PDA

View Full Version : Mode of Inference - how do you interpret raw data?



Nexus
06-10-2008, 04:55 PM
Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do?


http://www.socionics.com/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stick.gif http://www.socionics.com/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/poke.gif

FDG
06-10-2008, 05:29 PM
Testicular - my head is my penis

Nexus
06-10-2008, 05:44 PM
Testicular - my head is my penis
Haha that was really funny, wait.....................penis! rofl! http://smilelist.aspweb.cz/pict/muhaha2.gif

http://smilelist.aspweb.cz/pict/fight4.gif

strrrng
06-10-2008, 05:59 PM
I don't like the question.

Nexus
06-10-2008, 06:06 PM
I don't like the question.

The question wasn't 'do you like the question?'

What question do you like?

Ms. Kensington
06-10-2008, 06:12 PM
i dont really like it either, it sounds like everyone will use raw data to come to decisions. Raw data sounds like statistics. that's the impression i get.

Nexus
06-10-2008, 06:16 PM
i dont really like it either, it sounds like everyone will use raw data to come to decisions. Raw data sounds like statistics. that's the impression i get.

Your entire consciousness is raw data. Statistical analysis is one method you might rely on and there are three statistical ideologies listed above from which to choose (frequentist, bayesian, and stochastic).

strrrng
06-10-2008, 06:25 PM
lol

FDG
06-10-2008, 06:27 PM
lol

motor synopsis?

Raw meat!

strrrng
06-10-2008, 06:29 PM
motor synopsis?

Raw meat!

how could I forget?

MOTOR SPEED

Ms. Kensington
06-10-2008, 06:45 PM
Your entire consciousness is raw data. Statistical analysis is one method you might rely on and there are three statistical ideologies listed above from which to choose (frequentist, bayesian, and stochastic).

but i thought the question was how other people see raw data

there was sarcasm there. i'm saying there's one reason to not like how the question is framed. Currently it doesn't allow for someone who doesn't see their conscious perception as data to answer

Nexus
06-10-2008, 07:11 PM
but i thought the question was how other people see raw data

there was sarcasm there. i'm saying there's one reason to not like how the question is framed. Currently it doesn't allow for someone who doesn't see their conscious perception as data to answer

Since you are so worried about contradicting your own personal definitions allow me to suggest that you are Nomothetic. However, if you cannot recognize consciousness as raw data because it has never been so before you are Frequentist; if you think there are other reasons which might prevent you from recognizing consciousness as raw data you are Bayesian; if you prefer to check how often consciousness and raw data overlap you are Stochastic; if you think that consciousness is not raw data because it is the byproduct of processing raw data you are Ætiological; if you think that consciousness will result every time raw data is processed you are Fatalist; if you do not recognize that consciousness is raw data because you think that they are really both just illusions you are Solipsist; if you are still skeptical that conscious qualia can be truly considered as raw data you might be Pyrrhonian; if you are still not sure what to choose then choose Inconclusive.

FDG
06-10-2008, 07:42 PM
How come my proposal for a disnjuct set of interpretative means has been discarded with such velocity?

Nexus
06-10-2008, 07:44 PM
How come my proposal for a disnjuct set of interpretative means has been discarded with such velocity?

What is 'disnjuct'?

FDG
06-10-2008, 07:52 PM
What is 'disnjuct'?

typo, i meant "disjunct"

Nexus
06-10-2008, 07:58 PM
typo, i meant "disjunct"

My interpretative means came with definitions, are accredited forms of epistemological justification, and are not meant to be mutually exclusive (otherwise I would have used the single-choice method...also, if you are referring to your first post then that is not a set; it is a single option). Assuming that you have more imaginative verifiers I feel I must encourage you to begin your own thread.

Nexus
06-10-2008, 10:59 PM
I would also like to thank everyone that is actually voting for doing so.

FDG
06-11-2008, 06:23 AM
Btw, I choose "frequentist" and "stochastic"; I think they tend to be indissoluble given that the frequentist interpretation is the 2-d for of the stochastic interpretation.

FDG
06-11-2008, 08:57 AM
huh? if you model the probability of an individual decision over time with brownian motion, you've just created a bayesian stochastic process. and frequentism is typically defined to exclude Bayesian inference. however there may be frequentist stochastics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if at t=1 I take an instantaneous picture of the probability distribution of the events that occurred in the interval between t0 and t1, repeat the process n times, then try to infer what will occur n+1 times, am I not using the two approaches togheter? Although at lim t(0)-t(1)=0, it could be said that the approach becomes purely stochastic, maybe

Nexus
06-11-2008, 01:18 PM
You can be stochastic and frequentist or stochastic and bayesian, but not bayesian and frequentist. However, if you decide to select both I can interpret this as a preference for statistical methods without a rational/empirical bias.

munenori2
06-11-2008, 05:17 PM
Argh

You're killing me, smalls.

Also I didn't realize it was a multi-choice poll (what category does that go under?) but I might have also picked stochastic. Honestly though I don't get this stuff at all.

FDG
06-11-2008, 05:44 PM
Honestly though I don't get this stuff at all.

THATZ CUZ UR TOO STUPID AND U SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY THE MIGHTY JEW

Nexus
06-11-2008, 05:53 PM
THATZ CUZ UR TOO STUPID AND U SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY THE MIGHTY JEW

http://smilelist.aspweb.cz/pict/stupid2.gif

Better yet let's listen to what your testicles have to say about your penis.


!

munenori2
06-11-2008, 06:15 PM
THATZ CUZ UR TOO STUPID AND U SHOULD BE TAUGHT BY THE MIGHTY JEW

LOL

Where the Jewish duals at, yo?

Subteigh
06-12-2008, 01:02 AM
I suppose to begin with, I have a Pyrrhonian approach. This isn't practical, however, which means I also fit into the Inconclusive category.

I think I use the Bayesian approach by giving different weightings to different things - even considerations which are seemingly complete nonsense should be considered. If there are multiple factors, I consider the impact of each factor if that factor was true. If it is non-existent ot insignificant, it can be ignored, or at least reduced to a secondary factor. This is related to the Etiological approach, I guess.

The Nomothetic approach is good for making rules of thumb and quickly making something of use - the understanding of how precisely everything works comes later. The Stochastic approach I use all the time to avoid getting killed.

Nexus
06-12-2008, 01:20 AM
I suppose to begin with, I have a Pyrrhonian approach. This isn't practical, however, which means I also fit into the Inconclusive category.

I think I use the Bayesian approach by giving different weightings to different things - even considerations which are seemingly complete nonsense should be considered. If there are multiple factors, I consider the impact of each factor if that factor was true. If it is non-existent ot insignificant, it can be ignored, or at least reduced to a secondary factor. This is related to the Etiological approach, I guess.

The Nomothetic approach is good for making rules of thumb and quickly making something of use - the understanding of how precisely everything works comes later. The Stochastic approach I use all the time to avoid getting killed.

You can also use frequentist methods to weight things, but you must use empirical weightings (fanatical frequentists might be opposed to this, but since experimental conditions are never perfectly replicated anyway some guesswork is required).

Nexus
06-13-2008, 03:48 PM
http://nexus404.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/geek-emoticon-smiley-designer-cushion.jpg

Common methods of justifying novel premises epistemologically tend to favor one of two ideologies:
Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances
Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativityThese are the two ideological premises from which the six poll methods (with the exception of inconclusive) can be derived: Ætiological, Nomothetic, and Solipsist arguments can be seen primarily as assertions of determinism, whereas Bayesian, Frequentist, and Pyrrhonian frames of reference always adhere to a statistical approach. There is also another undercurrent running in this poll: Frequentist and Ætiological justifications tend to employ an exclusively empirical underpinning; Nomothetic and Bayesian inferences depend heavily on a priori convictions (solipsism is also usually defended using the a priori because a posteriori attempts at verification are not widely credited; Pyrrhonism may seem like an analytic proposition at first but it actually only indoctrinates an inductive negation of premises, including the self-negation of any premise that might eventually support a rationalist Pyrrhonian criterion, and so is actually an [anti-] empirical enterprise - I have taken great pains to clarify this in the past; you can hear my detailed arguments here (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=374168#post374168)). I think it would be interesting to see if statistical empirical methods are favored by sensing irrational temperaments and deterministic rational frameworks by rational intuitive types (or the opposite in a subconscious response to the limitations of the dominant form of information metabolism)...

crazedrat
06-16-2008, 05:53 AM
I had to choose five of them, and I almost had to choose 6. How many did other people choose

Nexus
06-17-2008, 09:11 PM
I haven't taken the poll yet. I don't really understand much of this, so I'm not sure if my answers would be accurate.


It seems the best fits are:

Pyrrhonian
It is in my nature to question. If it is worth investigating, then I might say "I don't know". If it is not worth investigating then I might say "I doubt it". I don't tend to doubt.

Nomothetic
I tend to put emphasis on expertise (sources) rather than knowledge (bases). My particular area of expertise is in diagnostics and facilitation. My immediate awareness is of my perspective and my problem (i.e. the particular kind of solution that is needed), so most of my efforts are directed at gathering relevant empirical data.

I would describe my methods of investigation as predominately "exploratory". The tendency is towards "abstraction" (translating empirical evidence into concepts) and "generalization" (arranging material so that it focuses on structures/invariances). The latter tendency is what I would refer to as a nomothetic approach.

Pyrrhonists never stop doubting; they employ a very extreme form of skepticism, so if you ever come to definite conclusions you are probably not one of them. Nomothetical ideologies are abstract taxonomies that are arranged a priori mainly for inductive use (and also deductive use, indirectly). Once you have gathered the data, do you separate the elements by what they are generally expected to do independently or do you combine some of them under the conditions in question to see if you can get a holistic, synergistic manifestation? I agree that for determinism, nomothetic approaches tend to favor generalization and abstraction. If this description elucidates your position then feel free to vote (Thanks in advance for your contribution!).

implied
06-17-2008, 09:16 PM
i'm pretty sure i'm a pyrrhonist but i'm not certain.

Nexus
06-17-2008, 09:24 PM
i'm pretty sure i'm a pyrrhonist but i'm not certain.

lol

Mr Saturn
06-17-2008, 10:32 PM
Solipsist, until I discover more.

It gives me complete power over everything in my life.

Nexus
06-17-2008, 10:35 PM
Solipsist, until I discover more.

It gives me complete power over everything in my life.

I tend to feel that way as well, especially when I want to clear my mind...

Mr Saturn
06-17-2008, 10:39 PM
I tend to feel that way as well, especially when I want to clear my mind...

Yeah, exactly.

I find at the cost of egoism you gain so much.

Nexus
06-17-2008, 11:00 PM
Yeah, exactly.

I find at the cost of egoism you gain so much.

I concur...why would anyone deny that they are responsible for their own concept of reality?

Mr Saturn
06-18-2008, 08:18 AM
I concur...why would anyone deny that they are responsible for their own concept of reality?

Bingo.

However it contradicts one of my cinema philosophy I am working on - that films themselves are a thinking mind.

Nexus
06-19-2008, 02:28 AM
A definite conclusion seems inevitable. :)

The question I had largely revolved around the concept of "doubt". Ask me what I feel at any given moment and I inevitably express uncertainty regarding sensory experiences. If by "doubt" you mean feelings of uncertainty, then it is a good fit with regards to what is apparent to my senses (i.e. "reality"). But for me, the concept of "doubt" carries connotations of distrust. And trust is simply not relevant in my world.

I think holistic and synergistic. The analysis is generally in terms of flow and flow equilibrium. What I am immediately aware of are fluctuations in the flow. These fluctuations are the primary data. And the objective is to minimize them.

Well if you are certain that you have feelings of uncertainty (or distrust), then you are definitely not Pyrrhonist. Pyrrhonists are never certain of things like that. Because you are referring to discrepancies that are abstract and passively determined, your second statement seems like it would depend mostly on Nomothetic arguments.

Nexus
06-20-2008, 03:45 PM
:8*

From "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" by Sextus Empiricus, translated by R.G. Bury:

The Skeptic Way is a disposition to oppose phenomena [things perceived] and noumena [things reasoned or assumed] to one other in any way whatever, with the result that owing to the equipollence [balancing of arguments] among the things and statements thus opposed, we are brought first to epoche [suspension of judgment] and then to ataraxia [freedom from worry] - Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 1:9, translated by Mates 1996

;)

Nexus
06-23-2008, 02:05 AM
OK. But what's the relevance?

I don't see this as requiring that I not have certain feelings about my feelings to qualify.

In the translations below, the items in bold highlight differences in interpretation. I would respond differently to each. In the first I would say it fits well. In the second I would say it fits given that I would treat both as equally irrelevant. So it still comes down to what you or your source mean.


Anyhow, after going through several books and sitting down with a dictionary I started an outline. Please keep in mind that I am not a philosopher. But I did find it an interesting exercise.

*Perception is to potentiality as actuality is to certainty.
*I am focused on potentiality. If there is no reason to assume it should not be true, then I have no problems assuming it is.
*If it cannot be observed directly in such a way as to preclude alternative interpretations, then I tend to be skeptical (skeptikos: inquiring, reflective)
*I live in a phenomenological world. It is not subject to interpretation.





1:4 (Bury Translation)


1:4 (Patrick Translation)

As you said you are not a philosopher, but if you are going to be a skeptic I suggest that you not rely on dictionary definitions (I would be skeptical of them). According to the tenet of Equipollence, the notion that you are not certain that you are uncertain should be given equal weight to the notion that you are certain that you are uncertain.

Nexus
06-24-2008, 01:15 AM
I have no desire to be anything, skeptic or otherwise. I specified the conditions under which I am likely to express skepticism.

Words are symbols. They have no inherent meaning. The dictionary was just a sampling of common usage among philosophers. It was a tool to facilitate communication, nothing else. I can't even begin to imagine how skepticism is even remotely relevant.

By focusing on Aristotle's "potentiality" rather than my "uncertainty" I had hoped to clarify my meaning and thus circumvent this nonsense:



Sextus at least grants me my feelings. Someone asks how I feel. I express feeling uncertain. The question of whether or not I actually feel uncertain is irrelevant.

But this is your poll. You can define your terms anyway you want. If "Pyrrhonian" requires that I question my feelings, then I am obviously not what you would call a "Pyrrhonian".

What could I even hope to gain from this line of inquiry? The result would be feelings about my feelings, which would be subject to questioning. The result would be feelings about my feelings about my feelings, which would be subject to questioning. And so on.

Ruling out "Pyrrhonian" leaves me with no viable alternative, since the "nomothetic" relies almost exclusively on speculation regarding subconscious processes.


Back to this:


With regards to "phenomena" (things perceived), if it cannot be observed directly in such a way as to preclude alternative interpretations, then I tend to investigate. If it is not worth investigating, then I tend to doubt.

With regards to "noumena" (things assumed), if there is no reason to assume it should not be true then I assume it is.

Whether or not this satisfies the means ("equipollence") or the ends ("epoche" and "ataraxia"), I donít know. It's your poll. Your criteria are what matters. My issue revolved largely around "doubt", which I would not consider a legitimate form of skepticism since it makes no effort to resolve the questions it presents.

Thank you for attempting to preserve the legitimacy of the poll, even if you do not feel bound by its terms.

Stormy
07-11-2008, 01:30 PM
Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances.

That's determinism - fatalism is the belief that certain events in the future will happen regardless of what occurs in the present.

Nexus
07-11-2008, 05:07 PM
That's determinism - fatalism is the belief that certain events in the future will happen regardless of what occurs in the present.

Yes, but for reasons that are certain and not probabilistic.

Stormy
07-11-2008, 06:47 PM
Yes, but for reasons that are certain and not probabilistic.

In any case, fatalism makes no comment on whether the future can be deduced from the present - it merely states that some things will happen whatever, regardless of whether we know what those things are or not.

Nexus
07-12-2008, 04:04 PM
In any case, fatalism makes no comment on whether the future can be deduced from the present - it merely states that some things will happen whatever, regardless of whether we know what those things are or not.

Thus it is the natural conclusion of determinism. If it could not be deduced from the present it would not be fated to happen then as inferred now; otherwise it would occur only at that time with no precursor indication, possibly even by a sudden probabilistic shift.

Stormy
07-12-2008, 06:32 PM
If it could not be deduced from the present it would not be fated to happen then as inferred now...

Depends on the nature of fate - if a supernatural, a thing certainly could be fated without being deducible from the present.

Nexus
07-12-2008, 10:29 PM
Depends on the nature of fate - if a supernatural, a thing certainly could be fated without being deducible from the present.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that only natural phenomena are being considered.

Nexus
07-28-2008, 05:37 AM
I have been thinking a lot about accommodating epistemology in socionics - perhaps the Pyrrhonian ideological suspension of judgment known as Epoché is common to irrationals and actually serves to bias their information metabolism and promote an inclination to perceiving lifestyles?

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc83/TAZMANJD/EVIL%20STUFF/evil-smiley-face.jpg

Nexus
09-14-2008, 03:24 AM
Dichotomies in Socionics and Philosophy

The close connection and parallelism of the basic socionic concepts - the theory of mental information metabolism - with a series of philosophical categories and systems is demonstrated. The use of quadruple socionic system of knowledge structuring, which covers all the information aspects, allows to expand and to complete many of these philosophical knowledge systems. The process of evolution of ideas in philosophy from antiquity up to the present days is considered from socionic positions.
http://www.thelolfamily.com/images/emoticons/Em_DjLol_DevilLaugh_140.gif

Nexus
09-22-2008, 11:42 PM
I have done it! I have broken the link!

My model for epistemological inference corresponds exactly to Gulenko's 'Thought Styles'!

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12939 (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12939)

Cause-Effect (analytical/positive/deductive) => Ætiologic
Holographic (analytical/negative/inductive) => Nomothetic
Synergistic (synthetic/positive/inductive) => Bayesian
Dialectic (synthetic/negative/deductive) => Frequentist

Bayesian methods combine probabilities a priori:

Synergistic - The behavior of this flow cannot be predicted. At its basis lies [ispytatelnost] - advance to the purpose through the tests and the errors. It it is possible to in a sense compare with the experiment in the laboratory, which is the brain of man. Synergists do not confuse temporary failures and current errors. They undertake attempt after the attempt, until success finally comes to them.

Nomothetic taxonomies implement inductive categorization systems:

Holographic - Code name of this intellectual style - holographic, or [polnoopisatelnoe] thinking. Term originates from the Ancient Greek words of holos - entire, whole and grapho - I write. As the base of this designation served the capability of holographers for the very tight packing of information according to the method “similar in similar”.

Ætiology is the deductive analysis of cause and effect.

Cause-effect - Cause-effect intellect is known under the synonymous names formal logical, or deterministic thinking. In both cases its rigid nature is emphasized. Speech during this thinking takes shape with the aid of the bonds (unions of reason) “since”, “because”, “consequently”. Mental process itself consists in the construction of the chains of cause and effect. They reduce the explanation to the indication of generating reason.

Frequentism only accepts probabilities a posteriori:

Dialectic - The quantum- probabilistic picture of peace, manufactured by nonclassical physics, corresponds to dialectical thinking. According to this paradigm, there are no rigid laws, are only tendencies probabilities. Absolutizing dynamic pole, it entertained idea itself that “into one river it cannot be entered twice”, because to entering second time flow already other waters.

*thanks again to jxrtes for giving me the link

Nexus
09-26-2008, 12:15 AM
Update:

Correlation of Inferential Patterns to Rings of Supervision

ENTphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ENTp) > ISTjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ISTj) > ESFphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ESFp) > INFjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?INFj) >
Ætiological study is deductive because it is supported with the logical relation of pre-existing counterfactual claims. It is analytic because the claims are defined a priori and assessed mechanically allowing no room for ambiguity and thus it cannot be negated. The application may involve the induction of empirical conditions relevant to the premises and conclusion, but the relation itself is still deduced and does not require induction. It is positivist because it can be formulated a priori, it does not need working examples to support the validity of cause and effect.

INTjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?INTj) > ENFphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ENFp) > ISFjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ISFj) > ESTphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ESTp) >
Nomothetic classification is inductive because it represents the induction of empirical discoveries into definitive categories. It is analytic because the classes are separated using arbitrarily distinguishable threshholds that cannot be refuted in themselves. Applications require inductions of empirical specimens to support most significant distinctions between classes, however deductive analysis is not necessary as the premises of distinction will suffice for categorization. It is negativist because it cannot be formulated a priori, it needs classified examples to have any relevance as a system of order.

ISFphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ISFp) > ENFjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ENFj) > INTphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?INTp) > ESTjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ESTj) >
Frequency probability is deductive because it applies to unambiguous syllogistic relations between possibilities that are exactly defined. It is synthetic because it predicts synthetic correlations that may or may not be disproved a posteriori. It is negativist because it cannot be formulated a priori, only a posteriori probabilities are accepted.

ESFjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ESFj) > ISTphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ISTp) > ENTjhttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?ENTj) > INFphttp://www.socionics.com/rel/common/graph/q-mark.gif (http://www.socionics.com/main/disambiguation.html?INFp) >
Bayesian inference is inductive because it refers to the degree of belief in a subjectively defined possibility that is inducted rather than axiomized. It is synthetic because it predicts synthetic correlations that may or may not be disproved a posteriori. It is positivist because stochastic predictions can be made with regard to conditions that only exist a priori.

*thanks to RSV3 for clarifying induction and deduction in the thought patterns of INTp and INTj

BandD
10-01-2008, 01:28 AM
I think Frequentist or Fatalist are the best to use.

Nexus
10-01-2008, 02:03 PM
Deduction
(Process)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
Autocratic Rationals - Top-Down Judgment
Democratic Irrationals - Bottom-Up Perception
N>T>S - Abstract Conjunctions have Logical Justification
S>F>N - Concrete Phenomena require Emotional Clarity

Induction
(Result)
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Democratic Rationals - Bottom-Up Judgment
Autocratic Irrationals - Top-Down Perception
S>T>N - Concrete Phenomena have Logical Justification
N>F>S - Abstract Conjunctions require Emotional Clarity

Analysis
(Static)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
Introverted Rationals - Judgment @ Top
Extroverted Irrationals - Perception @ Bottom
Specifically Exclusive Conceptualization (Pe) decided
Internally (Ji) by Determination of Unchanging Relations

Synthesis
(Dynamic)
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Extroverted Rationals - Judgment @ Bottom
Introverted Irrationals - Perception @ Top
Holistically Inclusive Representation (Pi) decided
Externally (Je) by Probability of Unrelated Changes

Reliabilism
(Optimist)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Introverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Top
Extroverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Bottom
Information Metabolism is Augmented by Reactants,
which are used to Supplement and Reinforce the operation

Skepticism
(Pessimist)
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
Extroverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Bottom
Introverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Top
Information Metabolism is Diminished by Products,
which are used to Evaluate and Criticize the operation

Nexus
10-01-2008, 03:14 PM
ILE/SEE (∆)
Deterministic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception
Static: Positivist: Extroverted: Democratic: Process

LII/ESI (N)
Deterministic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment
Static: Negativist: Introverted: Democratic: Result

SEI/ILI (F)
Probabilistic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception
Dynamic: Negativist: Introverted: Democratic: Process

ESE/LIE (B)
Probabilistic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment
Dynamic: Positivist: Extroverted: Democratic: Result

LSI/EII (∆)
Deterministic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Judgment
Static: Positivist: Introverted: Autocratic: Process

SLE/IEE (N)
Deterministic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Perception
Static: Negativist: Extroverted: Autocratic: Result

EIE/LSE (F)
Probabilistic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Judgment
Dynamic: Negativist: Extroverted: Autocratic: Process

IEI/SLI (B)
Probabilistic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Perception
Dynamic: Positivist: Introverted: Autocratic: Result

Jarno
11-17-2008, 10:45 PM
Frequentist

I hate reasoning as a way of explaining things and I love experiments and observations.

Brilliand
01-09-2009, 07:56 AM
Nicely done! This also makes some missing pieces obvious:
-We still need some way of separating the superego pairs. In Gulenko's work, that seemed impossible; now it doesn't.
-What is it about democratic and aristocratic that makes them bottom-up and top-down, respectively? The same question goes for extrovert->bottom and introvert->top. The same answer will likely apply to both.

As for the relationships:
-Negativist duals with positivist because the negativist needs material, while the positivist needs information tested (not necessarily empirically; finding gaps also applies).
-Analytic duals with synthetic because observations must be categorized, and categories require content

Need two more dichotomies for the relationships for a complete explanation.

Holon
09-30-2014, 09:12 PM
Bump. Really awesome thread :thumbsup:

Tentatively Bayesian-Pyrrhonian and contextually etiological when dealing with psychological and sociological domains, but I'd be a shitty pyrrhonian if I conclusively voted.

Amber
09-30-2014, 09:17 PM
Nomoethic, Stochastic, sometimes Fatalist (seldom - only when chaos reigns)

Does this make me LIE or LII/LSI?