Originally Posted by Singu
Well honestly, I'm personally curious about why Socionics doesn't work, and what's it doing wrong.
Don't like it, don't read it.
You cant prove that it doesnt work
Before I read this thread, I figured I'd see you repeating this talking point. Ironically, my prediction came true.
The forum should make a drinking game: take a shot every time Singu says something predictable.
I can, and I already have.You cant prove that it doesnt work
I only repeat because I have to repeat, because people don't even seem to understand what I'm saying. So I have to make my point simpler and simpler, however it still doesn't seem like people understand it.
The forum should make a drinking game: take a shot every time people start whining and bitching whenever somebody even slightly criticizes Socionics and the great Jung.
"But but but... Socionics isn't meant to be objective or scientific or any of that mumbo jumbo!"
"But but but... that's not what Jung really meant...! You're misinterpreting Jung!"
Isn't this getting old?
Predictable.
Well it's very simple, I'll keep repeating myself until people get what I'm saying. I'll stop as soon as people get it. That's how you "predict" things.
So far I've made the concept simple enough for a third grader to understand using extremely simple words and sentences, but apparently not "Socionists".
Perhaps it's because they have a very retarded view of people being either "Ti-valuing" or "Te-valuing". However this worldview is incredibly retarded as you can tell, as the world isn't so neatly separated into such dichotomous categories, and also that there's no such thing as Te or even Ti.
So basically the theory self-destructs as none of this even make any sense, and once you start to get it you start to wonder: "How could I have believed in such a thing...?", as myself also used to believe in it, now came to the realization that the whole thing was nonsensical and it made no sense. And that the outside world was much bigger than the Socionics bubble that I was in.
Lol.
Even if they do get what you're saying, it doesn't follow that they'll agree.
You can repeat yourself all you want, but personality doesn't depend on the past predicting the future. Personality is a metaphysical concept; there's no absolute scientific terms for studying personality, unless you want to reduce what it means to be alive to an interaction between particles or the firing between neurons. Then with enough study you could predict almost everything, but it will mean essentially nothing to do so.
I'm just wondering if there is a medication for OCD.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
You cant prove that it doesnt workThat would make Socionics falsifiable though lol.
There are.
Nice @Number 9 large
Oh so basically ur argument is "it doesnt even make sense to me"wow
Veri scientificc
It made no sense AND the whole thing was nonsensical.
Then what is even the point of studying personalities?
Science is about describing reality in a metaphysical way. That is what a "scientific explanation" is. Which is what necessarily leads to future predictions.
Your error is in the assumption of the misconception of reductionism, which is something that I'm also critical of. While reductionism is something fashionable nowadays, it's not science.
You are also critical of Instrumentalism, which is something that I also am critical of.
So basically we're more in agreement than we're not. The problem is that Socionics IS an Instrumentalist theory.
Well I hope you realize that falsifiability is not the only criteria for proving something wrong. You can reject any theory without ever testing them on the ground that it's sheer nonsense. That's why most scientific theories don't even get to the phase of testing them, because they get rejected outright for being illogical, nonsensical, irrational, are contradictory, has bad explanations, etc.
So what I'm criticizing and rejecting is the methodology of Socionics - that is, Inductivism, Empiricism and Instrumentalism. They just don't work.
Anyway I can't help retardation. It's probably easier and takes less effort to explain this concept to non-Socionics folks.
Ok bye
I don't think normal people "study" personality. They just observe it. So the question is a bit loaded. And I don't consider myself normal, for the record.
Metaphysics includes opposing ways of viewing the world, such as a thing being the sum of all its parts or being all the parts of its sum, and involves questions of which one is more important or real and why. For exmaple, if someone is depressed a psychiatrist could prescribe medication based on scientific research. And a friend could recognize someone is depressed because of bad stuff going on in their lives and alleviate that instead. What the friend does isn't science, but it includes a metaphysical way of understanding their friend.Science is about describing reality in a metaphysical way. That is what a "scientific explanation" is. Which is what necessarily leads to future predictions.
So no science often doesn't deal with the metaphysical.
Reductionism works quite well if smaller parts make up a bigger whole, such as the quarks that make up neutrons. Quantum physicists would most likely disagree with you.Your error is in the assumption of the misconception of reductionism, which is something that I'm also critical of. While reductionism is something fashionable nowadays, it's not science.
I'm not sure if you're even applying Instrumentalism correctly here. Instrumentalists generally believe there are only relative ways of understanding reality. They don't necessarily have anything against the scientific method, but believe it sometimes has flaws as anything else and choose to go after what works for them instead, even if that means following the scientific method at certain times and not at other times or even using probabilities and statistical methods. So this isn't really about Instrumentalism, but your own frustration that Socionics isn't strictly science.You are also critical of Instrumentalism, which is something that I also am critical of.
So basically we're more in agreement than we're not. The problem is that Socionics IS an Instrumentalist theory.
Those are all questions of science. We just don't yet have a "Theory of Depression" or "Theory of Emotions" that can explain when or how does a person gets depressed, and why.
There are two approaches to science. One is scientific realism, and the other is scientific anti-realism.
Scientific realists would say that the metaphysical claims that we make about reality are real, even if we describe them imperfectly. They're more or less how reality really works. While scientific anti-realists would say that those questions are irrelevant, and we can never truly understand how reality works in the most fundamental sense, so trying to explain or understand it or make any metaphysical claims about reality would be pointless.
What the friend is doing is going by the "rules of thumb" approach, he has discovered a certain way of alleviating his friend's depression through trial-and-error, and from his previous experiences. But he doesn't have a systematic way of approaching depression, because he can't yet explain exactly how depression works, and how is a depression caused in people. Once he understands how depression works, then he longer have to go through the tedious method of learning through trial-and-error. He can apply this knowledge in a general way to all sorts of people, which would make the theory universal.
Reductionism is the belief that the most fundamental approach of explaining things is by reducing things to the smallest parts. For example, you would say that particle physics is the most reductionist aspect of reality, therefore explains things in the most fundamental way. But particle physics is totally inadequate in explaining why a person is depressed, because knowing the laws of the physics of particles don't at all explain why and how does a person gets depressed. It requires completely different layers of explanations in the higher levels in order to understand why a person gets depressed.
So the reductionist approach isn't necessarily the most fundamental approach in knowing reality.
Instrumentalism is the belief one should only use a theory as an "instrument" to predict events. It ignores the question of explaining the metaphysical aspect of reality as something totally irrelevant, or only to be used as a "useful fiction" that can help us predict things.
I'm sure most Socionists would admit that you don't need to know the "how's" and "why's" of Socionics. You can't explain why there are 16 types, why there are 8 functions, why there is ITR, and they would say that it doesn't matter, as long as we can observe them empirically and we can make successful predictions. That would make it an Instrumentalist theory.
So you're separating people into "pro-Socionics" and "anti-Socionics", and deciding which camps are right, but not discussing the ideas or the arguments.
Socionics is only a small part of a much bigger problem, which are the problems of Inductivism, Empiricism and Instrumentalism. Socionics is all of those things.
Last edited by Singu; 11-19-2018 at 03:11 AM.
Okay, let's forget definitions. Just simplify everything. Let's just say a human being is made up of many interconnecting parts, organs, cells, proteins, etc.
Does the whole of that person's parts mean something separate from the predictable science of their bodily functions?
Well again, that's just the error of reductionism. We don't reduce things into biology or neurons or atoms to explain our psychology. But it must mean that higher level explanations (emergent phenomena, like psychology) put restrictions on lower level explanations (low-level simplicity, like individual atoms). For example, it must be that the atoms in my body will move according to the laws of my psychology, where I decide for myself where to go, and why (or I have been influenced by my environment to move to a certain place). We can't invoke "laws of physics" to predict where the atoms in my body will go.
Don’t worry, I have faith that you’ll find a cure.
Okay. So you recognize emergent phenomena exist. Then do you expect it to be subject to science?
Cause intelligence is fluid and adaptable; there's no direct linear progression of before and after because it evolves, adapts, and changes with time and space. To me that sounds like an inherent contradiction to what science aims for, which is in your words, using the past to predict the future. Intelligence is perhaps antithetical to that or it wouldn't be intelligence, no?
No, that's what I'm against... using the past to predict the future is Inductivism.
I'm sure that when people have cracked the code for what makes intelligence, then that's when we have figured out what consciousness is. That's when we'd have a chance at developing a "strong AI".
But we don't have an answer for that, because nobody has figured it out yet.
Not sure I follow your train of thought... I don't think you can compare human cognition to other phenomena like the existance of gravity? And in your chicken example, that's also a faulty comparison because: 1) Chicken has no way of interacting with humans to understand him, but we can interact with humans and 2) chicken has no agency, whereas we have agency in most regular situations.
I have no idea what you're talking about, because, when it comes to human behavior, past past behaviour indeed a reliable indicator of future behavior. I know a lot of psychologists believe so anyway.
Human behavior depends on hundreds of factors, neural pathways, upbringing, genetics, environmental factors etc. More controlling elements = less freedom to change. Doing basic things is difficult for people. An obese person may know that he needs to change his lifestyle, but that being said, losing weight isn't easy isn't it?
Do you think it's fair to compare something so complex, so internally regulated to other phenomena that you have mentioned? Is asking "will an alcoholic drink today?" the same as asking, "Will objects fall to the earth because of gravity?" One is heavily regulated by several controlling elements while the other has only one.
Going further, deviations from the norm are expected in most research. If an alcoholic is totally drunk for 140 days, and doesn't drink on the 141st day, none of that implies he is a sober model citizen now. Think about that?
The point I'm trying to make is not that socionics is perfect or something, but that past behaviour is indeed a reliable indicator of future behaviour. Examples are all around you.
I'm not comparing cognition to gravity. The point is that you need an explanation in order to know what to calculate and predict the things that are affected by gravity. The same for cognition. You don't say, "Things fall because of gravity, but we don't know what that gravity is or what is causing it" in order to make calculations. What are you supposed to be calculating, then, if you're saying that you don't know what gravity is?
"Gravity" is just a name given to a kind of an explanation, which Newton defined as "attraction between objects", and which Einstein updated it by saying that it's the curvature of spacetime. Only then, we could start calculating the effects of gravity.
The chicken thing is an example, it's called an allegory or whatever that you want to call it. The point is that the chicken keeps expecting the same thing to happen based on his past patterns, but he didn't expect what actually happened in the future, which was that the farmer chopped off its head. But if he could explain the motivation of the farmer instead, then he would have correctly predicted what the farmer would do in the future.
I'm not saying that it's not reliable. But you don't know that it's reliable, either. Someone could easily and suddenly change his behavior in a way that you didn't expect. So you make a list of things that he has done in the past. But what if he does something that is not on the list? Then you can't do anything about it.
Yes, exactly, so how exactly are you supposed to know about human behavior by just making a list of past observations?
Last edited by Singu; 11-25-2018 at 04:23 PM.
Depending on your own intelligence vs that of the speaker or vs that of the listener, a variety of things can happen:
If you are a smarter than who you are talking to, the way you sound to those less smart when speaking naturally will sound irrelevant or unrelated to the topic.
If you are dumber than who you are talking to, you will sound slightly manic using lateral thinking that relies on obviously unexperienced, or unfounded concepts. This is unconscious. The mind switches into a higher brain state to attempt to compensate for the lower intelligence. Like over clocking a computer. Many words, little understanding. Smarter people say more with less ideas because their ideas are stronger and better networked.
If you are of the same kind of smart as your listeners, you'll form a pyramid shaped circle jerk where you rotate speaking the same idea you all have from different vantage points.
If you study the world outside of discursive thought, you usually like to demonstrate a skill which directly demonstrates what you have discovered outside the world of discursive thought. I consciously chose this path as a small child forever onwards.
This non-discursive world does not exist on the internet, so speakers need no reality outside of discursive thought, and thus no real ability other than orating a shared view point with the culture that has developed around that view point. Some people ritualistically stand at the centre of the view point as if they had something to do with developing it. Which is what happens in this community.
The favorite thing of people trapped in discursive thought is to say that previous thinkers thought wrong or less than was appropriate today.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote