer it.

PS: And I'm really annoyed right now about something serious yeah, so yeah that affects my capacity to be patient here. Don't take it personally.

Don't worry, it happens all the time when I question their knowledge and understanding, and it turns out that they don't actually know anything, so they get frustrated instead.

[niffer]

Lol basically Dingu is acting as if he is a god holding the key to modern science in his mind, and he’s waiting for someone to agree with and spell it all out back at him. Except what’s inside his mind is more like a pan of scrambled eggs, although much less coherent.

[Myst]

Jesus fuck, no, you don't understand what an observation/hypothesis is. You really need to stop talking as if you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

You will not get my patience ever again in future: you've proven with this that you are not truly and sincerely trying to understand things. I thought you were. Nope...

You are not willing to consider that your understanding is lacking in the way I described.

If you were willing to, that's when I'd say you are sincerely trying.

Maybe it's a too hard truth at this point though. Like I said I hope you will get to put it all together one day. But it will not be me who will help there, sorry.

You're confusing regularities as "hypotheses".

Waow man, where did I ever even just remotely imply such a thing?... Please, just because you are confused, it doesn't mean everyone else is, too.

Needless to say, mere observations of regularities are not hypotheses. A hypothesis is a CONJECTURE, not an observation. It explains the observation. Also, regularities don't suddenly become law-like, without having an explanation for why it should be law-like. Obviously, the explanations shouldn't be self-referential, like "it's law-like because it repeats itself". It requires outside explanations that can objectively explain the cause for the regularity.

...And I gave you some of those explanations after taking a deep breath. They most definitely go beyond "it's law-like because it's repeating".

You are frustrated, because clearly you can't answer it.

I actually answered after taking the deep breath. But no, if you claim that you need more detail on what the explanations are, then, 1) refer back to above about how you are not honestly trying to understand things and 2) if you didn't manage to absorb these details in 9 years, I will not be the one who will manage to explain them in a way that you will actually absorb the explanation.

Don't worry, it happens all the time when I question their knowledge and understanding, and it turns out that they don't actually know anything, so they get frustrated instead.

Take a good hard, long look into yourself before you claim such bs about other people without actual proof. Refer back to my evaluation of the current level of your understanding of things.

[Singu]

I actually answered after taking the deep breath. But no, if you claim that you need more detail on what the explanations are, then, 1) refer back to above about how you are not honestly trying to understand things and 2) if you didn't manage to absorb these details in 9 years, I will not be the one who will manage to explain them in a way that you will actually absorb the explanation.

Why don't you just answer the damn question? Jesus Christ.

Oh, because you can't, that's why.

[Singu]

Alright well I give up, the people here were truly more retarded than I had ever imagined. The so-called "thinker" types couldn't even understand the simplest of concepts. Another proof that no such thing actually exists. It just meant that they were retarded.

So folks, good luck wasting the next 30 years of your life on Socionics. I really hope that you do, because then it would be funny.

[niffer]

ilu singu

[The Reality Denialist]

Ah, Jesus was female LSI after all. When ILI knows something it has to be true which means that there is not that much time left, but...

How much longer there is time left and how much longer you are going to waste time in socionics? Tell us, please! Singu, show us your vision!

[Myst]

Why don't you just answer the damn question? Jesus Christ.

Oh, because you can't, that's why.

I answered it. The lines after I said *Deep breath*. Open your two little eyes.

[niffer]

Maybe Singu is a cyclops

[Singu]

Alright, but your answer is getting too vague and convoluted.

*Deep breath* OK, I will answer your question, the hypotheses in Socionics/Jung's theory were not present anywhere prior to the creation of these theories. Fragments of observations were floating around but not all fragments were recognized as something that's a law-like regularity, some things were not even noticed much even as consistent observations, and they certainly were never integrated into a theory or hypotheses of a theory.

"the hypotheses in Socionics/Jung's theory were not present anywhere prior to the creation of these theories"

What does this exactly mean?

"Hypothesis" and "theory" are roughly synonymous, which you are confusing as being something different:

Theory

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Hypothesis

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Needless to say, they're both defined as being explanations for something.

So I ask you, which observations are Socionics explaining? This is a simple question that can be answered simply. Which you are exactly not doing.

If you answer that types and Model A are explanations, then no, they're not explaining the observations. Explanations and observations are two different things.

[niffer]

No it’s a limp sausage

[Singu]

If we give you deduction logic then you say "but it's not induction, you need observations, not just prior rules that are unprovable / self-evident."
If we give you inductive logic then you say "but it's not deduction, just because something occurred in the past is no proof that it will happen in the future."

I'm saying quite clearly, that you should explain the observations. That's what makes it an explanatory model. If you don't explain the observations, then that just becomes an observational model.

The psyche's functions are separated between perception and judgement is a new theory/hypothesis.

So this is basically just saying, "perception and judgment exist". That's like saying walking and sitting are separated. Or apples and oranges are separated. It's just a categorization of observations. I think that's a pretty weak hypothesis.

[Myst]

Alright, but your answer is getting too vague and convoluted.

To you.

"the hypotheses in Socionics/Jung's theory were not present anywhere prior to the creation of these theories"

What does this exactly mean?

It simply means, no one thought of or brought up these hypotheses.

"Hypothesis" and "theory" are roughly synonymous, which you are confusing as being something different:

They *are* different. A hypothesis is a statement logically following from a theory, which statement is to be tested.

Needless to say, they're both defined as being explanations for something.

So I ask you, which observations are Socionics explaining? This is a simple question that can be answered simply. Which you are exactly not doing.

Quite some. OK cool I'll answer this now, though having realized exactly what attitude you have to the whole discussion and the topic in general, I doubt it will help any. I just have too much time to waste right now. So, it, in line with the theory's aims, explains observations on how people will approach things differently and predicts what consequences these differences will have.

If you answer that types and Model A are explanations, then no, they're not explaining the observations. Explanations and observations are two different things.

Model A is a model with explanatory principles that yes, aim to explain observations. The problem is when someone takes this model and tries to explain too many things where further concrete mechanisms need to be elaborated on first to find the direct explanation for those many things.

As for the bolded: I hope you are not serious with assuming that there is possibly someone around here who doesn't know the difference here lol.

[Singu]

@Singu

1) At least you admit it is a hypothesis. That is an improvement.
2) It's easy for you to consider this hypothesis weak because you are exposed the hypothesis. But it was something that Jung realized and no other human realized before him, or at least wrote down in as clear of a form. This hypothesis is not something most people in standard academia realize is true.
3) I expanded upon Jung's theory into the following two definitions.

Subjective Perception + Objective Logic = Induction
Subjective Judgement + Objective Perception = Deduction

These is powerful. We have generalized definitions for rationale in the form of perception, judgement and methodology. This ties everything together and and it required Jung's insight of separating perception/judgement and subjective/objective.

Of course, there's no such thing as a 100% observation. All observations are theory-laden.

But all Jung/Socionics saying is this: perceptions/judgments exist. And they exist insofar as they don't change. Perception/judgment stay the same in a person forever. That's the way we can predict a person's behavior, because their behaviors will stay the same (although this is just an assumption, and there's no guarantee that it will stay the same).

That's an inductivist approach. The problem is that perception/judgment may not always stay the same in a person, and they may suddenly change. We need an explanation for why, and when do those things change.

[Singu]

@domr The only hope that Socionics/Jung has got it going on, is the hope that people will stay the same. But if and when people do change, then there's trouble.

[Singu]

@Singu Depends on the change. If the change is people learning to use other functions/blocks then that is explained with this model. If change is people overcoming traumatic life experience then no this model does not handle that change. It's as @Myst said,

Look at the "type descriptions". It's not as if people stay like that forever. Or look at "ITR". It's not as if some relationships ALWAYS get along, or always conflict. There's a bit of both in every relationships. And there are always reasons for why people get along in that moment, and why people conflict in that moment. It's not even enough to say they get along "overall", because how are we supposed to know how much is an "overall"? Again, that's an inductivist approach that says because it has conflicted before, it will continue to conflict in the future.

[Singu]

Because this model explains LONG-TERM relationships. Short-term have other variables that can change the interaction.

It doesn't matter whether it's long-term or short-term, because everything is 100% caused by something.

So I could take a deductive approach:

"If I come up to you and shout at you, 'you fucking stupid asshole! You suck!', then we will conflict".

Unless, if you are a really enlightened monk who is never phased by any insults by random strangers.

Or unless, you are in a really good mood, and you don't care whether some random stranger insults you or not.

And so on and so forth. None of these things have anything to do with "ITR".

[Singu]

This is stupid speculation i.e strawman argument. This is not what this model is trying to explain.

Well of course it's a speculation, which we can test and experiment. So we can test whether we would conflict if I suddenly just came up to you and shouted insults at you.

You can even test Socionics in that way:

"If there's someone who doesn't care about facts, and someone came up to him with a lot of facts, then they would conflict".

But that's a really bad hypothesis, because it's too general. Even if they did end up conflicting, we still don't know the exact reason why they conflicted, it could be because of whole other reasons. So we would need to make the hypothesis more specific, and eliminate all the other variables.

[Singu]

It's an illogical hypothesis because this model isn't trying to explain why someone will want to fight you if you insult them. That is totally outside the constraints of this model. If you ask the model stupid questions then you'll get stupid answers and that is your fault, not the model's fault.

It's not a hypothesis, because it's an inductivist model.

Deductive model:

"If there's someone who doesn't care about facts, and someone comes up to him with a lot of facts, then they will conflict."

Inductive model:

"We observe someone who has a lot of facts, and someone who doesn't care about facts. After interaction, we have observed that they have conflicted. This means that they will always conflict in the future."

[Singu]

Model A is a model with explanatory principles that yes, aim to explain observations.

Here's proof that Socionics is not explaining an observation:

So this is what Socionics would say about an observation of a conflict between two people:

We observe that a person who doesn't care about facts, is conflicting with someone who shows a lot of facts. This is explained by the fact of his Te PoLR and Model A.

But this is how Socionics arrived at that conclusion:

We observe a relationship between two people, with someone who has a lot of facts, and someone who doesn't care about facts. We call him a "Te ego", and another one "Te PoLR". After interaction, we have observed that they have conflicted. This means that they will always conflict in the future. We will call it a "Conflictor relation".

This is to essentially say that "The reason they have conflicted, is because we have observed it". As in, this is an observational model, and not an explanatory model. Or more correctly, it's an inductive model. It's not an explanation, because it's just something that we have observed to be true. How can observations be explanations?

Or to put it in another way, to use a more deductive model, we would ask: "Do people who don't care about facts, and people who have a lot of facts, conflict? What will the outcome be like (these are the proposed possibilities of such outcomes)? Let's find out".

Jung or Augusta didn't use the deductive approach. He observed his patients, and came up with a conclusion. Or more correctly, he summarized the observations.

[Myst]

It's not a hypothesis, because it's an inductivist model.

Deductive model:

"If there's someone who doesn't care about facts, and someone comes up to him with a lot of facts, then they will conflict."

Inductive model:

"We observe someone who has a lot of facts, and someone who doesn't care about facts. After interaction, we have observed that they have conflicted. This means that they will always conflict in the future."

Model A is the former version.

Do keep it in mind that for systematic thinking, both induction and deduction have a role - however, in everyday thinking, most people will too freely mix the two. They will not check systematically when they add a new inductive conclusion to their "system" and they do not apply deductive reasoning consistently either. This issue of course does come up also when people try to use the Socionics model and its principles without being consistent about it.

[Singu]

Model A is the former version.

It isn't, because "Te PoLR" "Conflictor relation" is based on (or "derived from") the conclusion of an observation.

Jung didn't imagine: "Is this person's behavior explained by...?", he observed people, and then came up with a conclusion, or he "summarized" an observation. He observed people who were mostly "feeling", and then concluded that they must be "feeling types".

He didn't even ask whether there are 8 functions, he summarized his observations of people's cognition into 8 functions.

[Myst]

Here's proof that Socionics is not explaining an observation:

So this is what Socionics would say about an observation of a conflict between two people:

We observe that a person who doesn't care about facts, is conflicting with someone who shows a lot of facts. This is explained by the fact of his Te PoLR and Model A.

Sure, you can use this explanation to explain observation but of course you have to pay attention to whether further checks disprove it. This is true in general for any explanation really... If anything comes up that goes against it, it's not to be ignored.

But this is how Socionics arrived at that conclusion:

We observe a relationship between two people, with someone who has a lot of facts, and someone who doesn't care about facts. We call him a "Te ego", and another one "Te PoLR". After interaction, we have observed that they have conflicted. This means that they will always conflict in the future. We will call it a "Conflictor relation".

This reasoning isn't what Socionics uses. Your version doesn't explain what Ego/PoLR mean and why, even though all that matters to be able to do the "jump" to "they will always conflict".

This is to essentially say that "The reason they have conflicted, is because we have observed it". As in, this is an observational model, and not an explanatory model. Or more correctly, it's an inductive model. It's not an explanation, because it's just something that we have observed to be true. How can observations be explanations?

No, it says they conflicted and they will continue conflicting because according to the model's predicting Te ego and Te PoLR conflict like that, and this is because of what role the Ego and the PoLR etc play and so on and so on.

Or to put it in another way, to use a more deductive model, we would ask: "Do people who don't care about facts, and people who have a lot of facts, conflict? What will the outcome be like (these are the proposed possibilities of such outcomes)? Let's find out".

Yes it's good to check predictions in this way. You can (and should) do this with Socionics's model just fine.

Jung or Augusta didn't use the deductive approach. He observed his patients, and came up with a conclusion. Or more correctly, he summarized the observations.

They both definitely did more than just summarize descriptions of observations.....

[Myst]

It isn't, because "Te PoLR" "Conflictor relation" is based on (or "derived from") the conclusion of an observation.

Jung didn't imagine: "Is this person's behavior explained by...?", he observed people, and then came up with a conclusion, or he "summarized" an observation. He observed people who were mostly "feeling", and then concluded that they must be "feeling types".

He didn't even ask whether there are 8 functions, he summarized his observations of people's cognition into 8 functions.

It's clear you did not read Jung much.

And you don't seem to understand the place of inductive reasoning in the scientific method. Newsflash: it DOES have a place.

Let me help you: https://www.livescience.com/21569-de...induction.html

[Myst]

@Singu really it would be way way less irritating if you accepted that you do still need to learn about the scientific way of thinking before you go around doling out the "absolute truth" to everyone.

[Singu]

This reasoning isn't what Socionics uses. Your version doesn't explain what Ego/PoLR mean and why, even though all that matters to be able to do the "jump" to "they will always conflict".

Te PoLR = someone who doesn't care about facts, someone who painfully receives facts, etc. Neither does Socionics explain why is this the case, other than that it is observed in a person. And so it's an observational model.

No, it says they conflicted and they will continue conflicting because according to the model's predicting Te ego and Te PoLR conflict like that, and this is because of what role the Ego and the PoLR etc play and so on and so on.

It's not a prediction, since this is all based on previous observations. You already know that "they have conflicted".

It's clear you did not read Jung much.

You are telling me that Jung imagined up hypotheses, and tested his hypotheses on his patients. That's not actually what happened. He observed his patients, and he made summaries out of them.

[Myst]

Te PoLR = someone who doesn't care about facts, someone who painfully receives facts, etc. Neither does Socionics explain why is this the case, other than that it is observed in a person. And so it's an observational model.

It does explain lol, please read up on model A.

It's not a prediction, since this is all based on previous observations. You already know that "they have conflicted".

It is a prediction to claim that they will continue conflicting due to X reason.

You are telling me that Jung imagined up hypotheses, and tested his hypotheses on his patients. That's not actually what happened. He observed his patients, and he made summaries out of them.

Go read Jung then come back. Until then shut up about his stuff.

[Singu]

It is a prediction to claim that they will continue conflicting due to X reason.

And what's the X reason? That X reason has already been observed before (which is that we have observed that they have conflicted), and hence it's not a prediction.

A prediction implies predicting something that has never been observed before. Of course, there's no such thing as a "true" prediction, nobody can be sure of a prediction. We're just saying that if there's a good explanation, then there's a good reason to believe in the explanation of its cause and effect. This causality implies "If something happens... then this will happen". It's completely a deductive approach.

Causality is X will cause Y to happen. "Y will happen due to X reason" is not causality, and hence not a prediction. Y could happen due to X or Z or A or B or C. It could be anything other than X. We haven't established a causality, as in X will cause Y. And hence that's why it's not a prediction.

[Bertrand]

you're like living proof that conflict in the cognitive sense will continue as predicted... that it doesn't necessarily transform into actual physical conflict is a basic tenent. if you want to disprove socionics get control of yourself, until then your arguments are non stop performative contradictions

[Singu]

you're like living proof that conflict in the cognitive sense will continue as predicted...

You're like living proof that people are only seeing correlation, but hadn't established causation.

You're the living proof of a victim of an inductivist approach. The blind belief that because something has happened before, it will happen again in the future. And they call this a "prediction"...

[Bertrand]

yeah because "causation" (in the loaded pre defined sense you use it) don't matter, your entire campaign revolves around trying to get people to care and I just don't. its just a way to orient people to a result but trying to make it seem like a ground up necessity, when its like no ones buying it. or the people that do do so because they're psychologically inclined to do so already, which would be like your alpha quadra researchers who are very much about seeing reality through chains of causal determinist links. i think its fine that you devote your life to this, but you've entered into an intractable conflict that Jung's entire point was attempting to throw light on. people's values are apportioned in such a way that this conflict is necessary to being. you can fight that but its quixotic to the extreme, but hey, if that's where you find meaning I'm happy for you. if there wasn't a nugget of truth to it I don't think you'd be so hung up on it

[Singu]

yeah because "causation" don't matter

Ahahaha, "causation don't matter". Again, thanks for living proof of moronicness.

How do you think you can "predict" things, without causation?