Scientific and unscientific typologies

[Myst]

If the model is wrong, why not reform the model to make it more right? I assume that's what "stretching the model" is here, revisions based on personal experience showing that some earlier assumption is off.

In science, you don't toss out a model unless it has literally zero predictive power or there's been a paradigm shift. "X, Y, and Z are off" isn't a paradigm shift, it's a call for revision. If things aren't being revised consistently, you have exactly the kind of cult-like rigidity Singularity is describing.

The problem is, as shown in post #72 above, that the stretching phenomenon in socionics happens way way too easily and it's not done in any logically consistent way either.

I have no problem with revising things, that's not what I'm talking about. Again, that post explains in a great way, read it.

You do have to toss out a model when it's like that.

[squark]

You keep claiming this without even being able to show how I don't understand. That is, you have not been able to show your interpretation of what you think the point of my post was and how it supposedly missed what you wanted to express. Show it or your claim remains baseless emotional ranting.

You keep arguing against things I never said. It's kind of like: I say, "Apples are sometimes green when ripe, sometimes red, and if you splice a green tree branch onto a red tree you could have both of those colors on the same tree" and you come in and say "Carrots are NOT green. Nope, and I've never seen a red carrot either. And they don't even grow on trees. I ate an orange carrot yesterday."

For me to even begin to address this I have to start all the way back at the beginning with correcting your impression that I was even talking about carrots. . . and I have to do this with every single post of mine that you quote. You're always completely misinterpreting them or mixing things together and suggesting that I said something that I didn't even say, drawing the wrong conclusion. The only emotion I'm feeling or expressing is disappointment because I did try to explain. I usually take the blame myself for failures in communication, but in this case, I don't think it's warranted, at all. I know that English isn't your first language, and I don't think you realize how much nuance and context you miss. I think you should consider the possibility that you really aren't understanding what's being said.

[Nanooka]

The problem is, as shown in post #72 above, that the stretching phenomenon in socionics happens way way too easily and it's not done in any logically consistent way either.

I have no problem with revising things, that's not what I'm talking about. Again, that post explains in a great way, read it.

I read it. I'd say Model A is very internally consistent, but has trouble matching up with the variety of human experience. There are often exceptions to the sometimes-rigid rules it posits, and sometimes it implies predictions that aren't true in most cases. e.g. I think it overrates duality, and underrates illusionary and semi-dual relations. From my observations on real couples illusionary/semi-dual (whichever shares the same side of the N/S dichotomy but differs on T/F for your type) pairs are more common and more successful than dual ones. Probs because shared interests are a huge deal in a relationship and those'll be more common with the N/S dichotomy shared, meanwhile it still avoids the common pitfall of two Ts together often making an overly dispassionate relationship or two Fs sometimes burning out quickly.

Examples like the above, where something in the model doesn't quite match real world observation, lead to alteration/"stretching." We make revisions, which is what should happen with any model that has flaws (i.e. most of them) unless a basic fundamental precept of it is shown to be off or its net predictive power is zero. I think Model A's predictive power could be much better than it is, I have a number of serious problems with it, but per personal experience I do think it's above zero.

[Myst]

You keep arguing against things I never said. It's kind of like: I say, "Apples are sometimes green when ripe, sometimes red, and if you splice a green tree branch onto a red tree you could have both of those colors on the same tree" and you come in and say "Carrots are NOT green. Nope, and I've never seen a red carrot either. And they don't even grow on trees. I ate an orange carrot yesterday."

For me to even begin to address this I have to start all the way back at the beginning with correcting your impression that I was even talking about carrots. . . and I have to do this with every single post of mine that you quote. You're always completely misinterpreting them or mixing things together and suggesting that I said something that I didn't even say, drawing the wrong conclusion. The only emotion I'm feeling or expressing is disappointment because I did try to explain. I usually take the blame myself for failures in communication, but in this case, I don't think it's warranted, at all. I know that English isn't your first language, and I don't think you realize how much nuance and context you miss. I think you should consider the possibility that you really aren't understanding what's being said.

I know what you were talking about, what I should maybe have done is explain how my response directly relates to what you said. I'll make an attempt at it: where you were explaining morphing of categories etc, I get your idea with that, and you did describe that process neatly, however the issue is with how this can violate the model's principles too while with a good model you do not have to violate them in this way but instead you can investigate and prove what holds up consistently and what doesn't and thus refine the model further (yes, change the principles if needed) and actually move forward unlike socionists do it. For this reason, while I do understand the process you described, I do not find it acceptable. This was the point of my post.

Don't take any blame for failure in communication, that's pointless. What I do dislike however is that you unfairly assume that I must just be missing your point instead of investigating the possibility that you could be missing some point of mine just as much. Simple as that.

But I could make an attempt at improving communication by trying to explain more on how my responses do relate to your posts. Dunno if the above helped.

[Myst]

You keep arguing against things I never said. It's kind of like: I say, "Apples are sometimes green when ripe, sometimes red, and if you splice a green tree branch onto a red tree you could have both of those colors on the same tree" and you come in and say "Carrots are NOT green. Nope, and I've never seen a red carrot either. And they don't even grow on trees. I ate an orange carrot yesterday."

Ah, let me respond to this too. No, that was not my point at all. Wow, no. Not that kind of relation to your post.

It's more like, you said: "Apples are sometimes green when ripe, sometimes red, and if you splice a green tree branch onto a red tree you could have both of those colors on the same tree" and I say "We need to figure out when and why some apples are green when ripe and others are red, what principles are missing here that are a better explanation than just oh maybe they are sometimes red, while stating that they are usually green, where the idea that we can cut and place branches randomly on another tree is not really relevant".

[Myst]

I read it. I'd say Model A is very internally consistent, but has trouble matching up with the variety of human experience.

There are way way more problems with it than that.

I'm planning to make a write-up on all that, if I get the time in the near future for it.

There are often exceptions to the sometimes-rigid rules it posits

That post #72 explains how that's a problem if there are so many exceptions. You didn't seem to consider the post too deeply yet in terms of Socionics, I guess.

and sometimes it implies predictions that aren't true in most cases.

Not just "sometimes". Big problem.

e.g. I think it overrates duality, and underrates illusionary and semi-dual relations. From my observations on real couples illusionary/semi-dual (whichever shares the same side of the N/S dichotomy but differs on T/F for your type) pairs are more common and more successful than dual ones. Probs because shared interests are a huge deal in a relationship and those'll be more common with the N/S dichotomy shared, meanwhile it still avoids the common pitfall of two Ts together often making an overly dispassionate relationship or two Fs sometimes burning out quickly.

Well, socionics sources do mention that illusionary vs semi-dual relations work differently for T/F lead vs S/N lead types. I will say my personal experience with illusionary relations as a T lead type is not good if viewing it at a very close distance. A somewhat less close distance works fine. The issue for me is probably beyond socionics's scope, it's not simply about being "an overly dispassionate relationship". I would have that with any LxI instead. That then would be very different dynamics in terms of that than with my mirage type (LIE). As far as this is even socionics related (a part of it may be).

I haven't noticed shared interests having to do with shared S/N dichotomy.

Examples like the above, where something in the model doesn't quite match real world observation, lead to alteration/"stretching." We make revisions, which is what should happen with any model that has flaws (i.e. most of them) unless a basic fundamental precept of it is shown to be off or its net predictive power is zero. I think Model A's predictive power could be much better than it is, I have a number of serious problems with it, but per personal experience I do think it's above zero.

Alteration of a model is fine if done in a consistent sensible way. I have yet to see this with socionics and there is a reason for why it's not happening.

[squark]

[Myst]

@squark

No idea what that photo wants to hint at.

Otoh here are my thoughts in general.

We do have fundamental disagreement on how to view this socionics theory while we both are pretty obstinate and taking time to review things to change views - and these here are especially things closely related to our own typings (the understanding of Ti stuff in socionics theory) which is why it probably makes it an even more difficult disagreement.

The thing is... I don't like how you made unfair negative assumptions about me. I'm fine with and do my best to stay neutral about the disagreements themselves but when you do that, it's hard to not get annoyed. Other than that, I just accept what I realized about how we think in a different way about some things. Different ways of thinking essentially, regardless of whether this is socionics or not socionics related ways of thinking.

So. Feel free to have your own viewpoint and understanding, even if I disagree with it and I may correct it with my own, you are not obligated to change your understanding or even obligated to respond with your reasoning to the issues I bring up. That is, you can simply view my comments as the expression of my own understanding, so try to not feel any pressure, but do accept that you may have to consider longer the point of what I said before you assume it's not even related to what you said.

So yep, if you can stop making the assumptions about how it's just me not understanding your point, that would definitely help in making it more neutral and constructive communication. (I'm going to disregard the earlier accusations from your part that got as far as slandering, if that does not repeat - I moved on from that.)

That's all I can say on this matter.

[squark]

@squark
No idea what that photo wants to hint at.

Exactly. You have no idea. That's the point.

[Myst]

Exactly. You have no idea. That's the point.

Wow and you disregarded the rest of my post. Why did I bother with explaining to you and trying to make things more agreeable. OK, whatever, not my problem if you are going to be like this.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Science... if you believe in such a thing.

Here is a critique of MBTI, not Socionics, but the premises of MBTI and Socionics are basically the same, except that some of the orderings are different, etc. They are both based on the Jungian dichotomies, namely the I/E, T/F, N/S and J/P.

The critique is mostly based on scientific enquiry, brain science and more evidence-based psychology:

Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die - Psychology Today


What are some of the main problems? Brain science says, they are based on false dichotomies:



It ignores your key features in your personality traits that already exist:



There is another problem, Jung's theories aren't exactly based on science:

Weaknesses of Carl Jung's Theory



Okay, so what is actually based on science and backed up by science? Although not perfect, there seems to be growing support and scientific evidence for the Big Five:



So, there you go. Amazing and insightful insights from the world of brain science.

'

• Exhibit A: in the MBTI, thinking and feeling are opposite poles of a continuum. In reality, they’re independent: we have three decades of evidence that if you like ideas and data, you can also like people and emotions. (In fact, more often than not, they go hand in hand: research shows that people with stronger thinking and reasoning skills are also better at recognizing, understanding, and managing emotions.) When I scored as a thinker one time and a feeler one time, it’s because I like both thinking and feeling. I should have separate scores for the two.'

I'm not saying MBTI, or socionics for that matter, isn't rubbish, but, the issue is - and with most things, that the people who critique are people who don't really understand what they are critiquing.

A person who 'likes data' can also like people. There's plenty of 'data' people looking for love, no one likes to be alone. MBTI and socionics, just tries to describe what you're best at and where your weak areas may lie.

It's like saying a naturally unathletic person can't like sport, of course they can, but they just won't be as good at it as someone with a natural talent.

At least, this is how I see such things.

[Singu]

I'm not saying MBTI, or socionics for that matter, isn't rubbish, but, the issue is - and with most things, that the people who critique are people who don't really understand what they are critiquing.

Well this thread is kind of old.

When I used to believe in psychoanalysis, I kind of used to think the same. I would read say, Richard Feynman criticizing psychoanalysis. And I would think, "Well sure, this guy may be a scientist, but maybe he doesn't fully understand it. I mean has he really looked into it? I've read many books on psychoanalysis, and it seems to make sense to me, it works in my experience. I mean these people have been treating thousands of patients... they must know what they're talking about, way more than some scientist", and brush it off.

(There are so many wrongs and errors with what I just said, there)

But it turns out that he was right, psychoanalysis was just a whole bunch of nonsense. It turns out that you'd need a certain kind of methodology and meticulousness and rigor to get anything right, at least in a scientific way backed up scientific evidence.

The ironic thing is, you will "get it" once you have understood it. How can we say that we actually "understand" Socionics, when it's usually so vague and mysterious and doesn't really make much sense at all, most of the time?

At most, I would like to wait until there's more proper evidence.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Well this thread is kind of old.

When I used to believe in psychoanalysis, I kind of used to think the same. I would read say, Richard Feynman criticizing psychoanalysis. And I would think, "Well sure, this guy may be a scientist, but maybe he doesn't fully understand it. I mean has he really looked into it? I've read many books on psychoanalysis, and it seems to make sense to me. I mean these people have been treating thousands of patients... they must know what they're talking about, way more than some scientist", and brush it off.

But it turns out that he was right, psychoanalysis was just a whole bunch of nonsense. It turns out that you'd need a certain kind of methodology and meticulousness and rigor to get anything right, at least in a scientific way backed up scientific evidence.

I'm not talking about whether socionics, or MBTI, is something to be believed or not.

What i'm saying is that the critique is wrong, because he or she who is critiquing, doesn't understand what they are critiquing, which I demonstrated by the example I provided.

What I find interesting though - is what you are saying. There are people out there who believe in eg, Christianity, but then there are people out there who are 'anti-believers', ie atheists. I never understood why it was so important to the non-believers to promote a crusade of non-believing. If they don't believe, look elsewhere.

Anyway, that applies to something like socionics too.

Any thoughts on why that is, if I may ask?

Maybe the whole passionate about 'anti-believing' is related to Ni, because 'anti-believing' passionately is a form of belief too.

Thanks for the feedback Singu.

[Singu]

I'm not talking about whether socionics, or MBTI, is something to be believed or not.

Well since there's no evidence, it has to be a matter of belief.

What i'm saying is that the critique is wrong, because he or she who is critiquing, doesn't understand what they are critiquing, which I demonstrated by the example I provided.

And I also thought that it was due to lack of "understanding". That wasn't the case, it turns out that it was lack of MY understanding.

What I find interesting though - is what you are saying. There are people out there who believe in eg, Christianity, but then there are people out there who are 'anti-believers', ie atheists. I never understood why it was so important to the non-believers to promote a crusade of non-believing. If they don't believe, look elsewhere.

Anyway, that applies to something like socionics too.

Any thoughts on why that is, if I may ask?

Maybe the whole passionate about 'anti-believing' is related to Ni, because 'anti-believing' passionately is a form of belief too.

Thanks for the feedback Singu.

Okay, and how can you be sure that it's Ni or whatever? What makes you think that? How can you justify your thought on that? Can you explain how it works? Even if it is "Ni", how does it help to know that?

[at sirac son of sirac]

Well since there's no evidence, it has to be a matter of belief.



And I also thought that it was due to lack of "understanding". That wasn't the case, it turns out that it was lack of MY understanding.



Okay, and how can you be sure that it's Ni or whatever? What makes you think that? How can you justify your thought on that? Can you explain how it works? Even if it is "Ni", how does it help to know that?

I'm not really bothered about it being 'Ni' as such, what i'm wondering is, if you think there is absolutely nothing to socionics (which I think is what you're saying). Why are you here?

Nor am I saying, you shouldn't be here....

It's just, if for instance I think there is nothing to Buddhism, i'm not sure if I'd spend continual portions of my time around Buddhists. So I suppose I am just trying to understand that mindset too, and thought I would ask you, for your perspective.

That is, would you say it's a goal of yours to stop others 'believing' in socionics because you see it as junk? Or maybe you just like the conversations here

Thanks again.

[Singu]

I'm not really bothered about it being 'Ni' as such, what i'm wondering is, if you think there is absolutely nothing to socionics (which I think is what you're saying). Why are you here?

Nor am I saying, you shouldn't be here....

It's just, if for instance I think there is nothing to Buddhism, i'm not sure if I'd spend continual portions of my time around Buddhists. So I suppose I am just trying to understand that mindset too, and thought I would ask you, for your perspective.

That is, would you say it's a goal of yours to stop others 'believing' in socionics because you see it as junk? Or maybe you just like the conversations here

Thanks again.

Well sure, I'm not going to win over by arguments alone, as I would have done the same when I still believed in psychoanalysis or Socionics - I would have just brushed it off and come up with some rationalizations. They do not understand, and all that.

As for the "Why are you here?" question, that has been asked to everyone who has questioned Socionics, ever. Sure enough, I will be leaving the forum soon. But I think that this is an important point, that criticisms are such an important and necessary process for progress, and also for science. Criticisms are the only possible way to improve any theories, because all theories start with assumptions and conjectures, and therefore, they MUST be criticized, all its assumptions must be questioned, if you want it to get close to any kind of truth, whatever that may be. But that is exactly what communities like this are not permitting, for some reason. How can they improve with that kind of a mindset?

I am also partly curious about why Socionics DOESN'T work and why it's necessarily wrong (or not, it could be right), because I don't fully understand myself, yet, but it's becoming more crystallized. So I also want to figure that out, and criticizing it can bring me, and hopefully some others too, an important perspective. I don't want to have Socionics "residue" stuck inside of me, and I want to get it completely out of my system by completely refuting it, as long as it's no longer tenable.

I would like to discourage or at least show an alternative to some curious newcomers, sure, to not bother wasting their time on this like I have. I would also feel responsible about not spreading some misinformation based on a pretty shady theory. Some people who have been here for a very long time might also change their minds, as well.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Well sure, I'm not going to win over by arguments alone, as I would have done the same when I still believed in psychoanalysis or Socionics - I would have just brushed it off and come up with some rationalizations. They do not understand, and all that.

As for the "Why are you here?" question, that has been asked to everyone who has questioned Socionics, ever. Sure enough, I will be leaving the forum soon. But I think that this is an important point, that criticisms are such an important and necessary process for progress, and also for science. Criticisms are the only possible way to improve any theories, because all theories start with assumptions and conjectures, and therefore, they MUST be criticized, all its assumptions must be questioned, if you want it to get close to any kind of truth, whatever that may be. But that is exactly what communities like this are not permitting, for some reason. How can they improve with that kind of a mindset?

I am also partly curious about why Socionics DOESN'T work and why it's necessarily wrong (or not, it could be right), because I don't fully understand myself, yet, but it's becoming more crystallized. So I also want to figure that out, and criticizing it can bring me, and hopefully some others too, an important perspective.

I would like to discourage or at least show an alternative to some curious newcomers, sure, to not bother wasting their time on this like I have. I would also feel responsible about not spreading some misinformation based on a pretty shady theory. Some people who have been here for a very long time might also change their minds, as well.

Ah yes, I get that. Let's not have someone come in and think socionics can answer everything. This is truly a deception.

For myself, socionics is mostly common sense. Someone might be inclined to think emotionally, and have difficulty to separate that emotion to look at something 'factually' or vica versa. I don't have a problem with this.

As you don't really care, and I apologize for the unexpected typing, but I think you are Ni base, probably ILI. I'll delete this suggestion if you like, i'm not sure it's appropriate as it wasn't called for. Anyway, suggesting the typing isn't a big deal for me, it's in passing, i'll probably not mention it again.

[Singu]

As you don't really care, and I apologize for the unexpected typing, but I think you are Ni base, probably ILI. I'll delete this suggestion if you like, i'm not sure it's appropriate as it wasn't called for. Anyway, suggesting the typing isn't a big deal for me, it's in passing, i'll probably not mention it again.

It's cool, I no longer care about typing, and I don't care what people type me as. But it would be more interesting to doubt why you might be right about things, in general . At least, once in a while.

I think I will make this my last post... So... bye.

[PrettySavage]

Kahneman's test. Analytical vs intuitive. (Let's rephrase it: can we screw you)

1) If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? _______ minutes

 

Assuming that machines are similar then one machine produces one widget in 5 minutes. Therefore in 5 minutes 5 machine produces 5 widgets.
Assuming similar machines in similar conditions and 100 machines it is going to produce 100 widgets in 5 minutes.

2) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Everyday, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half the lake? _________ days

 

You could build ground up solution for this using exponents but since you can go also backwards it is 47 days from start as it is halved from 48th day (when it is full). So the answer is 47 days

3) A bat and ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? _________ cents

 

let price of the bat be t and price of the ball be l.
therefore
t+l=1.10
t-l=1.00
From systems of equation we get:
t=1.05 (in $ price of the bat) and
l= 0.05 (in $ price of the ball) so ball costs 5 cents.

I call other answers sloppy thinking more than intuition. You need mental check your "intuition" because your intuition should remind you.

What I really want to know is what it says about a person's thinking preferences when they get this or that problem right. Like say a person got #1 and #3 correct but was fooled by #2, so is it that they are not seeing? That whole "if you answered x you are more likely to be religious" bullshit is useless.

No model fits people exactly. People are cantankerous and like to throw wrenches in things. Their behavior is complex, and their thought processes more so. That's why there are far more models and explanations beyond Model A, that's why there are so many conflicting descriptions, and why people can argue for such opposite types for a given person and both find reasons to back up what they're saying. To search for a model that precisely maps human beings is an exercise in futility. It's a misunderstanding of the very purpose of a model to begin with.

A model is a simplified structure that is meant to capture key elements without being exhaustive in nature. (To match every aspect you'd have to recreate reality itself, and defeat the whole point.) By its nature it will leave out a lot, and still cannot be a perfect fit.

When various socionics folks write type descriptions, or descriptions of functions in various types, they are taking a basic model and trying to make it fit a group of people with a limited number of representatives to draw from (those within their own experience) and so each author's description even of the same types using the same model can vary quite a bit, as they're each applying it from their own perspective. In the process of creating a description they redraw the categories of the model itself in slight ways, or sometimes in larger ways. This is what I meant by they morph the categories. You can't create a description of a group of people and try to apply characteristics of that group to a static model without stretching the model in the process.

Every time you use yourself as an example of a type you're doing the same thing. Once you apply it to yourself as a type you've redrawn the framework, but you're using yourself as the yardstick, and creating categories around it. Every time someone tries to explain their own behavior through the prism of type (ie. I'm Ne polr so . . .) they are morphing the model around their own understanding, stretching it to fit their own experiences. This is inevitable because reality and experience is the basis, the ground level, and the model is simply trying to capture elements of that reality and explain it.

I wonder why it took me so long to accept all of this. I think it's because Socionics is too ambitious compared to MBTI, it wants to account for much more, and therefore falls shorter when it's "wrong" (reality doesn't fit the model), while it's much more impressive when it's "right".

But it's also why I can't type myself in this system: no type fits perfectly enough that it has to be the one, while many types fit enough that they could be the one.

And lol at Singu's theatrics, he's always "leaving" Dude loves the drama

[hatchback176]

We've already seen the extent of Singu's IQ. He could never bring himself to read an actual Neuroscience textbook or sketch a cognitive model or even adopt a Kantian architecture of mind. He never used basic folk psychology like short-term/long-term memory, empathy, peer pressure, geometry, facial blindness, dopamine/serotonin/adrenaline, habits. He never brought previous overviews to attempt an interpolation of levels. He never applied a specific plan or methodology to bring clarity and insight. He never solicited the audience for improved methods on cross-correlating or finding root causes. He never provided thorough refutation of a previous author's work. He never provided a more rigorous or flexible Ontology for interested parties to discuss the matters they drew attention to. He has no idea how to ground his own Epistemology because he doesn't actually have the self-discipline for carrying out the scientific methodology and writing up the lab reports. His self-reflection is weak, his results are weak, his evaluations are weak, his corrections are weak, his logic is weak, his problem-solving is weak, his data collection is weak, his lesson plans are weak, his collaboration is weak, his project planning is weak, his summaries are weak, his organization is weak, his suggestions are weak. He's not a researcher, he's not a philosopher, he's not an engineer, he doesn't ever calculate anything, he doesn't draw deductions, he doesn't have a classification taxonomy. He doesn't structure his inquiries into the nature of reality in any type of rigorous or detailed manner with specific answers. He doesn't resolve internal or external conflict. Two thumbs down.

[Aramas]

Science... if you believe in such a thing.

Here is a critique of MBTI, not Socionics, but the premises of MBTI and Socionics are basically the same, except that some of the orderings are different, etc. They are both based on the Jungian dichotomies, namely the I/E, T/F, N/S and J/P.

The critique is mostly based on scientific enquiry, brain science and more evidence-based psychology:

Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die - Psychology Today


What are some of the main problems? Brain science says, they are based on false dichotomies:



It ignores your key features in your personality traits that already exist:



There is another problem, Jung's theories aren't exactly based on science:

Weaknesses of Carl Jung's Theory



Okay, so what is actually based on science and backed up by science? Although not perfect, there seems to be growing support and scientific evidence for the Big Five:



So, there you go. Amazing and insightful insights from the world of brain science.

So, all of this rests on how much we choose to value science and empiricism. Science is okay, but I don't use it for everything.

[Metamorph]

Big Five is not a type theory, though. Probably, what we're looking for isn't really a type theory or a trait theory anyways, but a theory about underlying processes, which Jung did attempt to incorporate into his type theory, but probably messed literally everything else up, since his whole purpose was to create a racial consciousness for the Germans.

[lavos]

Problem with -Se/+Si and +Ni/-Ne divide that only "concrete sensing" "evidence" is considered as such. LSI's often run into this problem and get into quarrels with gamma NTs, often enacting themselves as supreme judges of what is "Scientific" or isn't. Scientific is anything that can be replicated, observed, or proven by standart means.