Psychology as a Tool - Not a Fact

[DividedsGhost]

Psychology As A Tool - Not a Fact
It's come to my attention that this distinction is not made clear in this forum. Instead there is often a clash of unrealistic beliefs about what socionics entails - type being innate, information metabolism as the only (or perhaps most) accurate way of modeling human behavior, the idea that people typically converge to certain types that remain statistically or predictably stable, that typing people is always inherently useful or overall the best method for understanding all situations and circumstances between two people in relationships and improving them, and believing that certain types should be avoided or given more attention because of the type they might have been assigned.

But all of this is not an absolute truth, but only a relative truth to your experience, depending on how devote you are in believing these. Consider the following analogy. Imagine you are a mechanic working on a car or some type of electrical/mechanical/aerospace machine. The frame of this machine can handle any of the technology you have at the given moment and this machine will go through phases of wear and tear and you will have to fix or repair this machine. Sometimes the machine will experience problems that you will have to diagnose and fix using the tools at your disposal. At other times it might be more beneficial to scrap parts of this machine in favor of new parts that will be more capable and allow the machine to function without any of its past mechanical problems and limitations; this allows the machine to throw away what isn't working well and become more capable and adaptable. The mechanic has this most interesting role to play since he has at his disposal an array of different tools to accomplish this and ultimately he must decide when a new design is better than a repair. Now if we consider that frame as the atomic makeup of a human being and the mechanic as the mind's consciousness, socionics becomes a tool for our mechanic, just as all other areas of analytical and empirical psychology.

Why is this important? Because ultimately, it comes down to making a choice. All of those beliefs I outlined as unrealistic (in the sense of absolute truths that exist outside personal experience) can become an effect of a pattern of beliefs predicated by what tools the mechanic uses to aid the machine. For example, a person that has never had to make the decision to scrap parts of themselves and build new psychological boundaries of ability will have a harder time accepting that type might not be innate since they will be more accustomed to repairing. As another example, where one has been accustomed to using particular tools to maintain their machine to great success, they will also be more accustomed to the idea that a particular tool will become a somewhat predictable aspect of their thought process and might even reach the assumption that such a tool is the best aid to use apart from all the rest. Another person might see that many tools are needed depending on the wear and tear done; the harder the wear and tear, the more nuanced work that needs to be done, and tools that might be vastly generally applied will only be semi-useful here.

Philosophy and the Power of Belief
If one were to question all the philosophies that mankind has come up with there will be one theme that is irrefutable that comes with being alive - that we all have a choice. Because without being able to choose, our existence is pointless: "we do not live". Thus one can use the intertype relations to close themselves off to other people or avoid other people and converge on others, to do so means socionics no longer becomes a matter of using a tool; instead one will have formed a belief about how that tool should be used. Now one has to question whether making a choice is any different than a belief because to act is to believe in the outcome - to apply a tool is to belief it can achieve a specific purpose or goal.

When a belief becomes a problem however (and when it becomes unrealistic) is when it can neither be proven wrong or right. Religions are based on such beliefs and the only resolution for conflicting views of such beliefs is to either have one concede their belief in favor of another or fight and the victor sustains their belief as truth. I'm positing all of this now because I've witnessed a lot of the arguments on this forum coming from such irreconcilable beliefs. I would like to propose that people with questions about what beliefs socionics contains remember this and not focus on such beliefs that can not be proven wrong or right. I hope to help keep things in a more reasonable perspective by posting this.

Comments?

[krieger]

are you divided?

[Crispy]

Hahahaha. So many words. So little substance. Try harder.

[DividedsGhost]

@Ashton: K, this wasn't really aimed at you. I know this is what you imply in every criticizing post you make.

[DividedsGhost]

Hahahaha. So many words. So little substance. Try harder.

That's too bad you believe that. You're one of the people this is intended for.

[Crispy]

Seems unlikely, since I have never interacted with someone differently according to their self-typing (aside from attempting to assess whether it is right or wrong). Sounds like you are projecting how you would use socionics if you tried again. Please try a lot harder if you plan on getting anywhere.

EDIT: Oh you may be referring to the first paragraph. In that case, yes I do believe socionics works. You don't because you failed to type anyone around you correctly before giving up. I'm Sorry your stress meter is much faster than your intelligence.

[DividedsGhost]

Seems unlikely, since I have never interacted with someone differently according to their self-typing (aside from attempting to assess whether it is right or wrong). Sounds like you are projecting how you would use socionics if you tried again. Please try a lot harder if you plan on getting anywhere.

You're assuming this is a result of my inadequate knowledge of socionics. You have presumptuous beliefs about what socionics can accomplish that falls under unrealistic beliefs, which I've adequately and fully described (if you would take your own advice and read what I've written you will understand). I did not say you interacted differently with anyone because of a type; that is not the only unrealistic belief someone can ascribe to socionics.

[DividedsGhost]

Here is your unrealistic belief, Crispy:

the idea that people typically converge to certain types that remain statistically or predictably stable

[Crispy]

What is that even supposed to mean? That exactly 1/16'th of the population is INTj or something? If so, no I do not believe that.

[DividedsGhost]

What is that even supposed to mean? That exactly 1/16'th of the population is INTj or something? If so, no I do not believe that.

When you tell someone that hasn't found socionics useful, in the sense of applying static types, without considering that their socionics knowledge might be very adequate in the application of, you've formed an unrealistic belief as I have previously shown to you. Then it becomes about you being right and having an unrealistic belief in socionics to the point that other experience to show otherwise is automatically deemed wrong; it is simply a matter of belief that can be proven neither wrong or right and only serves to manifest direct irreconcilable conflict with those that will not adhere to such belief.

[Crispy]

I didn't ask for a word salad. I asked what you meant by the following supposed belief I carry:

the idea that people typically converge to certain types that remain statistically or predictably stable

You still have not identified what the belief is or what it implies.

[DividedsGhost]

This is pointless. I concede at this point since I'm no longer interested in talking to someone who won't try to at least understand what I'm saying.

Anyone else have any comments?

[Crispy]

So you think I believe that exactly 1/16th of the population is INTj? Or are you mentally unable to make yourself clear?

When you tell someone that hasn't found socionics useful, in the sense of applying static types, without considering that their socionics knowledge might be very adequate in the application of, you've formed an unrealistic belief as I have previously shown to you.

Notice how you never ended the bold. When I tell someone What Exactly? Do you not understand what I mean by word salad? Don't get upset at your inability to complete coherent sentences. Just finish the sentence.

[woofwoofl]

I have you down as Ni-IEI

I just type, and usually it works; I've been trying to absorb media across all the quadras, don't want any blind spots taking hold... I don't blast people over the head with typings or anything...

[Beautiful sky]

LOL well, here's me tossing out Te valuing for you. :0

[woofwoofl]

are you divided?

I see the vaguely menacing black-and-white avatar (which I expect to turn into a skull-and-crossbones at any time now, as usual), the semi-confrontational and hazy-ish posting, and the extreme visceral negative reaction to Ashton...

Yep, I think so

[Crispy]

No, this is a single case for a single individual. My "automatic assumption" is derived from the fact that the target is a new account on the forum and therefore are most likely one of three things:
-A newcomer who actually DOESN'T know shit about what he/she is talking about.
- A troll who keeps making joke accounts because they are unable to find healthy uses of their time.
- An infamous former member who is trying to hide their identity due to saying crazy shit in the past.

This is not a pattern I have with those who have an established identity on the forum, as I usually understand where any one individual is coming from by the time they have made a few hundred posts. Since this individual is coming out of the blue anonymously to spread misinformation, I will treat it as such.

[717495]

Socionics mirite.

[krieger]

No, this is a single case for a single individual. My "automatic assumption" is derived from the fact that the target is a new account on the forum and therefore are most likely one of three things:
-A newcomer who actually DOESN'T know shit about what he/she is talking about.
- A troll who keeps making joke accounts because they are unable to find healthy uses of their time.
- An infamous former member who is trying to hide their identity due to saying crazy shit in the past.

- all three AKA divided.

[krieger]

I see the vaguely menacing black-and-white avatar (which I expect to turn into a skull-and-crossbones at any time now, as usual), the semi-confrontational and hazy-ish posting, and the extreme visceral negative reaction to Ashton...

Yep, I think so

i'm surprised you omit mention of his obsession with PENIS

[Cat King Cole]

So you think I believe that exactly 1/16th of the population is INTj? Or are you mentally unable to make yourself clear?

When you tell someone that hasn't found socionics useful, in the sense of applying static types, without considering that their socionics knowledge might be very adequate in the application of, you've formed an unrealistic belief as I have previously shown to you.

Notice how you never ended the bold. When I tell someone What Exactly? Do you not understand what I mean by word salad? Don't get upset at your inability to complete coherent sentences. Just finish the sentence.

Oh my fucking lol, I wish I could like posts.

[tcaudilllg]

When you tell someone that hasn't found socionics useful, in the sense of applying static types, without considering that their socionics knowledge might be very adequate in the application of, you've formed an unrealistic belief as I have previously shown to you. Then it becomes about you being right and having an unrealistic belief in socionics to the point that other experience to show otherwise is automatically deemed wrong; it is simply a matter of belief that can be proven neither wrong or right and only serves to manifest direct irreconcilable conflict with those that will not adhere to such belief.

I think what you are saying here is that... when people rebuke Socionics, Crispy automatically assumes that they simply do not adequately understand Socionics. He never considers that they DO understand it, but disagree with it also. And you're saying that what he's doing is unrealistic, because he so firmly believes in the theory that he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are "wrong" with out listening to their argument.

Is that correct?

By the way, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you (I don't have enough info about your guys' argument to take sides), I just noticed that I could kinda understand what you were saying, whereas Crispy could not (and no offense, you do form sentences a bit oddly). So I thought I would "translate."

INTJs do not understand this thing called "disagreement". There is only truth and non-truth, and those who do not abide by truth are stupid.

[rat1]

It's come to my attention that this distinction is not made clear in this forum. Instead there is often a clash of unrealistic beliefs about what socionics entails - type being innate, information metabolism as the only (or perhaps most) accurate way of modeling human behavior, the idea that people typically converge to certain types that remain statistically or predictably stable, that typing people is always inherently useful or overall the best method for understanding all situations and circumstances between two people in relationships and improving them, and believing that certain types should be avoided or given more attention because of the type they might have been assigned.

Half of these beliefs we all supposedly hold are just gross generalizations of cliches you came up with. The other half are reasonable beliefs which can be justified.
Type being innate - there are twin studies with modest correlations.
Type remaining predictably stable - it remains stable, to what degree is debatable (a boring debate I'm not interested in, and I dont consider it all that important either)
certain types should be avoided- this seems to happen on its own, socionics just verifies it
IM the only way to model human behavior- I dont think anyone thinks this.
Socionics is the best way for understanding all situations between people- Maritsa may think this, I dont think anyone else does

But all of this is not an absolute truth, but only a relative truth to your experience, depending on how devote you are in believing these.

Pure relativism is unsubstantial and philosophically flawed.

Consider the following analogy. Imagine you are a mechanic working on a car or some type of electrical/mechanical/aerospace machine. The frame of this machine can handle any of the technology you have at the given moment and this machine will go through phases of wear and tear and you will have to fix or repair this machine. Sometimes the machine will experience problems that you will have to diagnose and fix using the tools at your disposal. At other times it might be more beneficial to scrap parts of this machine in favor of new parts that will be more capable and allow the machine to function without any of its past mechanical problems and limitations; this allows the machine to throw away what isn't working well and become more capable and adaptable. The mechanic has this most interesting role to play since he has at his disposal an array of different tools to accomplish this and ultimately he must decide when a new design is better than a repair. Now if we consider that frame as the atomic makeup of a human being and the mechanic as the mind's consciousness, socionics becomes a tool for our mechanic, just as all other areas of analytical and empirical psychology.

Long ass metaphor illustrating free will but disregarding determinism. The mechanic can't choose just any tool - he has a limited set of options for what will work.

Why is this important? Because ultimately, it comes down to making a choice.

Here again is the core of your stupidity - inflating the role free will over determinism.

All of those beliefs I outlined as unrealistic (in the sense of absolute truths that exist outside personal experience)

This is a failed attempt at marginalizing absolutism by radicalizing it. Absolute truth within the realm of personal experience works just fine for the universe I'm living in.

can become an effect of a pattern of beliefs predicated by what tools the mechanic uses to aid the machine. For example, a person that has never had to make the decision to scrap parts of themselves and build new psychological boundaries of ability will have a harder time accepting that type might not be innate since they will be more accustomed to repairing. As another example, where one has been accustomed to using particular tools to maintain their machine to great success, they will also be more accustomed to the idea that a particular tool will become a somewhat predictable aspect of their thought process and might even reach the assumption that such a tool is the best aid to use apart from all the rest. Another person might see that many tools are needed depending on the wear and tear done; the harder the wear and tear, the more nuanced work that needs to be done, and tools that might be vastly generally applied will only be semi-useful here.

3 long ass metaphors to say we lose flexibility when we hold on to beliefs. That's only true when the belief is flawed. When the belief has substance, it's enabling not constricting. The argument for socionics is that it has substance.

Philosophy and the Power of Belief
If one were to question all the philosophies that mankind has come up with there will be one theme that is irrefutable that comes with being alive - that we all have a choice. Because without being able to choose, our existence is pointless: "we do not live".

More of your flawed philosophy on free will and determinism.

Thus one can use the intertype relations to close themselves off to other people or avoid other people and converge on others

Only insofar as socionics models personality inaccurately. That is debatable, but people naturally take beliefs with a grain of salt. That's how most people approach socionics. That's something you'll find with all beliefs - that they are half trusted until they're substantiated.

Psychology As A Tool - Not a Fact, to do so means socionics no longer becomes a matter of using a tool; instead one will have formed a belief about how that tool should be used.

You continuously fail to acknowledge there are ways tools should be used.

Now one has to question whether making a choice is any different than a belief because to act is to believe in the outcome - to apply a tool is to belief it can achieve a specific purpose or goal.

Your mental rambling which I'm just going to skip over.

When a belief becomes a problem however (and when it becomes unrealistic) is when it can neither be proven wrong or right.

Congratulations, you are slowly finding your way out of this mess you've created. I hope you realize how this disregards everything you've said to this point.

Religions are based on such beliefs and the only resolution for conflicting views of such beliefs is to either have one concede their belief in favor of another or fight and the victor sustains their belief as truth. I'm positing all of this now because I've witnessed a lot of the arguments on this forum coming from such irreconcilable beliefs. I would like to propose that people with questions about what beliefs socionics contains remember this and not focus on such beliefs that can not be proven wrong or right. I hope to help keep things in a more reasonable perspective by posting this.

Most religious people take the beliefs as a big metaphor. You do get religious radicals, but this board is not full of socionics radicals. There are a few. Just a few though, I can think of 3 at the moment.
Since religion cannot be substantiated at all (since none of it has any basis), that makes it different than socionics. Socionics can be verified to a degree. So its a bad comparison to use religion.

Comments?

Keep doing philosophy and eventually you should realize how full of shit you are.

[DividedsGhost]

When you tell someone that hasn't found socionics useful, in the sense of applying static types, without considering that their socionics knowledge might be very adequate in the application of, you've formed an unrealistic belief as I have previously shown to you. Then it becomes about you being right and having an unrealistic belief in socionics to the point that other experience to show otherwise is automatically deemed wrong; it is simply a matter of belief that can be proven neither wrong or right and only serves to manifest direct irreconcilable conflict with those that will not adhere to such belief.

I think what you are saying here is that... when people rebuke Socionics, Crispy automatically assumes that they simply do not adequately understand Socionics. He never considers that they DO understand it, but disagree with it also. And you're saying that what he's doing is unrealistic, because he so firmly believes in the theory that he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are "wrong" with out listening to their argument.

Is that correct?

By the way, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you (I don't have enough info about your guys' argument to take sides), I just noticed that I could kinda understand what you were saying, whereas Crispy could not (and no offense, you do form sentences a bit oddly). So I thought I would "translate."

For the most part, but it's not a question of my saying socionics is wrong in saying he is unrealistic. It's the fact that socionics is an individual experience and when one is willing to caste off another's experience for some type of belief (in this case his presuming) this purely creates conflict; it is then about his being individually right and not about being open to what might be realistic, considering everyone.

Essentially it's about being told something is truth and refusing to question it. That's an unrealistic belief.

(and no offense, you do form sentences a bit oddly).

I apologize. I'm trying to be as detailed as possible and use the right words in the right places so that there is no ambiguity. But the downside of that is other people have to be willing to put more effort into decoding what I've written. If you have suggestions, I'm willing to hear it.

No, this is a single case for a single individual. My "automatic assumption" is derived from the fact that the target is a new account on the forum and therefore are most likely one of three things:
-A newcomer who actually DOESN'T know shit about what he/she is talking about.
- A troll who keeps making joke accounts because they are unable to find healthy uses of their time.
- An infamous former member who is trying to hide their identity due to saying crazy shit in the past.

This is not a pattern I have with those who have an established identity on the forum, as I usually understand where any one individual is coming from by the time they have made a few hundred posts. Since this individual is coming out of the blue anonymously to spread misinformation, I will treat it as such.

Even if these things could be true, the fact that you are so willing to assume it so, rather than attempt to confirm it, makes you haughty and useless for me to talk with you at this point because you're already willing to disavow anything I say based on an assumption.

Socionics mirite.

yeah...

I see the vaguely menacing black-and-white avatar (which I expect to turn into a skull-and-crossbones at any time now, as usual), the semi-confrontational and hazy-ish posting, and the extreme visceral negative reaction to Ashton...

Yep, I think so

i'm surprised you omit mention of his obsession with PENIS

Well I thought it was humorous. I apologize great all-knowing Labcoat for not sharing your perfect kind of humor.

LOL well, here's me tossing out Te valuing for you. :0

*catches it* Thanks. I can see how you would think that. I actually agree.

@CrazedRat: I'm going to be completely honest here. Your mind's intellectual scope is limited to preferring simple answers, so I won't bother replying to you since I can gain nothing from it. It is not personal and I feel it right to let you know why.

[DividedsGhost]

are you divided?

I see the vaguely menacing black-and-white avatar (which I expect to turn into a skull-and-crossbones at any time now, as usual), the semi-confrontational and hazy-ish posting, and the extreme visceral negative reaction to Ashton...

Yep, I think so

I didn't mind Ashton's post. I thought it was useless on his part since this wasn't intended for him. Think what you want then.

are you divided?

Let's see. I have all my limbs, so no. But let's say you're talking about a member that I haven't seen posting on here in a long time, then I would have to ask what divided is to you? Only then can I tell you if I am that which you see as divided.