usefulness of socionics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

*chuckles* Thanks =D Your astronomy book had logic in it?

Also, for me at least It's fairly difficult to translate my thoughts into pictures because I don't think in pictures so when I try to write things like that post I kinda have to try to make it up as I go along and then go back and edit it until it makes sense with the concepts and ideas that I'm already thinking about and it ends up being very verbose because it takes so many words to paint the picture correctly. I do know of people who do think in pictures though, one of my roommates/best friends is one and he's pretty awesome, actually it might explain why he is the best physical comedy actor I know.

---

I also don't think in pictures but then sometimes visualizing some logic suddenly helps a lot. so I like it when others try to describe stuff in this way :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Which was a greater waste of time: this thread, or my response to it?

*ponders*

It's like a group of people inherited a huge house, and instead of sharing its many spacious rooms they instead decided to fuss and pine over who gets a small closet in the utility room.

---

You should ask why he/she even considered something to be a waste of time; what a judgement call, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

Ya it was kind of surprising, the sub-section was called "Logic and Science". It tells moi that there are 2 types of logical arguments - deductive and inductive.

Deductive: Premise: 1) All planets orbit the Sun in ellipses with the Sun at one focus 2) Earth is a planet. Conclusion: Earth orbits sun as ellipse with sun at one focus
Inductive: Premise:1) Birds fly up into the air but eventually come back down 2) Rocks thrown in air comes back down 3) Ball thrown in air comes back down. Conclusion: What goes up must come down

I was very captivated by this section, even though i was suppose to cram for exam

---

OH yeah dude, that stuff is so amazing! You should really try to get into a logic 101 class, it's so much fun! I mean I know a lot of people who would say I'm an idiot for saying this but I don't care, logic is fucking cool. You should look up logical fallacies, those were some of my favorite bits. Fuck it I'll do it. It's this link.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

if it works so accurately, then why am I typed ILE by people through VI and other means, yet not care to seek physical comfort, thus SEI doesn't work out as my dual? explain this contradiction.

also, why do you fall into the assumption that I first met socionics stuff on this forum? for your information, I didn't.

another thing; certain function definitions differ a lot between jung, mbti, socionics.

---

mbti functions don't count. they use another formula to convert from dichotomies to functions. the wrong formula. so you get crazy shit that doesn't make sense. Socionics is most accurate.

You can't feel your functions, the dual seeking function is called like this because 'it lights up', so to say, when you are with your dual at close psychological distance.

For the rest it's impossible to notice this function as being part of you. people who say they can, are talking out of their ass. The first 2 functions (ego block) and the 4 dichotomies can be observed in others and somewhat yourself. The other functions are hard or impossible to observe, but you can deduct them by looking how your relationships go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

mbti functions don't count. they use another formula to convert from dichotomies to functions. the wrong formula. so you get crazy shit that doesn't make sense. Socionics is most accurate.

You can't feel your functions, the dual seeking function is called like this because 'it lights up', so to say, when you are with your dual at close psychological distance.

For the rest it's impossible to notice this function as being part of you. people who say they can, are talking out of their ass. The first 2 functions (ego block) and the 4 dichotomies can be observed in others and somewhat yourself. The other functions are hard or impossible to observe, but you can deduct them by looking how your relationships go.

---

thanks, this does make some sense.

just one thing; what 4 dichotomies are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWC3

OH yeah dude, that stuff is so amazing! You should really try to get into a logic 101 class, it's so much fun! I mean I know a lot of people who would say I'm an idiot for saying this but I don't care, logic is fucking cool. You should look up logical fallacies, those were some of my favorite bits. Fuck it I'll do it. It's this link.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

---

Why thankyou! I will definitely take a look at this in the future and abuse it mwuhaha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

Why thankyou! I will definitely take a look at this in the future and abuse it mwuhaha!

---

*chuckles* There was like a week where I just walked about being that asshole who points out the holes in everyone's reasoning. It was rather fun, but my best friend got rather sick of me saying every argument he makes is Ad Hominem. (In my defense I was an asshole to him, but I was right.)

A word of warning though, being able to point out these holes doesn't mean they go away, actually pointing them out often leads people to make more and worse logical fallacies or to cling to the ones they are making even more, so watch that.

@JWC3
There used to be a site that went into not only how the fallacies were fallacies, but also gave ways of moving past the fallacy. Such as if someone brings in a red herring, say something like "what does [insert their red herring] have to do with [current point/argument]?" or if they do a strawman, saying something like "i wasn't arguing [insert strawman], I was arguing [point]." (These were poor examples from my poor memory of the details.)

Unfortunately, the link is on an older pc which i cant access now :(

Also, regarding the astrology and logic thing, I used to have a book titled "Thinking Critically About New Age Ideas". It actually helped me get a grasp of some of the common errors involved in New Age writings, while not being anti-new age ideas. I found its presentation better than the extreme skeptic presentations, because it wasn't completely against new age ideas...it just helped encourage the reader to put more thought into what they read from new age writings.

And finally, regarding the fun of learning about logic, I really enjoyed learning about symbolic logic. Unfortunately, i didnt get past sentential logic due to getting distracted by other interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

@JWC3
There used to be a site that went into not only how the fallacies were fallacies, but also gave ways of moving past the fallacy. Such as if someone brings in a red herring, say something like "what does [insert their red herring] have to do with [current point/argument]?" or if they do a strawman, saying something like "i wasn't arguing [insert strawman], I was arguing [point]." (These were poor examples from my poor memory of the details.)

Unfortunately, the link is on an older pc which i cant access now :(

Also, regarding the astrology and logic thing, I used to have a book titled "Thinking Critically About New Age Ideas". It actually helped me get a grasp of some of the common errors involved in New Age writings, while not being anti-new age ideas. I found its presentation better than the extreme skeptic presentations, because it wasn't completely against new age ideas...it just helped encourage the reader to put more thought into what they read from new age writings.

And finally, regarding the fun of learning about logic, I really enjoyed learning about symbolic logic. Unfortunately, i didnt get past sentential logic due to getting distracted by other interests.

---

That sounds like an awesome website! I'll have to search for it later when I'm done with theater stuff tonight. What's the difference between symbolic logic and sentential logic though? I haven't heard of logic being segmented though the thought doesn't surprise me it's just something I had no idea existed :S

@JWC3
the second half of the book went into predicate logic.
I used an earlier edition of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-...5390383&sr=1-3

I've since learned that modal logic combined w symbolic logic is what I, personally, prefer.
Er...as opposed to other criticl thinking and analyzing books I've read.

Ok i know i've mixed up the 2 before (quite frankly for the first 2 months of the semester), but Astrology and Astronomy are 2 different things :C! Astrology is all superstitous crap, chance stuff- Astronomy is legit and uses simple models to explain our universe. Hohohoho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

thanks, this does make some sense.

just one thing; what 4 dichotomies are you referring to?

---

introtim/extratim, sensing/intuition, logic/ethics, rational/irrational

once you spot somebody using one side of a dichotomie, you'll notice that he's always on that side. It's really basic, most easy to spot, and therefor good for observing, and you automatically get a good example of what that dichotomy is all about, since you can learn it from that person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

introtim/extratim, sensing/intuition, logic/ethics, rational/irrational

once you spot somebody using one side of a dichotomie, you'll notice that he's always on that side. It's really basic, most easy to spot, and therefor good for observing, and you automatically get a good example of what that dichotomy is all about, since you can learn it from that person.

---

I do that, then I notice that they switch sides at times, but yeah more stable-ish than functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BreeZ

Ok i know i've mixed up the 2 before (quite frankly for the first 2 months of the semester), but Astrology and Astronomy are 2 different things :C! Astrology is all superstitous crap, chance stuff- Astronomy is legit and uses simple models to explain our universe. Hohohoho

---

Roflmao...:doh:
Thanks to your post here, I went back over that part of the conver and realized that i had glossed over the term and was focusing on the seeming surprise over an Astro**** book having a section on logic and science. :8* a kinda dumb mistake from me, considering I'd spent time in my past learning about both...(though at different time frames, and many many moons ago).

Thanks for letting me know my error. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anndelise

Roflmao...:doh:
Thanks to your post here, I went back over that part of the conver and realized that i had glossed over the term and was focusing on the seeming surprise over an Astro**** book having a section on logic and science. :8* a kinda dumb mistake from me, considering I'd spent time in my past learning about both...(though at different time frames, and many many moons ago).

Thanks for letting me know my error. :oops:

---

=D, i should pat myself on the back since i've reminded myself way too many times on that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way,

---

Runaway Te anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Runaway Te anyone?

---

oh heh I recall you typed me as SLI via your VI method. but why did you bring up this topic now? are you trying to verify my typing or something?

by the way, there was more to my post than just the little part you quoted, but yes that part is certainly important too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambivalent existence

so.. let me explain my viewpoint first. I've been thinking and come to the conclusion that types obviously don't exist as clear-cut or as idealized in theory, not just because this stuff is not objectively measurable with currently known tools that are considered to be objective in a scientific way, but also because I tend to think that the functions are rather like cognitive skills, and "usage" of a function (usage = you are currently looking at the world from one kind of viewpoint) is partially situational. Sure, we probably have some tendency that's partially inborn to prefer certain functions more, but I guess you also change slowly over time, depending on your experiences and your responses to those experiences, and thus can slowly change emphasis on preferences. And depending on what you learned to do in a certain kind of situation, your response in a specific situation may entirely differ from what your "type" would usually do. You can also develop techniques to respond to certain situations in a better way that would otherwise require your weaker skills. Thus, a normal well balanced person doesn't and shouldn't really fit under one clear-cut type at all. And then at this point the whole concept of types and duality and all that ceases to have much point. Two such people who also match on values outside the ones socionics attempts to explain, should work out together, regardless of their "type". This of course doesn't mean problems can't come up, but if they aren't too big, they can be solved.

So, my question is, why do some people here tend to take some of this theory seriously? Or maybe my impression is incorrect and nobody here actually tries to govern any part of their life based on just a theory, though when I see questions in the forum like "how to recognize my dual" etc. etc., I can't tell how serious that stuff is. I mean, it would rather limit one's viewpoint to look for a "dual" based on a theory.

I guess I just don't see the usefulness of this theory at this point and I'm asking how it helped other people in an objective way.

---

Your reliance on trial-and-error experience to determine your beliefs and interpretation of concepts indicates an orientation toward Te, but the primacy of your Si function is manifested by your reliance on what you "experience" (see, hear, touch, etc.) over what you THINK about those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Your reliance on trial-and-error experience to determine your beliefs and interpretation of concepts indicates an orientation toward Te, but the primacy of your Si function is manifested by your reliance on what you "experience" (see, hear, touch, etc.) over what you THINK about those things.

---

but of course experience of reality > theory for everyone, or they would be madmen. I mean, I doubt you need to have "leading Si" for that. maybe you mean that some people don't consciously notice it that they shape their theory to their experiences...? also, how does the sense of touch have anything to do with beliefs and concepts lol.

btw, nothing in my post indicates trial-and-error experience (regardless of defining it as "Te" or not). the post I wrote I got from putting together stuff I've seen here and there over time. it was no conscious trial-and-error experimenting, I just let stuff (=experiences) accumulate and then at one point I decided to think about it and I made an explanatory summary of it all then.

(edit: thinking more about this though, yes I can sometimes assume trial-and-error attitude when problem solving. but then that's about problem solving, not theorizing. even then I much prefer to have a proper understanding... most cool is when I already understand something so well that I work out the solution to the problem without random trials in the process; of course still test the correctness of the result if applicable...)

also, it would really hurt Absurd's feelings if you declared me a Si/Te type. please don't insult him by assuming I'm in his quadra, and more than that, almost his identical. :shock: