If you disagree with that, you are questioning the four dichotomies in Socionics. You are saying that the theory of Socionics is incorrect and should be changed. You are creating your own version of Socionics here.Originally Posted by Joy
And I am trying to explain to you why it is a mathematically proven fact that the types are not equally distributed.
It is necessarily so. If not, the theory of the types is false.
No.
Sorry, I deleted that post. The one I left in its place was my point.
My disagreeing with the reliability of test results does not mean that I'm saying that the whole theory of Socionics is incorrect.
We're going in circles.And I am trying to explain to you why it is a mathematically proven fact that the types are not equally distributed.
No.It is necessarily so. If not, the theory of the types is false.
2.) Do you believe that answering test questions inaccurately will result in an accurate test result?
Sorry, I just got what you were saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're saying that if different methods are used to determine people's types, then the overall results will be more accurate than they would have been if only one typing method had been used?
While I agree, I still think that the basic problem of people's self-perceptions being off is significant.
Anyways, if I'm understanding you correctly, it doesn't seem like you and I disagree hugely on anything... we both recognize inaccuracies in typing. You're just more ambitious when it comes to putting effort into getting past it than I am.
I have already explained this. The individual will probably get an inaccurate test result (unless the inaccurate answers would balance each other in the right direction), but as long as there are some individuals that give accurate answers to the test questions, the overall pattern will necessarily be roughly accurate -- if the number of individuals taking the test is sufficiently large (and a couple of million individuals is more than enough, that's for sure).
There's no way to measure the extent of the problem.
Some? Wouldn't it depend on the percentage that get inaccurate results, regardless of how many individuals there are?
No. The percentage that get inaccurate results is totally irrelevant. The only thing we need is that a small percentage gets a correct result and that the cause of their correct results is that they understand what type they are for the right reasons.
How do you know which results are correct and which are incorrect? I'll illustrate my point with a story problem:Jan did a survey of the students in her class in order to create statistics regarding pie preferences. Eight of the students reported that they prefer cherry pie. Six of the students reported that they prefer banana cream pie. Six of the students reported that they prefer key lime pie. Four of the students reported that they prefer apple pie. Two of the students reported that they prefer lemon meringue pie.
A small percentage of the students answered the survey truthfully. What percentage of the students actually do prefer banana cream pie?
Regardless of the methods used to determine people's types, there will still be an indeterminable amount of mistypings. I can't imagine how incorrect typings could possibly not be a problem in gathering data for type statistics (for the reasons illustrated in my story problem).
If the statistics are reported as being "based on typings which may or may not be correct", then fine. If it is said that the typing methods used reduce mistypings to an unknown extent, that would also be fine. I'm still not sure how useful I could consider those statistics to be though.
By more samples do you mean result compilations from different types of tests and typing methods?(I don't have much more to say about inference, but I will continue to look for more samples.)
You don't need to know that if you are only interested in the overall distribution of the types. But you know that some results must be correct if the theory (about the four dichotomies) is correct.
You haven't said how many students there were in total or how many of them actually participated in the survey, and you haven't said if they only could name one pie, and you haven't said whether or not we know exactly what percentage of the students answered the survey truthfully. But if we assume that there were 26 students and that every one of them answered the survey, and if we assume that "a small percentage" is, let's say 8 % of the students, then about 2 of the students answered the survery truthfully.
Given those premises we can estimate the likelihood that one of the lying students prefers banana cream pie. It is theoretically possible that none of the students prefers banana cream pie, and it is also theoretically possible that as many as 22 of them do (but not more than 22).
But based on what we know here, it is statistically extremely unlikely that 22 students actually prefer banana cream pie, and it is very unlikely that not a single student does. We have to assume a pretty random distribution of the preferences among the liars, so I would say that a very rough estimation of the probabilities here suggests that it is rather likely that somewhere around 3-7 students actually prefer banana cream pie, given the information you have provided. Someone more skilled in probability theory could probably give you a more exact answer.
Exactly.
No, they couldn't.Someone more skilled in probability theory could probably give you a more exact answer.
I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way to know how accurate the results are. I agree though that results could be more accurate using the methods you discussed.
You are wrong. It is definitely possible to say exactly what the most likely number of students that prefer banana cream pie is, based on your information and my assumptions in the hypothetical example. And we can calculate exactly the likelihood for the possibility that for example only 2 students prefer banana cream pie or for the possibility that 8 students prefer it. And if you assume another percentage than in my example (8 %), then you would get other outcomes.
Are you really so bad at mathematics that you don't understand that what I say here is true?
Someone skilled in probability theory would say that there is not enough information provided to find the answer. They wouldn't just make up their own numbers (such as 8%).You are wrong. It is definitely possible to say exactly what the most likely number of students that prefer banana cream pie is, based on your information and my assumptions in the hypothetical example. And we can calculate exactly the likelihood for the possibility that for example only 2 students prefer banana cream pie or for the possibility that 8 students prefer it. And if you assume another percentage than in my example (8 %, then you would get other outcomes.
Are you really so bad at mathematics that you don't understand that what I say here is true?
You are wrong again. There is nothing problematic with making up numbers as long as you know why you are doing it. In this case I did it to illustrate the principle. We can add or detract any information we like, and depending on the information we have access to and/or the assumptions we make, we get different (but exact) results. My answer to your question -- given my added premises -- is only roughly correct. And it is possible -- given my added premises -- to calculate a more exact answer.
You are proven wrong here, and you should try to understand the point instead of acting like you were born with no brain. You are intelligent enough to understand this with some effort.
Phaedrus, what you are arguing for runs counter to just about everything I was taught, read, and learned in several public opinion, polling statistics, and quantitative data analysis courses. Your understanding of statistics and information gained from it seems rather...misguided.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
The point is that there's absolutely no way to know how many of the students were being truthful. You can plug in new numbers as you see fit, but you have to recognize that the results you get are mere guesses. There is literally no way to determine the percentage of students that actually do prefer banana cream pie.
And I don't need to insult you in order to communicate this.
Then you were taught wrong.
But it isn't.
The truth is that, given the information in the premises, we know the objective likelihood for different possible number of students being truthful. You don't seem to understand what a probability is and how it is objective.
If you play poker, you can guess what card will come up next, and given the information you have access to in that situation there is an objectively true answer to the question: What are the chances that card X will come up next? Of course you are guessing, but your guess has on objective and exact likelihood of being correct, even if it turns out to be incorrect.
And I have to point out (to others) that you are wrong about that. You just don't understand statistics and probabilities. (INTps tend to have a natural talent for it.)
But you demonstrate a typical ENTj's blatant refusal to admit when they are proven wrong.
What's amusing Phaedrus is that for a person that claims men are logical women emotional cause studies after studies have proven it! (sounds like Rush Limbaugh) you sure are quite an emotional man. It's like you are trying to show others you are this logical guy but Mikemex and myself can easily sense how you are feeling. I do feel a bit sorry for you.
What's ironic here is that Joy is being a lot more rational and reasonable than you, and you are the one throwing the emotional hissy fit while trying to pretend that you are the logical one. I have no problem if you are emotional and intense, but the fact that you want to cover it up as you view it as a weakness just shows me that you're obviously going through some sort of crisis and self-denial and that you should sincerely get some help. I know you felt discriminated against like men couldn't express their emotions, but your strong emotions are very clear. There is no dichotomy between feeling and thought because for people that are actually healthy we know how interwoven they are.
You say how personal anecdotes don't mean anything, the proof is the in the pudding blabla but your very own character contradicts everything you say. It's as though you were beaten as a child because you weren't good at sports or logic or manly things. You need more positive male role models in life. Freud would have a field day with you, but he was also an asshole... so I won't be that vindictive.
Come on, sit on my lap and get it off your chest. It's okay, just let it all out.
+1. Joy you've been nothing but correct in this thread, bravo. I don't always agree with what you say, obviously, but when you are right you are right.There is literally no way to determine the percentage of students that actually do prefer banana cream pie.
And I don't need to insult you in order to communicate this.
I see. The way things are how they ought to be. Look at those weak wimpy women not being able to defend themselves. They just are that way huh?Of course you are guessing, but your guess has on objective and exact likelihood of being correct, even if it turns out to be incorrect.
Your very faux pro-calculator/anti-humane view is indirectly also the reason why there is so much hatred, bigotry and misunderstanding in the world. It is after all, quite logical to discern that because you've had a shitty exp. with X group of people that the person from said group will be shitty towards you too, and also sets up self-fulfilling prophecies of failure and defeat. Wars, destruction, chaos, and personal isolation abounds. And btw, you also are over-valuing intuition, but since you are an intuitive feeler yourself, it seems like you would do this?
No wonder you have such a nihilistic, anti-liberal view of humans. And since humans want to view themselves as anti-stereotypical, innately interesting and pleasantly unpredictable, I'd also wager (with no malice, but compassion) that you had no real romantic relationship or dates in high school either. How could you?
How many real friends do you have? You come across as a very lonely, sad man to be blunt. And I don't know about many things. I barely know how to tie my shoes. But I do know about emotions. I do know when people are really hurting, and you are. Mikemex and me aren't idiots. Neither is Joy. Stop insulting people and get help.
Can Phaedrus be my supervisee guys? CAN HE???? PLEASE? PLEASE? OH GOD PLEASE?
If you think you can determine how emotional I am by reading my posts, you are dead wrong.
Don't feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for Joy and others who don't understand objective probabilities.
So you don't understand the logic here either? Well, there's nothing I can do about your incompetence then. The only solution is that you study more mathematics and logic.
Have you ever seriously studied the interesting phenomenon that people (including you here) very often tend to ignore the real issue and instead focus on the person behind the statements they are unable to understand? Have you ever asked yourself why you don't care about what the objective truth is here? To find out the truth you could do some study on your own, or perhaps ask a professional statistician about it. But has such a thought even crossed your mind?
What you describe here is generally true. But I am not a normal person. I am an exception, because my feelings and my thoughts are much more separated than for the average person. It is much easier for me to keep them out of each other's way than it is for you. That's one reason why I am better at conceptual logic and estimating objective probabilities than you and most other members of this forum.
Your interpretation of what my character is like, based solely on my posts, contradicts it. But have you ever contemplated the possibility that your interpretation of the available data could be wrong?
A normal person might take that as an insult, but to me it is only laughable that you can seriously suggest such an explanation as likely. There's a seemingly unbridgeable gap in our communication here, which we probably can't do much about.
You are not aware of to what extent your feelings and intuitive, subconscious interpretations are influencing and clouding your ability to understand the logical content of my statements. It is almost impossible for you to focus only on the logical content of my posts, and even now, when I am trying to convey this truth to you, you will probably interpret what I say as meaning something else than if taken literally.
BulletsAndDoves is right. (Personally though, LSI is still my favorite typing for you.)
Phaedrus, you are correct that you can assume that a certain number of the students were lying, but it still comes down to this in the end:
If you're playing poker and you can count cards, you do know the statistical likelihood about what's going to happen... but even that is still a guess. And the analogy doesn't really work anyways.
I'm done discussing this with you. Perhaps you could look up a probability theory experts and email them my story problem word for word and see what they say.
My personal favourite for you is Idiot. Second favourite is Moron.
No, it's not a guess. It is a mathematical fact that the statistical likelihood that, for example, two aces (AA) are going to win a showdown against a lower pair (KK, QQ, JJ ...) is around 80 %. You don't guess that the likelihood is 80 % that the aces are going to win, you know with absolute certainty that the likelihood is 80 %.
You are, and will most likely remain, an idiot.I'm done discussing this with you. Perhaps you could look up a probability theory experts and email them my story problem word for word and see what they say.
Phaedrus if I knew you in real life I would drink a lot of water and take a piss in your nostril.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
I can't stand him, btw. My grandma used to listen to him and it drove me crazy. One time she actually got up at like midnight and came in the living room where I was trying to sleep and turned on his TV show!It was horrible.
No, you wouldn't be able to. That is a fact.
Is there anyone who still doesn't think he's LSI? Look at all that Ti and Se. Although he's got some kind of mental health issue too and that does make things a bit weird.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
You need to have an IQ higher than 80 to believe that I am not an LSI, so I guess you have plenty of supporters for your claim that I am an LSI among the members of this forum.
Yes, take a really close look at it. Don't close your eyes. It's wonderful, isn't it?
Yes, I am theman, the LSI maniac -- a horrible creature that is lurking in the shadows in the alleys near you backyard. Don't go out alone at night if you want to remain your normal self.
Te ignoring with weak Ne and Ni definitely makes more sense to me than a Te PoLR with strong Ne and Ni.
After all, the PoLR is an area in which we feel vulnerable to criticism. I don't think he's weak against Te criticism, I think he just ignores it in favor of whatever Ti system he's worked out in his head. (Disclaimer that should be unnecessary: Not all Ti dominants or LSI's act the way Phaedrus does.)
Correction: No LII and no LSI in the whole world acts the way I do.
I have a hunch that men are always going to test and appear logical more often than they are, even if different typing methods are used. Buuuuut I suppose that's no reason to let it stop you.
Biological functioning does not always cut down the middle of 50/50 in terms of cognitive abilities of the sexes no matter how hard society pretends it to be.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
We're not talking about abilities though. We're talking about how different types of information are processed.
The ability to do so is determined via biological cognitive genetic "programming." How you process information (in typology) is not a choice so much as it is a biological disposition which naturally creates limitations on the ability of individuals (or types) to process information. Your biological composition creates natural limitations on your ability to process information in certain ways. In other words: your biology affects your cognitive ability to process information.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Actually, I acted a lot like you do now when I was younger. (My motivation, if not my tone, was the same.) Then I realized that it was immature, a waste of my time, and a source of unnecessary stress. It sucks that you have nothing better to do with your life.
Posting Permissions
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"