Re: The Defining Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
Do you really think that psychological theory on personality types has tapped into some brilliant underlying pattern
Forget everything else you said, and your various connotations and associations with those words that you said and have in your mind,
and I agree with what remains, with what I left in the quote.
"Psychological theory or personality types" are just tools at looking at the pattern, they are not perfect - just like no screwdriver, saw, microscope is perfect. Psychological types themselves are not the pattern. Numbers are not the pattern. Any sort of model of the pattern is not the pattern itself. For me, socionics bridges well enough to be useful to me.
"I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger to see the moon, do you?"
Re: The Defining Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
Do you really think that psychological theory on personality types has tapped into some brilliant underlying pattern that exists within all people to explain people's differences in their individual meaning and worth as an individual?
Or do you think this is merely a list of prejudices and behaviors various people have observed that is interesting but by no means some underlying pattern explaining individual meaning and worth.
I believe in the second personally, but I am curious to see what the distribution of opinion is on this forum.
I think it makes an attempt to describe the very real fact that different personalities exist. I know people who are clearly ESFx's, and they will never act like people I know who are clear INTx's - just an example.
Debating specific function use is relevent when comparing the model against itself, but I don't think there is a literal transference between what the model states and how people really function mentally/emotionally. I DO think, however, that - right or wrong - trying to explain how the functions work is a useful tool to evaluate your own mental processes and behaviour that may lead to some insight into how you tick. " :Te: states this, is there anything in my behaviour that reflects this process, or is it an area that could use some improvement?" Learning an abstract concept like :Ni: is something I probably wouldn't have developed on my own, yet to read about it I realize how it often pops up in my own head, and that's quite useful to me.
Or, at least, I believe it's useful to me.
Re: The Defining Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDP III
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
Do you really think that psychological theory on personality types has tapped into some brilliant underlying pattern
Forget everything else you said, and your various connotations and associations with those words that you said and have in your mind,
and I agree with what remains, with what I left in the quote.
"Psychological theory or personality types" are just tools at looking at the pattern, they are not perfect - just like no screwdriver, saw, microscope is perfect. Psychological types themselves are not the pattern. Numbers are not the pattern. Any sort of model of the pattern is not the pattern itself. For me, socionics bridges well enough to be useful to me.
"I can use my finger to point out the moon, but my finger is not the moon, and you don't need my finger to see the moon, do you?"
Lol very INTj like logic, limiting down just the peice you agree with, it was probably an INTj who invented the line item veto. Anyways you misunderstood the essence of the question is in the connotations I have used, by underlying I don't mean merely abstract, I mean like timeless, I mean like talking about the f***ing structure of the universe and existance like the very meaning and essence of things, not just merely unobservable but like the unobservable of unobservables. I am asking if you think this theory can express the one and only true meaning of a person, afterall if it can't even come close to lightly touch on some underlying true meaning and essence of a person.... aren't we just using fancy words to describe behaviors we see?
Re: The Defining Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
by underlying I don't mean merely abstract, I mean like timeless, I mean like talking about the f***ing structure of the universe and existance like the very meaning and essence of things, not just merely unobservable but like the unobservable of unobservables. I am asking if you think this theory can express the one and only true meaning of a person, afterall if it can't even come close to lightly touch on some underlying true meaning and essence of a person.... aren't we just using fancy words to describe behaviors we see?
You make it sound like those are the only two options.
Socionics comes somewhere in between, and that's that.
Re: The Defining Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
by underlying I don't mean merely abstract, I mean like timeless, I mean like talking about the f***ing structure of the universe and existance like the very meaning and essence of things, not just merely unobservable but like the unobservable of unobservables. I am asking if you think this theory can express the one and only true meaning of a person, afterall if it can't even come close to lightly touch on some underlying true meaning and essence of a person.... aren't we just using fancy words to describe behaviors we see?
You make it sound like those are the only two options.
Socionics comes somewhere in between, and that's that.
Well I was trying to draw extremes out of UPD, because the topic is called the defining question not the so-so question and I am looking to have a prompt that can seperate people by two different schools of thought. Sure in reality it is somewhere in between but thats the boring objective answer, I guess what I want to know is the subjective side of it, which do you believe socionics is closer to, a means to quickly profile people or a profound statement concerning a person's underlying nature. This is the nebulous part of it where individual opinion comes in.
Re: The Defining Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
Do you really think that psychological theory on personality types has tapped into some brilliant underlying pattern that exists within all people to explain people's differences in their individual meaning and worth as an individual?
Or do you think this is merely a list of prejudices and behaviors various people have observed that is interesting but by no means some underlying pattern explaining individual meaning and worth.
The latter - Socionics tends towards explaining roles in society, for example.