No True Scotsman Fallacy -- Why Most People's Understanding of Socionics is BS

[Creepy-male]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
When an assertion about a type conflicts people's experience in reality, instead of refuting the assertion or counterexample, they modify the subject of the assertion.

All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.

The entire science is built on this fallacy, people make baseless claims on what constitutes a type and in order to uphold these claims they type people differently rather than actually attempt to refute the assertion or counterexample. Any attempt to form consistent claims with reality is considered to be "overly scientific and unfun" so instead most people's understanding are fallacious collections of stereotypes which contradict each other, when confronted with a counterexample to the universal claims with which they categorize types, instead of attempting the reconcile the counter-example with the claim or modify it, they immediately turn to re-typing or type-doubt.

Of course the moment someone mentions socionics as being bullshit or mentions an XXXX type, gradients of dichotomies, or type change, everyone gets extremely serious and scientific about their justifications, and its no longer about "fun" but something much more serious.

[munenori2]

Your mom's a true scotsman.

[Creepy-male]

No you...

[Creepy-male]

It's pretty obvious that there are no generalisations you can make that will encompass ALL members of any type, apart from model A axioms like "They will have Ti as their base function" "They supervise SEEs". But that doesn't necessarily make finding correlations and type tendencies any less interesting or scientific.

Well the real problem is the fallacy, instead of acknowledging one's universal claims as false given contradictory evidence, people like to attempt to reconcile these claims by "type doubts" or "re-typing" --This makes the preservation of the claims fall under the category of this fallacy.

That's what this post is about -- I'm not accusing people as being wrong, I'm pointing out the fallacy so that hopefully people can grow intellectually instead of stay in their comfort zone.

My hope is that some people will begin to actually attempt to reconcile their theoretical ideas about what a type is like with direct observation, so that intellectually the science can grow. Also, if people don't want to look at socionics as "science" that is fine -- its not like I'm into forcing people to do things, but they can't have it both ways, if they aren't willing to back up their claims with evidence, they can't be expected that their ideas will be taken with the same gravity as those that do.

Finally I'll mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation -- so even if behaviors can be correlated to types empirically, it doesn't imply the psychological make up of their type is responsible for these behaviors.

[Creepy-male]

Pretty much.

Though I think the board in general has gotten a lot better about this over the years. If you check out old posts from '04 - '08, the kind of stuff that used to pass for rigorous type analysis was… well, pretty awful.

Yea, like I said above I didn't write this to accuse the community so much as raise awareness.

I understand what you're saying... but at the same time, the evidence that's provided here almost 100% of the time is anecdotal evidence, so it really can't be "scientific". And this being a personality typology, an additional problem with the anecdotal evidence offered is the reliability of the typer in question. So I don't think this problem of people suspecting that someone is mistyped will ever go away, even if everyone realised their biases.

In socionics correlation does usually imply causation, simply because most people believe type is inborn The main exception I can think of is along the lines of "SLEs tend to like masculine activities" "Males are more likely to be mistyped SLE" - but that would be one of those mistyping issues. I think a more important note is that a correlations are trends, not rules.

The fallacy isn't about the perfection of someone's assertions as being absolutely correct, its a specific case where something which may appear correct is incorrect. I'm not pretending all errors can be eliminated from socionics... its not as easy to verify as a hard science and suffers from subjective bias horribly, but at least people can increase the quality of their typing by realizing at least one source of error -- that's all I'm saying. Your argument seems to be "well if its not perfect we might as well just fuck it all".

Most people believing type is inborn is irrelevant, if we lived in 14th century Europe its likely most people would believe the sun revolves around the earth. I'm not really interested in what the prevalent bandwagon ideas are, I'm interested in exploring new ideas and finding things out. Can you really say you enjoy personality typology as much now with everyone all niched in and in consensus or when you first learned about it and everything was novel and new? I personally enjoyed it a lot more when I was exploring out new ideas rather than jumping on the good ole' bandwagon.

[mu4]

All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.

Where in socionics are these sort of assertions made? People make this sort of assertions sure, but it doesn't really say anything about socionics. I mean plenty of people try to prove 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong too and various other things.

I think you're engaging in a strawman argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

There are plenty of unproven assertions in socionics but nothing like this is there.

Socionics isn't science, don't pretend it is until a objective means of measure is created, then the predictions can be analyzed. All we have is subjective measurement which is useful but not provable to others.

Science is often a battle of instrumentation and there still lacks a instrument to produce a socionics type analysis which will provide a means to test the predictive side of socionics, or at least no instrument that would allow for a very accurate prediction.

This sort of posts happens about once a year in this topic, and that post is generally as full of misunderstanding and problems as people's understand of socionics.

[mu4]

Socionics not being an empirical science is no excuse for shoddy thinking.

The point is that even if it was an empirical science, there is no excuse for shoddy thinking.

Socionics isn't based on "the true scotsman fallacy".

People commit this fallacy in all fields of study, as well as make strawman arguments. Nothing new about this.

[Creepy-male]

Where in socionics are these sort of assertions made? People make this sort of assertions sure, but it doesn't really say anything about socionics. I mean plenty of people try to prove 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong too and various other things.

I think you're engaging in a strawman argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

There are plenty of unproven assertions in socionics but nothing like this is there.

Socionics isn't science, don't pretend it is until a objective means of measure is created, then the predictions can be analyzed. All we have is subjective measurement which is useful but not provable to others.

Science is often a battle of instrumentation and there still lacks a instrument to produce a socionics type analysis which will provide a means to test the predictive side of socionics, or at least no instrument that would allow for a very accurate prediction.

This sort of posts happens about once a year in this topic, and that post is generally as full of misunderstanding and problems as people's understand of socionics.

1 - I'm not giving any specific examples of people making assertions similar to the example I gave. I'm just showing how socionics is vulnerable to this particular type of fallacy, and everyone seems to be extremely defensive about it, which I find quite revealing. The title "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... isn't meant to be taken literally, as in I have conducted a census of most people's understandings of socionics, the title is just a promotion thing to draw attention.

2 - As for the "socionics isn't science" see what I said to octo, you're argument is basically "if socionics isn't perfect, fuck it all".... I'm not saying socionics is a perfectly accurate characterization of personality, what I'm saying is that its vulnerable to at least a single preventable logical fallacy.

3 - No I am not engaging in a strawman argument, I could see your point if the topic was called "why socionics is bs"... but instead it's called "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs".... how about before you claim a fallacy on me you take the time to discriminate the difference between both titles.

God damn zealots -- PROTECT THE SACRED THEORY!... ok maybe thats a little harsh, but I think some people need to take a step back and calm down, your precious inner world isn't under attack, just take a second and read what I've said, nothing to get hung about.

[mu4]

1 - I'm not giving any specific examples of people making assertions similar to the example I gave. I'm just showing how socionics is vulnerable to this particular type of fallacy, and everyone seems to be extremely defensive about it, which I find quite revealing. The title "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... isn't meant to be taken literally, as in I have conducted a census of most people's understandings of socionics, the title is just a promotion thing to draw attention.

2 - As for the "socionics isn't science" see what I said to octo, you're argument is basically "if socionics isn't perfect, fuck it all".... I'm not saying socionics is a perfectly accurate characterization of personality, what I'm saying is that its vulnerable to at least a single preventable logical fallacy.

3 - No I am not engaging in a strawman argument, I could see your point if the topic was called "why socionics is bs"... but instead it's called "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs".... how about before you claim a fallacy on me you take the time to discriminate the difference between both titles.

God damn zealots -- PROTECT THE SACRED THEORY!

I never said any of this, stop misrepresenting me. You don't even understand what I said. Seriously.
The True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study, along with a number of other fallacies. People have misunderstanding of physics and other sciences all the time and there are still unsolved problems in that field of study.

Do you even know why I call your argument a strawman, because it is. Because very few users uses the example and line of reasoning you posted very seriously. Can you even prove that a ton of users use that line of reasoning?

The fact that you're calling me a zealot and using a ad hominem attack is even worse, because it just shows how many fallacies you're engaging in. You have to use a personal attack on me without even understanding my argument. Piss off.

[mu4]

So, is that supposed to give the fallacy some kind of license to occur in Socionics? Not sure why you're even bringing this up.

No, if someone makes a poor argument one should make the criticism. It's just this post seems to represent this as some sort of socionics peculiarity as if the study of socionics is somehow correlated with shoddy thinking which is not. Shoddy thinkers think shoddily. Should be obvious. Duh! Need me to explain more obvious things to you?

[Creepy-male]

I never said any of this, stop misrepresenting me. You don't even understand what I said. Seriously.
The True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study, along with a number of other fallacies. People have misunderstanding of physics and other sciences all the time and there are still unsolved problems in that field of study.

Do you even know why I call your argument a strawman, because it is. Because very few users uses the example and line of reasoning you posted very seriously. Can you even prove that a ton of users use that line of reasoning?

The fact that you're calling me a zealot and using a ad hominem attack is even worse, because it just shows how many fallacies you're engaging in. You have to use a personal attack on me without even understanding my argument. Piss off.

Lol it is very well possible I don't understand what you said, but that is all well in my opinion as I'm willing to hear you out, but I'd appreciate it if you calmed down a bit and didn't react so defensively.

I do agree the True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study. And I will re-iterate, the title "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs" is not supposed to be a factual assertion but a rhetorical device to get attention and draw awareness to the fallacy and its potential impact on people's thinking when dealing with socionics. Finally, I'm not seriously calling you a zealot, and I even jokingly said, ok... that's a bit harsh... but can you blame me, the voracity of your previous posts towards me seems a little over-zealous and unwarranted for just a run of the mill discussion. I have a great problem understanding why you are so pissed off, if someone came up to me and started to claim the sky was red and not blue, I wouldn't be pissed off by their faulty assertion, but if anything more amused. If you're so confident that my post just amounts to one big strawman argument then why are you so upset, if I am so obviously wrong, then what is there to be upset about?

Not everyone is going to agree on everything, but can you at least not be an asshole about it, I should have the right to share my ideas on the forum without being attacked even if they go against the mainstream.... I haven't personally attacked anyone and even made it clear I wasn't going to make this topic about accusations.

[mu4]

I do agree the True Scotsman fallacy occurs in all fields of study. And I will re-iterate, the title "why most people's understanding of socionics is bs" is not supposed to be a factual assertion but a rhetorical device to get attention and draw awareness to the fallacy and its potential impact on people's thinking when dealing with socionics. Finally, I'm not seriously calling you a zealot, and I even jokingly said, ok... that's a bit harsh... but can you blame me, the voracity of your previous posts towards me seems a little over-zealous and unwarranted for just a run of the mill discussion. I have a great problem understanding why you are so pissed off, if someone came up to me and started to claim the sky was red and not blue, I wouldn't be pissed off by their faulty assertion, but if anything more amused. If you're so confident that my post just amounts to one big strawman argument then why are you so upset, if I am so obviously wrong, then what is there to be upset about?

The devil is in the details they say and it often is.

"why most"

You sure about that?

"why most"

You sure this isn't the fallacy? I mean are you really calling most of the people here dumb or fallicious? How is that remotely justifiable.

And you want me to calm down after you made a ad-hominem attack on me?

[Creepy-male]

The devil is in the details they say and it often is.

"why most"

You sure about that?

"why most"

You sure this isn't the fallacy? I mean are you really calling most of the people here dumb? How is that remotely justifiable.

And you want me to calm down after you made a ad-hominem attack on me?

I'm pissed because you decided to make a ad-hominem attack on me.

Lol well let's try for the third time, its a promotional title and not a factual assertion... you're taking the title a little too seriously.

[mu4]

Lol well let's try for the third time, its a promotional title and not a factual assertion... you're taking the title a little too seriously.

[Slacker]

I think HLD makes a good point. Not everyone does it, but Socionics typing involves some generalizing, and I've seen a lot of "can't possibly be" instead of "that type doesn't tend to" or "that might point to this possiblity." There are trends as far as physically observable stuff goes, but only trends. And even then some of the trends aren pretty tenuous, like maybe it's more common than not or something you see sometimes rather than very common. But "only X types cross their arms in front of them" and "I can't imagine an X type ever having a job like that" and "Only X type use that kind of language" or "X types never use that kind of language" and that kind of thing happen a lot.

[rat1]

you're correct except you don't acknowledge all of science has this error in it to a degree, it's just much more apparent when looking at it through socionics

[EyeSeeCold]

The 1st and 5th were informative. The rest is unnecessary back and forth.

[DividedsGhost]

HLD: Let's talk about sources of error in socionics, so that we can raise awareness and eliminate some of it.

hkkmr: I think all error comes from shoddy thinking, so the arguement is shoddy and invalidate (circular reasoning).

You are being intellectually dishonest, hkkmr. It doesn't matter how you write it off, HLD's opening points are valid and you have not legitimately disputed them.

[Crispy]

Picking out specific examples of the fallacy would be more productive (and juicy) than saying that ERRYBODY does it. You're generalizing that the forum generalizes too much.

No specifics, no case.

[Creepy-Snaps]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
When an assertion about a type conflicts people's experience in reality, instead of refuting the assertion or counterexample, they modify the subject of the assertion.

All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.

The entire science is built on this fallacy, people make baseless claims on what constitutes a type and in order to uphold these claims they type people differently rather than actually attempt to refute the assertion or counterexample. Any attempt to form consistent claims with reality is considered to be "overly scientific and unfun" so instead most people's understanding are fallacious collections of stereotypes which contradict each other, when confronted with a counterexample to the universal claims with which they categorize types, instead of attempting the reconcile the counter-example with the claim or modify it, they immediately turn to re-typing or type-doubt.

Of course the moment someone mentions socionics as being bullshit or mentions an XXXX type, gradients of dichotomies, or type change, everyone gets extremely serious and scientific about their justifications, and its no longer about "fun" but something much more serious.

Picking out specific examples of the fallacy would be more productive (and juicy) than saying that ERRYBODY does it. You're generalizing that the forum generalizes too much.

No specifics, no case.

Yeah HLD. One can either modify the SUBJECT of the assertion, or modify the ASSERTION to become more understanding/knowledgeable/accepting of other variations in a type. I see absolutely zero reason why you would think this one aspect of negative thinking is how everyone thinks, why you would make this insulting, baseless assumption, or why you would make a generalization of a generalization.

"All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them."
"All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... HMM well I guess not all INFps really enjoy literature then, HUH!"

^^ I know this is how many intelligent people think. I wouldn't assume that in some cases, people modifying the SUBJECT of an assumption, is reason to denounce or dismiss our entire science of socionics, or call it "bullshit" as you so eloquently phrased.

[Slacker]

I don't think you can dismiss all of socionics because of this potential, but I do think the potential exists and it's good for us to keep our eyes open and avoid it. We can choose to fall for this fallacy or not. I saw that as HLD's point, not that all of socionics should be dismissed.

[Creepy-male]

Finally some real debate, its funny to see how polarizing this topic is at a guteral level, but let us continue.

I honestly don't think it happens a lot, and when it does, this community tends to self-police. The only person who I recall doing this more than once is Maritsa, and everyone jumps on her in their own amusing ways

I disagree -- a community will self-police but that doesn't mean it will self-police to the correct things -- you seem to emphasize social consensus as being inherently correct or something, a point I disagree with. Also the entire idea of people jumping on particular person's like Maritsa and Tcaud seems more founded on the social effect of scapegoating than real solid logical contention.

Lol, I really didn't say any of that, or mean to say that if it came across that way. All I said is that it's harder to verify the category ("Scottish") in socionics since the quality of typing is always in question, whereas something like "Scottish" is more easily objectively verifiable. So this "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't always a fallacy in socionics discussions, questioning the reliability of someone's typings is often legitimate and explains a lot of discrepancies between one person's experiences with a certain type and everyone else's experiences.

Alright pay attention, because I will agree with you on this... I understand exactly what your saying and its a good point. In socionics type is harder to factually verify than something simple like "scottish" making it more complex to determine the actual error in one's understanding of socionics. That much I think is a good point.

Now I'll elaborate, in socionics there is an entanglement, ones understanding of the theory influences ones typings and one's typings influences ones understanding of the theory. But this isn't unique to socionics we could apply the same thing to the no true scotsman fallacy... the criteria for a scotsman is based on certain assertions and these assertions are based on ones observations of scotsmen. This isn't unique to socionics, everything is entangled in the way you mention, but thats not what the fallacy is about. The fallacy is about "cooking data" to fit a theory, when an assertion is overthrown. In socionics this is observed as people re-typing to preserve incorrect assertions instead of focusing on the assertions themselves as potentially being incorrect statements. It's about preservation of potentially false assertions through evidence manipulation.

I was specifically referring to the phrase "correlation doesn't imply causation" and how that applies less to socionics. Generally if a correlation isn't causation, the correlation is due to a common causative agent, e.g. when people eat lots of ice cream, people also wear less clothes - if correlation implied causation, then you would conclude that ice cream causes spontaneous stripping, but it's actually due to a common causative agent, hot weather. In socionics however, if type is there from the beginning and there is a strong correlation with a certain type of behaviour, causation is almost implied, unless there was some other causative agent e.g. poor maternal nutrition causes both IEI-ness and being artistic faggy fluffy things. It's an attitude innate to all of personality psychology, really. The first thing in a sequence can't be caused by anything further upstream, because there is nothing further upstream.

It applies just the same because your entire argument is contingent upon type being inborn, you need that assumption to make the causation work out, and if it does work out, its not because of the correlation, its because you have discovered a chain of events which logically link things together.

HLD: Let's talk about sources of error in socionics, so that we can raise awareness and eliminate some of it.

Yea I agree I'd love to make a series of posts on potential sources of error

Picking out specific examples of the fallacy would be more productive (and juicy) than saying that ERRYBODY does it.

I'm not saying everybody does it, I'm saying everybody may potentially do it. I'll let individuals call each other out on this in debate though.

Mountain Dew's Post

I'm not saying all of socionics is BS, the title is "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... and no its not a factual statement claiming most people are wrong, its more a rhetorical device... the idea is to raise awareness like someone reads it and thinks, "hmmm could I be one of those people!?"... it's fine if your not a fan of the title, but that's what I meant by it, not that socionics is invalid and should be discarded.

In fact I think a lot of the presentation of how I wrote this is turning people off, its like instead of reading it as "hmm could I be one of those people!?"... people are reading it as "no way man I'm not one of those people your obviously wrong -- most people that study socionics know what they are talking about!" And for this may I introduce you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect A.LA. korpsey

[mu4]

You are being intellectually dishonest, hkkmr. It doesn't matter how you write it off, HLD's opening points are valid and you have not legitimately disputed them.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest here. I admit that these sort of fallacies can happen, my problem is with HLD's intellectual dishonesty.

ts a promotional title and not a factual assertion...

the title is "Why most people's understanding of socionics is BS".... and no its not a factual statement claiming most people are wrong, its more a rhetorical device...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

He misrepresents the general type skepticism here that needs to occur because typing is simply inaccurate.

"All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them."

This sort of statement doesn't happen that much in type skepticism as universal claims are rarely made. Non-universal claims are often made generally with evidence pointing to another type as well as well as uncertainty in the skepticism itself.

I.E

"INFP's tend to enjoy the arts/fashion/etc, Maggie doesn't enjoy the arts/fashion/etc at all and seems to concentrate on concrete topics like engineering, it's possible that Maggie isn't INFp."

I think actually his fallacies are worse or just as bad then the ones he's pointing out, and that his assumptions are unsubstantiated. And he used an ad-hominem attack on me once I criticized his argument.

He never even bothered to read or discuss my main point.

Which I'm going to summarize.

One of the main reason that there is a lot of type skepticism as there is no objective instrument to measure type in any sort of predictably verifiable fashion. Typology has a problem of measurement.

Anyways what is the point of this post? How does it make typing any easier or harder?

If you want to see what common logical fallacies people make in all areas of study. Study philosophy. It's good for you or something.

[InkStrider]

I addressed one of the main reason that there is a lot of type skepticism as there is no objective instrument to measure type in any sort of predictably verifiable fashion. Typology has a problem of measurement.

True. The question is, how could this be addressed? People use different 'type indicators' to gauge a person's sociotype, which is probably the root of typing discrepancies.

[mu4]

True. The question is, how could this be addressed? People use different 'type indicators' to gauge a person's sociotype, which is probably the root of typing discrepancies.

Replied to you here http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=38282

[Creepy-male]

@Octo you seem to misrepresent my viewpoint.... things like

"I'm saying this occurs far less frequently than you seem to be making out" -- I never directly gave a frequency for its occurrence, my main point which I've re-iterated is that I'm drawing awareness to it, even if it doesn't happen often I feel like it could and therefore I should be able to mention it without it being seen as something negative

"I think the problem is that we're reading it as a combination of preaching to the choir, fixing a problem that doesn't exist, hyperbolic attention-seeking and straw man" -- I'm not preaching, claiming to fix a problem, or seeking attention... I'm just bringing attention to a single logical fallacy and how it can have an effect of people's understanding of socionics.

Like I said, some people tend to get this immediately but it appears like some people guterally/emotionally have a bad reaction to it. It's obvious you have been going out of your way to drive home the same sort of thing you opened your first post in this thread with -- you've referred several times to how it's not a big deal because it happens rarely, the community is mostly correct, and there is always some error to socionics. I've addressed each of these points several times. It is a big deal because regardless of if it does or does not happen frequently -- it can happen, so at least it deserves a glance, if nothing more. Social consensus isn't always correct -- doesn't mean its always wrong, but it definitely isn't a source of empirical evidence of something being true -- and finally just because there is some error to socionics doesn't mean that its futile to consider these kinds of topics. I've iterated these three counter points several times and you just keep saying the same thing, which makes me think the source of contention in this is less logical in nature and more how you feel about this topic, which is fine, but you keep addressing this from the same standpoint logically and its going nowhere, and its a little boring/annoying.

The entire tactic of accusing me of a straw man when I mention another logical fallacy seems almost vengeful -- like you've taken the title as a personal attack and your immediate response is to show that I'm actually the one committing a fallacy and not other people. It's kind of defensive response to a topic that isn't even about making attacks on people, but about developing an intellectually robust community through recognition of potential sources of error. It's not a straw man either because a straw man seeks to mischaracterize another's point of view to something which is easily refuted... I don't see how what I have said is a straw man as I haven't given specific examples of anyone actually committing this fallacy. In fact I openly admit the target of my criticism is towards a "straw man", and then I pose the question to the community "are you the same as the straw man or different"? When someone commits the strawman fallacy they aren't giving people the same benefit they are pointedly characterizing someone as a straw man as opposed to asking them if they are the strawman... that is the difference and why what I'm doing is not a strawman. I don't expect you to get this through your head as you seem emotionally wired to immediately resist what I say and see it as some kind of argument, but I feel like saying it regardless so that I have the opportunity to articulate in depth why driving home this accusation on me is actually the real strawman.

[Beautiful sky]

Yeah HLD. One can either modify the SUBJECT of the assertion, or modify the ASSERTION to become more understanding/knowledgeable/accepting of other variations in a type. I see absolutely zero reason why you would think this one aspect of negative thinking is how everyone thinks, why you would make this insulting, baseless assumption, or why you would make a generalization of a generalization.

"All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them."
"All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... HMM well I guess not all INFps really enjoy literature then, HUH!"

^^ I know this is how many intelligent people think. I wouldn't assume that in some cases, people modifying the SUBJECT of an assumption, is reason to denounce or dismiss our entire science of socionics, or call it "bullshit" as you so eloquently phrased.

Look at thought working (together too!) and look at thought working in the direction of internal clarity. Thinking upon people's understanding and Socionics...humm.

[717495]

My opinion is that I have an opinion. Hither!

[EyeSeeCold]

My opinion is that I have an opinion. Hither!

That's a fact, not an opinion.

[DividedsGhost]

Maybe we could discuss differences in how conclusions are formed and debate from there? For instance, I know probably one of the biggest things about typing is whether we are looking at nature vs nurture. It's easy to say 'someone is xxxx type because they fit a certain behavior (nurture)', but then on the flip-side we also can have 'a person is xxxx type because they have always had a particular nature regarding certain the way they approach and solve certain situations'.

What I see mostly of in typing is the former, which is looking more at the superficial. The latter is supposed to give you more of an idea of your innate self, which won't fit exactly into certain types necessarily; but neither is really separate also, of course. It would be really cool if we could distinguish more between the two, since doing so provides more substance to understanding.

For instance, I relate a lot to the Fi of IEIs (nature), yet there are other more major aspects of my personality that fit ILI much better (nurture). It's things like that that no one even seems to care about, but lead to contradictions. And these contradictions are ignored and I'm told not to 'change' socionics or argue different ideas, lest I'm using another typology...

[DividedsGhost]

Another problem is that anything that goes against the mainstream of what is considered socionics or what some dead Russians decided was true in their time, automatically gets labeled as NOT SOCIONICS. What's up with that? How is that helpful?

[tcaudilllg]

The true way to understand socionics is not to merely understand the principles of Model A... but to reach beyond it, towards a fully understanding of personality itself.

A lot of people fool themselves into believing that socionics/MBTI claims to apprehend the whole picture of human personality. It does not. Learn socionics and master it well... but understand its limits.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

All INFps enjoy literature.... Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp.... Well all true INFps enjoy literature, Maggie isn't one of them.

I don't enjoy most literature but as a general rule I love writing and reading. More writing than reading, since I kinda like to be 'in control' in that way or something. Literature class bored me because the teacher always acted like they hated doing it and just wanted to get out of there quickly as possible. And too many kids goofed off and acted 'ghetto tough guy like' and like they didn't want to be there. This is why I think school is so stupid, like forcing people to care about stuff they won't unless they already do naturally.

People stereotype cause people usually fit them. Like right now this irish dude is on cam and he's talking about how drunk he gets. Haha. =p

and some people are just idk.... introverted and artistic and kinda shy in social situations but have a big heart and are humanitarian ness.

[InvisibleJim]

Your mom's a true scotsman.

How did you know?

^^

[Creepy-Snaps]

Look at thought working (together too!) and look at thought working in the direction of internal clarity. Thinking upon people's understanding and Socionics...humm.

Not quite sure what you are saying, my Illusionary. Are you suggesting people do NOT have a good understanding of socionics? I know you type others a lot differently than most people on here.

[Raver]

I think it comes down to balance, sometimes we need to make generalizations out of necessity. Shortcuts when used properly can reduce the amount of time and jargon required to figure out your own type or someone else's. However, if used incorrectly and too frequently it can result in misconceptions and mistypings.

[Creepy-male]

Oh, wow. I seem to have hit a nerve. Sorry.

No you didn't, its just annoying to be walking around in circles like this, I don't really get what your trying to accomplish. You make an objection, I object to your objection, if you're not interested in trying to resolve this dispute in viewpoints then we might as well just go our own ways, yet you reply back to everyone of my posts as if you have something you want to prove to me... it's annoying... get it? Make your case and if it doesn't persuade me, deal with it, that happens, not everyone is going to conform to your same POV, you need to know when to let it go. I'm already ready to let it go.

It's stuff like this I don't understand about your posts... how is "big deal" = "deserves at glance, if nothing more"? I would characterise that as a "small deal".

Allow me to clarify then, I feel its a big deal to at least make the post for people to at least glance at if nothing more -- its a big deal that the topic is made (to me), its not a big deal in how its received by others. Do you require a more detailed explanation?

II'm repeating myself because you don't seem to be understanding me, and I think I'm just hoping that if I word it differently it'll finally get through to you and you'll stop rewording what I'm saying into something else. I've bolded my points this time.

No I do understand you -- you aren't repeating yourself because I don't understand, you are repeating yourself because I am not convinced. I understand your point of view, but I disagree -- get used to it, that happens to everyone and you should know when its worth the effort to continue trying to persuade someone and when its not. I've already heard what you have to say and I disagree.

Dude. Calm down.

I am calm, maybe its you who is anxious, in which case I'd then advise you to stop putting so much energy into trying to convince me.

There's no right or wrong here.

Well if that's the way you feel, then we should be able to go our separate ways, and you should be able to respect the fact I'm sticking with what I think about this.

[silke]

Well the real problem is the fallacy, instead of acknowledging one's universal claims as false given contradictory evidence ...

Thing is that this "evidence" in socionics depends on one's interpretation of some observable factors or some text or quotes. These personal interpretations will vary widely being influenced by all kinds of subjective factors (typing subforums are a testament to this). The No True Scotsman Fallacy depends on the provided evidence/counterexample being true i.e. that it can be objectively and unequivocally proven to be so, hence why it becomes fallacious to continue insisting on the validity of the old construct. However, in socionics this isn't the case i.e. you cannot prove it to be so, thus this fallacy isn't applicable. In every such case, you're faced with the choice of either assigning value to your existing mental constructs and questioning your interpretations or considering the validity of counterexample and questioning your existing constructs. Without having any way to verify the validity of your constructs or the counterexample this choice is made arbitrary.

Overall though, all socionics aside, this is a good fallacy to keep in mind.

Another problem is that anything that goes against the mainstream of what is considered socionics or what some dead Russians decided was true in their time, automatically gets labeled as NOT SOCIONICS. What's up with that? How is that helpful?

some of those Russians are very much alive - socionics really isn't that old, so stop depicting them prematurely deceased

[mu4]

Blah blah blah

What's your point again?


If you don't like the theory, then don't use it? It's just a way to think about how to go about categorizing people. Theoretical frameworks aren't not magically infallible or perfect.


Socionics framework for sure is incomplete, and non-precise, but is it a approximation of reality that is better then say something like MBTI and Enneagram. I think for sure it is, and that's all I need to know until I find another framework to study the human psyche.


The whole point of this post actually is about how understanding of socionics only plays a very small part in type diagnostics. And how the fact that there is no instrument for analysis of type which we can objectively rely on forces people to attain a high level of subjective knowledge of people which corresponds which corresponds with reality to make accurate typings. Even then it's a tenuous judgement.


Anyways, The No True Scotsman fallacy basically doesn't exist in socionics, because you could never prove that a person is Type Z in the first place to use as a counterexample to whatever universal claim was being made.


"All INFps enjoy literature....
Maggie doesn't enjoy literature and types INFp....
Well all true INFps enjoy literature,
Maggie isn't one of them."


Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

You actually made a poor example of this fallacy, because the basis of the fallacy is a factual counterclaim, which doesn't exist in socionics.

"All Infp enjoy literature"
"Maggie is an INFp and he doesn't enjoy literature" (This can't be ascertained conclusively in socionics)
"Well, all true INFp like literature"

[mu4]

Arguing that "facts don't exist in Socionics, therefore the NTS fallacy doesn't apply" is just an attempt to invent excuses for allowing sloppy thinking to continue unabated.

Noone is making a excuse for sloppy thinking, I think I've been consistent in saying that a methodology for typing more objectively is what's necessary in socionics.

BTW, having a good methodology for typing would allow the No True Scotman fallacy to exist in socionics.



It's about focus on problem at hand.