That's determinism - fatalism is the belief that certain events in the future will happen regardless of what occurs in the present.Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
Ætiological - isolates mechanisms for direct causation while exploring a system.
Bayesian - tends to include extraneous a priori considerations to improve calculations.
Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances.
Frequentist - refuses to respect anything but empirical evidence and its empirical probability.
Inconclusive - has no specific preference in a rational basis, or is simply inconsistent.
Nomothetic - reasons using a comprehensive system of diagnostic references and the intuition.
Pyrrhonian - will doubt anything in any context, even skepticism itself.
Solipsist - identifies all convictions with the premise that only the mind really exists.
Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativity.
That's determinism - fatalism is the belief that certain events in the future will happen regardless of what occurs in the present.
[Stormy] [LII]
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.
[Stormy] [LII]
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.
Depends on the nature of fate - if a supernatural, a thing certainly could be fated without being deducible from the present.
[Stormy] [LII]
Sorry, I forgot to mention that only natural phenomena are being considered.
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?
Last edited by Nexus; 09-14-2008 at 03:29 AM.
I have done it! I have broken the link!
My model for epistemological inference corresponds exactly to DarkAngelFireWolf69's 'Thought Styles'!
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.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
Last edited by Nexus; 09-23-2008 at 02:18 AM.
Update:
Correlation of Inferential Patterns to Rings of Supervision
ENTp> ISTj
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.
INTj
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.
ISFp
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.
ESFj
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
I think Frequentist or Fatalist are the best to use.
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
Last edited by Nexus; 10-01-2008 at 11:23 PM.
ILE/SEE (Æ)
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 (Æ)
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
Frequentist
I hate reasoning as a way of explaining things and I love experiments and observations.
Nicely done! This also makes some missing pieces obvious:
-We still need some way of separating the superego pairs. In DarkAngelFireWolf69'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.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Bump. Really awesome thread
Tentatively Bayesian-Pyrrhonian and contextually etiological when dealing with psychological and sociological domains, but I'd be a shitty pyrrhonian if I conclusively voted.
Nomoethic, Stochastic, sometimes Fatalist (seldom - only when chaos reigns)
Does this make me LIE or LII/LSI?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
