there is nothing magical in Jung's functions descriptions
there is nothing magical in Jung's functions descriptions
What's the criteria for "better"?Originally Posted by Jaqen
What are you getting out of the information? Or even, what problem is it solving?
It's not an observation, it's an explanation. You can never observe the curvature of spacetime.
It doesn't need to have any basis, other than that it's preferred over all the other rival explanations in any given problem-situation.
The "gravity" is an attempt at solving certain problems, but we're not yet asking why there is gravity in the fundamental sense. So we're not attempting to solve that problem.
Better for using socionics? I'm thinking that's what your question is asking. I would qualify someone as being better when they have a total grasp pf the theory and are using as close as possible when applying it to what they observed. Even still, its like asking which artist is better..the amateur enthusiast, or the studied? In the end you measure them by their works.
Me personally? Something for my though-structure to chew on. A paddle for the water currents. Also, a pathway to the Void. This question has been asked many times on the forum over the years.What are you getting out of the information?
Okay. You can observe Gravity waves, no matter how sophisticated the instruments, the observation can still be made. Even still, its all the same to me. One is about this topic of reality (physics) and the other is about this pocket of reality (socionics). One is more real and verifiable and the other is more enigmatic and soft. I'm not particularly bothered by this. Nebulous process don't frighten me.It's not an observation, it's an explanation. You can never observe the curvature of spacetime.
The people in this collection of internet seem to prefer this explanation (socionics). The Satanists do things their way and the scientist theirs and so and so forth. Are you still in confusion about this? People are deluded everywhere and also not deluded. Its the balancing of opposites, dude. Some systems work better then others and still people choose the non-working ones. In a related train of though: Why do people buy expensive power toys, why do people go on big yaught trips, like why do people do anything at all? We could just sit in a circle beside a fire and we would be just as satisfied.It doesn't need to have any basis, other than that it's preferred over all the other rival explanations in any given problem-situation.
Nobody is ever satisfied all the time. That's kinda the whole point. Socionics seems to be leaving you personally unsatisfied. Now that is far more of a interesting place to explore because it can be used to your advantage in your Quest.
Ya, lot's of people are. Research it. No-one has a good answer at all. Just smaller and smaller particles and their exploded remnants.The "gravity" is an attempt at solving certain problems, but we're not yet asking why there is gravity in the fundamental sense. So we're not attempting to solve that problem.
You say a lot of irrelevant things, and keep changing the subject.
No, you said some people were better than others. What's the criteria for that?
No, not necessarily for you personally. What would anyone get out of a catch-all information that can fit into any situation? Or what would anyone get out of the answer to the question, "How many types of people are there in the world?", which is probably a question that no one had really asked, and solves no problem?
Socionics is about the reality of how people actually are. Again, we're not asking what you personally feel about it. We're supposed to be seeking the truth of how people actually are in the objective sense.
...Socionics is not an explanation, it's an observation. You run off to relativism, but we're not asking whether people are satisfied by something, we're after the truth of how things really are.
And that has to be done by solving problems, because then you'd have a criteria for what can solve the problem better or worse, which then the knowledge becomes objective. Otherwise you'd just be creating knowledge for its own sake, which there'd be no criteria for how to further the growth of knowledge. You might try to find further and further details about people's temperaments or something like that, but it's like so what? It solves no problems because it doesn't answer to any problems being raised. And hence it doesn't further the growth of knowledge because it doesn't create any new problems to solve. It becomes a black-hole of personal, but pointless self-satisfaction.
When we're trying to solve the problem to the question of "Why does an apple fall?", saying "it's because of gravity" and coming up with an appropriate theory of gravity would solve the problem. We're not asking the question, "What's gravity in the most fundamental sense?", so we don't need to answer that question in this particular problem-situation, although people can, if they wished.
Subject is socionics. Subject is your conviction its a non starter because it cant be proven first casual. Black holes are a limit. Science are a limit. Im fine with limits. Socionics is dimensional only so far. Science has limits, consciousness being one of then. Socionics is artform. That pretty much sums it up. I can dumb things down further for you I guess, not make so many tangents because we all know those are Ne and just super-duper confusing.
No, you are stupid times infinity-thousand. Maybe go and look over the conversation again for clarity.No, you said some people were better than others. What's the criteria for that?
Then why are you on this website?No, not necessarily for you personally. What would anyone get out of a catch-all information that can fit into any situation?
Right. Anyway why not just name IEs as you see them and skip the whole sociotyping to begin with. It has broader applications.Or what would anyone get out of the answer to the question, "How many types of people are there in the world?", which is probably a question that no one had really asked, and solves no problem?
No DUH. You like to talk in circles.Socionics is about the reality of how people actually are. Again, we're not asking what you personally feel about it. We're supposed to be seeking the truth of how people actually are in the objective sense.
Im not one you need to preach this for. The only one satisfied or not is you. Ive already drawn my own conclusions over socionics... flash forward 10 years and you will be saying the same thing here. You are like that annoying College guy skits. Science wont bring you Ultimate Truth either haha! But by all means prostrate yourself on that alter....Socionics is not an explanation, it's an observation. You run off to relativism, but we're not asking whether people are satisfied by something, we're after the truth of how things really are.
No kidding, its called Logic. Something I dont struggle with.And that has to be done by solving problems, because then you'd have a criteria for what can solve the problem better or worse, which then the knowledge becomes objective.
Im starting to have a problem here. Im trying to eat my lunch in Peace, but I keep getting distracted by this conversation that is going nowhere.Otherwise you'd just be creating knowledge for its own sake, which there'd be no criteria for how to further the growth of knowledge. You might try to find further and further details about people's temperaments or something like that, but it's like so what? It solves no problems because it doesn't answer to any problems being raised. And hence it doesn't further the growth of knowledge because it doesn't create any new problems to solve. It becomes a black-hole of personal, but pointless self-satisfaction.
When I brought up the gravity question I was literally asking why is there gravity. Whats the first cause big bang for it. Huge mystery.When we're trying to solve the problem to the question of "Why does an apple fall?", saying "it's because of gravity" and coming up with an appropriate theory of gravity would solve the problem. We're not asking the question, "What's gravity in the most fundamental sense?", so we don't need to answer that question in this particular problem-situation, although people can, if they wished.
same thing as you asking why is there socionics?
And Im giving you the same answer you are giving me about gravity, it doesnt matter because the explantion only goes to one level and doesnt have need to go further.
Are you really not catching this? I feel like I supervise you, or something. Maybe I do.
Listen @Singu
Im not the best guy to discuss this stuff with. My conceptions of these topics is so far out from the norm. I have trouble explaining them even to myself.
I could talk about several scientific topics from a mainstream perspective including: anthropology, biology, evolutionary biology, some chemistry, nature, forestry, logging, some astronomy and cosmology, lots about health and exersise, anabolics, geology and natural history, some archeology and paleotology. Some others.
But, the psychedelic and psycotropic drug use combined with personal revelations make it impossible for me to be a Guttenberg printing press echo chamber for mainstream conceptualizations. We could sit and do that, congratulating each other on being masters of the material and non-material Universe, but that’s not possible with me specifically.
Socionics for me, has transpersonal implications. Remember, you are being breathed, you are not breathing. I know, cray, cray, right?
Ugh... You're too dense to even know what I'm talking about.
Yeah probably.
Alright well I apologize, the point is that you don't actually know why you prefer Socionics over the others, such as MBTI or Enneagram, if you don't have a reason for why you should prefer one over the other.
^ ...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote