DCNH rant, my own useful perspective

[Myst]

It obviously tries to derive things from observations.

Because where do you ever start from otherwise, pulling ideas out of your asshole?

What you are not getting is that just because one looks at observations it doesn't have to mean failing to take into account conditions for the observations, let alone the use of circular logic afterwards. There are many ways to analyse observations and many ways to investigate them in the context of explanations of already existing theories. And Socionics is no different here.

But you don't know what "Popperian" means or stands for.

Sure, I know, it means people who read a book from Popper and then follow it word by word.

Jk...

How did you inductively come up with a hypothesis?

You really think that the process of coming up with a hypothesis in science is strictly regulated? You can do whatever really as long as it results in a sensible hypothesis that's testable and makes sense in light of previous scientific understanding. Yes, you can utilize the evil induction too, you just have to eventually end up at a sensible hypothesis.

[Singu]

Because where do you ever start from otherwise, pulling ideas out of your asshole?

Well, yes. How else would you come up with something new? How else can you predict something that has never been observed before? I'm not saying that nothing starts with some kind of an observation or prior knowledge, but it all starts with a basic assumption. And we are all born with inborn expectations and innate abilities, such as ability to use languages or logic.

What you are not getting is that just because one looks at observations it doesn't have to mean failing to take into account conditions for the observations, let alone the use of circular logic afterwards. There are many ways to analyse observations and many ways to investigate them in the context of explanations of already existing theories. And Socionics is no different here.

It just means that the observation is going to be partial and biased. You first choose what to observe, even if unconsciously.

So how can you say, "there are 16 types of people, because that's what we have observed..."? Either this is partial, or you have expected to observe just 16 types of people. If that's not the case, then there's no reason or explanation for why the number should be 16 and not any other number.

It's also not enough to say that just because it has repeatedly happened in the past, it will also happen in the future. There's no guarantee that it will happen again in the future.

Sure, I know, it means people who read a book from Popper and then follow it word by word.

Jk...

Well how else can you understand Popper? And how do you know that I'm following it word for word...? JK.

You really think that the process of coming up with a hypothesis in science is strictly regulated? You can do whatever really as long as it results in a sensible hypothesis that's testable and makes sense in light of previous scientific understanding. Yes, you can utilize the evil induction too, you just have to eventually end up at a sensible hypothesis.

No, I don't think there's a single method to come up with a hypothesis. It's just that it's impossible to go from induction to a hypothesis. Because hypotheses, or explanations, are not "derived" from observations.

I mean see above, how are you supposed to come up with anything new with induction? And hypotheses ARE something new.

[Myst]

Well, yes. How else would you come up with something new? How else can you predict something that has never been observed before? I'm not saying that nothing starts with some kind of an observation or prior knowledge, but it all starts with a basic assumption. And we are all born with inborn expectations and innate abilities, such as ability to use languages or logic.

Lol well I definitely don't pull stuff out of my ass like that. I always use observations too. *And* not just observations, no.

It just means that the observation is going to be partial and biased. You first choose what to observe, even if unconsciously.

Sure, this is why then things have to be checked for carefully.

So how can you say, "there are 16 types of people, because that's what we have observed..."? Either this is partial, or you have expected to observe just 16 types of people. If that's not the case, then there's no reason or explanation for why the number should be 16 and not any other number.

Lol there is a reason, based on specified criteria you can split people in 16 groups. No it doesn't mean all individuals look the same stereotype within a group.

It's also not enough to say that just because it has repeatedly happened in the past, it will also happen in the future. There's no guarantee that it will happen again in the future.

You are getting trolly again. You are deliberately skipping the reasoning given to you several times already about how this is not what the Socionics model says.

Well how else can you understand Popper? And how do you know that I'm following it word for word...? JK.

I don't have to agree with all of it to understand it.

No, I don't think there's a single method to come up with a hypothesis. It's just that it's impossible to go from induction to a hypothesis. Because hypotheses, or explanations, are not "derived" from observations.

I mean see above, how are you supposed to come up with anything new with induction? And hypotheses ARE something new.

It's possible. Yes, you can come up with new stuff via induction. And no, it doesn't mean induction is to be used like in those silly unrealistic examples. And no, it doesn't mean you stay with inductive reasoning forever.

[Myst]

@Singu

If you are not going to directly respond to the reasoning I fleshed out earlier how Socionics model says more than "just because it has repeatedly happened in the past, it will also happen in the future", I will not respond to any of your stuff again, not until you do so. See ya.

(Being nice: if you need a link to these posts, just say so.)

[Soupman]

@Singu

If you are not going to directly respond to the reasoning I fleshed out earlier how Socionics model says more than "just because it has repeatedly happened in the past, it will also happen in the future", I will not respond to any of your stuff again, not until you do so. See ya.

(Being nice: if you need a link to these posts, just say so.)

Welcome to the accepting vs producing logic downside - it be ugly, when the initial blindspot is strong. This is your half-quasi-identity experience of the relations.

[Singu]

Lol well I definitely don't pull stuff out of my ass like that. I always use observations too. *And* not just observations, no.

Let's say a conjecture, then. All hypotheses are conjectures. They're rational, they're consistent, etc, yes. But still conjectures.

The obvious problem of basing a theory on observations, is that any kind of theory can fit the observation. There are going to be an infinite number of theories that can explain something that has already happened. So you will have to create a hypothesis first, and then test it.

Lol there is a reason, based on specified criteria you can split people in 16 groups. No it doesn't mean all individuals look the same stereotype within a group.

There's no *rational* reason that can withstand criticisms. For example, the Enneagram has 9 types. Why do we prefer 16 types over 9, other than what is basically "just because" or "it seems neat"? Enneagram's 9 types make just as much sense to prefer it over 16. Or why even 8 functions, and not any other number? Have we somehow looked into every possible kinds of human cognitions to know the total number?

You are getting trolly again. You are deliberately skipping the reasoning given to you several times already about how this is not what the Socionics model says.

If you tell me that ITR is not induction, then I have already explained the reason that it is.

How did Augusta come up with Model A? How did she come up with "dual seeking function", other than to say "we have observed that this person seeks this function"? Or how did she come up with "PoLR", other than to say "we have observed that this person painfully receives this function"?

There's nothing that says a certain positioning of a function on Model A should be PoLR or dual seeking or valued or unvalued, other than to arbitrarily say that it IS, which is essentially based on observations.

The Model A presupposes ITR, and Model A came AFTER the observation.

[Bertrand]

why are there 4 points on a compass

[The Reality Denialist]

**Wants to see inside of Singu's thought process when he/she does science**

[Singu]

**Wants to see inside of Singu's thought process when he/she does science**

Wants to see Troll Nr 007 being able to do science at all.

Nonetheless, the point is that Socionics is just observational data, and there's no interpretation of the data. As in, that's not science, that's just data.

For example, we might say that Troll Nr 007 is:

ILE

Holographic cognitive style (or whatever)

"Alpha"

Ti-C subtype

etc.

Whether you agree or disagree with this "typing" of him is besides the point. This is a "fact" about him (or so it says). Disagreement about his type means disagreement over the accuracy of data. Being a "good" typer means having more "pure" perception of data that is "more true to the fact".

None of this is an interpretation of the data, as in there is no explanation or an analysis of how or why is this such the case (which is the main aim of science). The only assumption being made here, is that things will stay the same as they are.

And that is why Socionics is not science. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the point is that Socionics is just data, statistics, observations at a particular time at a particular place at a particular circumstance. It doesn't necessarily mean that this data won't change over time, or that this data won't change depending on different circumstances.

Of course, the biggest controversy surrounding within Socionics, as in the arguments over the "accurate typings", is the disagreement over the accuracy of data. It's not disagreements over the interpretations of data.

[niffer]

**Wants to see inside of Singu's thought process when he/she does science**

“When.” Unfortunately (fortunately for us all) I don’t think you’ll ever get the chance to see this.

[Singu]

“When.” Unfortunately (fortunately for us all) I don’t think you’ll ever get the chance to see this.

Says someone who's into astrology, and can barely do any science.

[niffer]

Says someone who's into astrology, and can barely do any science.

Science is 2ez m8

You know it’s a bad idea to try to put other people down and act smarter than them when the intelligence level you have is self-evident right?

[The Reality Denialist]

Let's find out potassium concentration of this glass of milk.

Singu: How you can be sure that milk is homogeneous every moment when you take the sample even if you stir it? Is it actually milk? How about all the impurities from the glass? We never can not find the answer! Ah 5 samples and we found that there was a deviation! I knew it! It is futile! There is no answer! Besides there might be going on radio active decay of potassium when it comes to some isotopes. Fu.... fuuu..., fuuuu...., fuuuuu-...., f*ck! We can not say anything. Besides those 5 different methods we used that gave similar similar observable response are error prone.

[niffer]

Let's find out potassium concentration of this glass of milk.

Singu: How you can be sure that milk is homogeneous every moment when you take the sample even if you stir it? Is it actually milk? How about all the impurities from the glass? We never can not find the answer! Ah 5 samples and we found that there was a deviation! I knew it! It is futile! There is no answer! Besides there might be going on radio active decay of potassium when it comes to some isotopes. Fu.... fuuu..., fuuuu...., fuuuuu-...., f*ck! We can not say anything. Besides those 5 different methods we used that gave similar similar observable response are error prone.

Meanwhile it’s actually a glass of someone’s piss and he’s examining it after being told it’s milk, for the next 9 years

[Singu]

Science is 2ez m8

You know it’s a bad idea to try to put other people down and act smarter than them when the intelligence level you have is self-evident right?

Erm, all I can say is, speak for yourself. You're the one who put the other down first.

Let's find out potassium concentration of this glass of milk.

Singu: How you can be sure that milk is homogeneous every moment when you take the sample even if you stir it? Is it actually milk? How about all the impurities from the glass? We never can not find the answer! Ah 5 samples and we found that there was a deviation! I knew it! It is futile! There is no answer! Besides there might be going on radio active decay of potassium when it comes to some isotopes. Fu.... fuuu..., fuuuu...., fuuuuu-...., f*ck! We can not say anything. Besides those 5 different methods we used that gave similar similar observable response are error prone.

I don't see the point, and that's not at all what I was talking about. Yes, there could be some errors or deviation in the data. So? Don't just randomly say these "scientific-y" things to sound impressive.

I'm calling you out on it now, because it has been bugging me that you do this frequently, like you just randomly quote something scientific or mathematic to sound smart.

[niffer]

Erm, all I can say is, speak for yourself. You're the one who put other down first.



I don't see the point, and that's not at all what I was talking about. Yes, there could be some errors or deviation in the data. So? Don't just randomly say these "scientific-y" things to sound impressive.

I'm calling you out on it now, because it has been bugging me that you do this frequently, like you just randomly quote something scientific or mathematic to sound smart.

You’ve been putting down the entire forum tirelessly for months and months now calling the members foolish.

Meanwhile, the only person who actually cares this much about sounding smart is you.

Apparently since you’ve still been going, you haven’t even been able to be convincing to yourself yet.

[Singu]

+P = Sanguine
+J = Choleric
-P = Melancholic
-J = Phelgmatic

That is interpretation. All the Quadra values are also interpretation.

Those are all data, obviously. "Sanguine" is a description. It's not explaining or interpreting anything.

[Singu]

Wow, incidentally this paper talks about exactly what I'm talking about:

5. Obstacles to Bringing Jung into the Fold

In and out of academia, “Jung” has become a kind of brand name that can be stamped on a variety of products. Since Jung regarded himself as first and foremost a psychologist, it is ironic that his work is appreciated by psychologists least of all. For the “typical” psychologist, the above barriers to engaging with Jung’s work are compounded by bafflement about what he was doing exactly. Readers of Jung schooled in the humanities may recognize a hermeneutic approach in his interpretation of myths, ancient scripts, and patients’ fantasies and dreams. Traditionally trained academic psychologists are not attuned to such methods. It is not clear how Jung gets from observation to theory. His transition from observing recurrent motifs in clinical and mythological material to a full-blown theory of archetypes is too rapid. He seems to be reading into the material his own expectations about the structure and dynamics of the psyche. Jung’s hypotheses must be taken on faith. Believers see the evidence everywhere, and seem to understand the task of empirical research as a matter of compiling catalogues of instances. It is not the logic of scientific discovery.

Jung talked the talk but didn’t do the walk. For most psychologists, it is primarily the praxis of psychological inquiry that differentiates it from other disciplines that also investigate mind and behavior. To some psychologists, it is not just any methodology but specifically the hypothetico-deductive method that makes it a science. Not all psychologists adhere to it in practice; but historically that classic ideal has dominated the behavioral sciences. The hypothetico-deductive method had been proposed by William Whewell in the nineteenth century, though it was Popper who has given it its best-known articulation [38]. In the 1930s, Popper contested the then-prevalent viewpoint associated with logical positivism, which regarded inductive reasoning as the basis for scientific inquiries. Induction proceeds from an initial explanation of some observations to its confirmation by collecting further empirical examples. This epistemological sin can be found in Jung’s progression from (a) observing recurrent motifs in dreams, visions, myths, etc., through (b) theorizing those as archetypal manifestations, to (c) seeking to conform the existence of archetypes by observing more instances of the same.

http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/3/3/408/htm

[The Reality Denialist]

What are the Singu's qualification on actual science? I mean beyond mental masturbatory philosophy? Any hands on work? Is there any first hand experience?

Just to make it clear: you practically never hear usage of such words such as induction of a process [beyond electro magnetic induction or something similar] around hard sciences. This is of course more prevalent around subjects that try to sound more serious than they really are. Some just take those things as obvious.

Anyways, I have never claimed socioncs being a science. It operates too high level in respect of its target to be too exact in its structures.

[Singu]

Just to make it clear: you practically never hear usage of such words such as induction of a process [beyond electro magnetic induction or something similar] around hard sciences. This is of course more prevalent around subjects that try to sound more serious than they really are. Some just take those things as obvious.

Are seriously confusing the inductive method with a specific scientific terminology in a specific scientific field with a specific meaning?

Perhaps you never hear it, because it's never used in sciences.

[niffer]

Perhaps you never hear it, because it's never used in sciences.

That’s his point, dumbass.

[The Reality Denialist]

I know that you like to talk about scientific philosophy but it is mainly shit when it comes to real stuff. What are you going to accomplish with it... more than obscure criticism? Yeah, I just treat it as shit while you can to about it freely.


Well, people who actually practice real science very rarely go in there. It is usually just constructing stuff, finding the all the variables and eliminating interferences as much as you can. Finally there is no such thing as a perfect test/measurement. That is the sober basis.

[Singu]

That’s his point, dumbass.

Er no, I meant the inductive method is never used. You really don't know what I'm talking about.

I know that you like to talk about scientific philosophy but it is mainly shit when it comes to real stuff. What are you going to accomplish with it... more than obscure criticism? Yeah, I just treat it as shit while you can to about it freely.

Sure, that's what I thought too, until I looked into it. So why criticize something that you don't even understand?

Well, people who actually practice real science very rarely go in there. It is usually just constructing stuff, finding the all the variables and eliminating interferences as much as you can. Finally there is no such thing as a perfect test/measurement. That is the sober basis.

Well the funny thing is, people who do real science would know perfectly well what I'm talking about (like in the paper quoted above). So if you don't believe me and think that I'm just talking nonsense, then ask any scientist.

Also that method is mostly just statistical analysis.

[niffer]

Er no, I meant the inductive method is never used. You really don't know what I'm talking about.

If you never know when you’re wrong, you’ll also never know when you’re right.

[Singu]

statistical analysis is induction.

Statistics is just data, and like I said science is about interpreting data.

[Singu]

analyzing the data i.e. interpreting the data is inductive logic. You make an inference based on the data.

You don't interpret the data by analyzing statistics, you're just rearranging and summarizing the data to make it easier to manage and understand for your purpose. But it's still statistical data.

It would be easier to understand if I said "interpreting" as in explaining the data. Explaining why and how things happen.

[niffer]

Statistics is just data, and like I said science is about interpreting data.

Instead of circling around information like this and creepily peeping and jerking off from afar at what science is, why not just TRY DOING IT?

[Singu]

Instead of circling around information like this and creepily peeping and jerking off from afar at what science is, why not just TRY DOING IT?

I am doing science, we're all doing science. If you think that you'd have to be a scientist to understand what science is, then you'd be wrong.

I mean by that logic, we should all just shut up about Socionics or psychology because it's all just masturbation without "doing" anything.

[niffer]

I am doing science

With what?

[Singu]

With what?

Jesus, is your point "well you don't actually 'do' science as working a scientist, so you can't talk about it"? Obviously, most of us here aren't actual practicing scientists that do science as a day job. But that doesn't mean that we can't talk about it or understand it. You're just appealing to authority, and that's not what science is about. Science is for everyone, and it should be understood by all.

Anyway, forget about science and all that, you don't even know what I'm talking about, and you're criticizing things that you don't even understand. Try looking into induction, and why that doesn't work.

[niffer]

@Singu I’m not appealing to authority, I’m just saying that if you actually did SOMETHING with your knowledge instead of trying to preach to the choir about it (a lot of the people here do come from a science or similar academic background actually), you’d feel better about yourself with all of this and gain some real satisfaction, and hopefully shut up finally too.

[Myst]

@Singu I see you remained in write-only trolly mode. Not answering any of your stuff until you come out of it. And I don't know why the fuck you were still trying to explain all this crap to me after I told you I have done scientific research already, and blatantly ignoring the points I gave you in previous post(s). And most importantly, still ignoring the points I gave you earlier about why the Socionics model isn't just based on induction. Not any more than any actual scientific model. (However Socionics practice does often differ from scientific practice in bad ways. However, none of that is to do with this induction issue in the way you presented it for the model itself. Socionics can be still investigated in a scientific way.) Unfortunately yes, that makes the discussion unfruitful and on principle, I do not engage trolls. And I do recommend you talk to someone who actually does science daily so maybe you will be able to actually hear it when they explain where your understanding went wrong/is painfully incomplete.



A general note to people on here - Jung's cognitive model is not based on a hermeneutic approach, which he did utilize elsewhere. As for Jung's quick transition from observation to theory... Some scientists do the same, they are apparently very talented at pulling a new model out of thin air that's then up for testing by themselves and by peers, where the purpose is to promote new ideas to bring scientific research and eventually understanding further. (My thesis was based on the work of such a scientist, checking some ideas of theirs under certain different conditions.)

Anyways, I have never claimed socioncs being a science. It operates too high level in respect of its target to be too exact in its structures.

Oh yeah, that was always my point but I could not get it across to Singu.

Hell btw the accusation of you about wanting to just sound smart by randomly quoting scientific stuff is one of the funniest and clearest examples of projection on this forum.

I know that you like to talk about scientific philosophy but it is mainly shit when it comes to real stuff. What are you going to accomplish with it... more than obscure criticism? Yeah, I just treat it as shit while you can to about it freely.

I actually really like philosophy of science. That's the brand of philosophy I can deal with without getting upset over concepts not only not being anchored to reality in the right way but even going against how tangible reality is - philosophical ideas that do not violate that I can like sometimes though.

Jungian typology is pure theoretical logic in the same vain as abstract algebra or calculus.

Hmm to you maybe, but to me it's meant to describe and explain aspects of tangible reality so I expect it to be more than just mathematics. Actually, treating it as mathematics can easily go the wrong way (similar to my criticism of much of philosophy as below).

Welcome to the accepting vs producing logic downside - it be ugly, when the initial blindspot is strong. This is your half-quasi-identity experience of the relations.

I don't know what this gobbledy**** is supposed to mean and I frankly don't care, but afaik Singu is Activity type to me (IEI-LSI).

[Singu]

@Singu I’m not appealing to authority, I’m just saying that if you actually did SOMETHING with your knowledge instead of trying to preach to the choir about it (a lot of the people here do come from a science or similar academic background actually), you’d feel better about yourself with all of this and gain some real satisfaction, and hopefully shut up finally too.

Oh ok, so you are just trying to shut me up. Honestly, people will only try to make you shut up if you criticize Socionics, and that gets annoying. Quite frankly, I'm just learning all this for my personal curiosity, and it's actually kind of interesting.

@Singu I see you remained in write-only trolly mode. Not answering any of your stuff until you come out of it. And I don't know why the fuck you were still trying to explain all this crap to me after I told you I have done scientific research already, and blatantly ignoring the points I gave you in previous post(s).

Again, I'm not even trolling. Forget about "science" and all that. Just tell me how:

1) Socionics creates anything more than what is observed
2) What exactly is it that Socioniocs is theorizing or interpreting
3) How "types" are all not just about what you observe, and the assumption that observation will stay the same, which *is* induction.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not necessarily. It's just that most people tend to confuse Socionics as an explanatory model. Or that it's anything more than just limited observations. Or maybe even the whole thing is quite a bit of nonsense. And all they do is get "offended" if these things are merely pointed out. Do the folks working at Big Five get offended, if you say that Big Five is just statistics and data, just an observational model, because that's what it is?

Socionists have the thinnest skin. If you deny that, then which genuine criticism did Socionics accept lately, if ever at all?

And most importantly, still ignoring the points I gave you earlier about why the Socionics model isn't just based on induction. Not any more than any actual scientific model. (However Socionics practice does often differ from scientific practice in bad ways. However, none of that is to do with this induction issue in the way you presented it for the model itself. Socionics can be still investigated in a scientific way.)

If you don't believe me and think that I'm just talking nonsense, then read the paper that I've quoted. It explains perfectly well how Jung's approach (which is basically the same as Socionics' approach) is just induction, and how that's a problem.

It can be scientifically investigated as in the data can be scientifically investigated.

As for Jung's quick transition from observation to theory... Some scientists do the same, they are apparently very talented at pulling a new model out of thin air that's then up for testing by themselves and by peers

That's not the point, the author of that paper was criticizing the inductive approach of turning an observation into theory, and merely expecting the same observations to occur again, and then gathering more "evidence" that will support the same trend derived from the observation.

[niffer]

And I don't know why the fuck you were still trying to explain all this crap to me after I told you I have done scientific research already, and blatantly ignoring the points I gave you in previous post(s). And most importantly, still ignoring the points I gave you earlier about why the Socionics model isn't just based on induction. Not any more than any actual scientific model. (However Socionics practice does often differ from scientific practice in bad ways. However, none of that is to do with this induction issue in the way you presented it for the model itself. Socionics can be still investigated in a scientific way.) Unfortunately yes, that makes the discussion unfruitful and on principle, I do not engage trolls. And I do recommend you talk to someone who actually does science daily so maybe you will be able to actually hear it when they explain where your understanding went wrong/is painfully incomplete.

Singu.jpg

Myst, you should do some retardation research to help Dingu. It’s our last chance to save him.

[Singu]

Yet again, people, especially @niffer criticize what they don't even understand. Which is the problem of induction. They've never even looked into it or even know what it is.

I don't blame them too much I guess, because it is a rather difficult and counter-intuitive thing to understand. But for the people that do understand it... they understand perfectly well about what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately most people on this forum don't understand it. And you either understand it or you don't. It's that simple.

[niffer]

<_>

[Singu]

Have you done statistical work in the past? This is total bullshit. If all you are doing is summarizing data into pie charts than you are gonna get laughed at during your presentation. Your response is obvious mental masturbation.

I never said any of that, my point is that you're only turning data into another kind of data by doing statistical analysis. You're not interpreting the data in any kind of way. And if you tell me that assigning probabilities, percentages or correlations are an interpretation, then that's just induction. And I'm saying that Socionics *is* a kind of statistics, and not really anything more.

Perhaps it would be an interpretation if you could find the underlining *causes* for something, but then that would no longer become simply statistics. Statistics by definition is obviously *data*. You can't find causality by just comparing data, or even from the data alone. You're going to have to explain *how* something works. And that can't be done by statistics or doing statistical analysis.

So no you have no actual experience doing work. Get lost man. You are pathetic. No one here is falling for your lies.

I never said that I was a scientist, nor am I ever interested in becoming one. But that doesn't mean that I or anyone else can't talk about it or understand how it works. Could I be wrong about my understanding, yes, am I denigrating the need for doing hands-on scientific work, no. But that still doesn't explain how:

1) Socionics is not any more than its observations (and hence it can't make genuine predictions or see any genuine trends and regularities, as in causalities)
2) Socionics is not any more than its assumptions that its current observations will stay the same and we'll be seeing more of the same (and hence it's induction)

[golden]

I don’t get what ppl are on about re statistics. First you do the quantitative work, then you do the qualitative. (Yes, I have done that professionally.) What gives?

The information I like to see re personality is neuroscientific and to a lesser extent genetic. I am not too interested in how much more can be done with observation and self-report from the social science perspective, though that’s a good place to begin. Round here when you get to the point of subtheory of a theory, my skepticism boils v high.

[The Reality Denialist]

I actually really like philosophy of science. That's the brand of philosophy I can deal with without getting upset over concepts not only not being anchored to reality in the right way but even going against how tangible reality is - philosophical ideas that do not violate that I can like sometimes though..

I think it has some value when you are moving towards social sciences. It is just funny that my first introduction to it was in pedagogical text. I think great part of it gets lost in most people if it is not applied real context but then there also has to be som background knowledge when people are evaluating information.

[Myst]

Again, I'm not even trolling.

Then go back, read all my posts where I addressed your questions you listed in your post here. Because I am not going to repeat myself.

And all they do is get "offended" if these things are merely pointed out. Do the folks working at Big Five get offended, if you say that Big Five is just statistics and data, just an observational model, because that's what it is?

Socionists have the thinnest skin. If you deny that, then which genuine criticism did Socionics accept lately, if ever at all?

You are being too emotional in assuming explanations for reactions here. Furthermore, not every "Socionist" is the exact same person with the exact same way of thinking about Socionics etc. You are committing some logical fallacy here, maybe a logical error resulting from use of induction? That is... you saw an upset "Socionist", then you saw another, then you saw another and then you jumped to the conclusion that all of them have a very "thin skin". Without even investigating what it is that seemed upset-ness and why they reacted that way and so on, let alone investigating what they actually thought and explained to you. So yeah evil induction done without considering any relevant conditions for what was observed.

If you don't believe me and think that I'm just talking nonsense

It's not about "believing you". It's about what makes logical sense.

then read the paper that I've quoted. It explains perfectly well how Jung's approach (which is basically the same as Socionics' approach) is just induction, and how that's a problem.

If the paper said it's just induction, the paper was wrong.

That's not the point, the author of that paper was criticizing the inductive approach of turning an observation into theory, and merely expecting the same observations to occur again, and then gathering more "evidence" that will support the same trend derived from the observation.

Yes the point is very much about how Jung did create theories beyond expecting the same to occur again without considering anything for why the phenomena are even occurring.


PS: You seem to have a very heavy Ni bias/leaning towards observing and explaining things. Ni has the perception function about observing x->y repeating and feeling out predictions based on that. I certainly do not think in this way myself. I prefer to rely on deductive logic instead of perceiving events in that x->y repeating fashion.