What? I love Jung? Doesn't mean he's not crude and esoteric.Originally Posted by silverchris9
What? I love Jung? Doesn't mean he's not crude and esoteric.
Any system of 3 and 7 typically has the problem with a undeclared 4th value or 8th value being null/in-determinant/unknown.
Base 4 is 0-3 and base 8 is 0-7, keep that in mind when dealing with systems that count from 1-3 or 1-7.
Systems of 5 and 9 typically have a unknown that is not part of the structural result. Like enneagram.
The human mind divides things into evens and odds because it's a way to explain things and measure things.
Measurements are odd systems, while structural systems are even.
Last edited by mu4; 03-25-2010 at 05:50 PM.
God, way to make things personal. What is wrong with you. I wasn't talking to you!
I was talking about a opinion that I had about threads like this and how it makes something that is well founded in philosophy and information processing seem mystical and esoteric. As far as pointless, multiple people else said this was utter bullshit and nonsensical. Now why did they think that? What I was saying is that it was only the discussion that is crude and pointless, but not bullshit or nonsensical.
I didn't reject the idea, I even explained why the idea matters, but talking about these ideas with crude and esoteric language is confusing and get people who feel it is utter bullshit and nonsensical.
Now if you want to go ahead and ignore me, go right ahead you whiny emo kid.
You do realize this is in the very first articles that August ever published on Socionics? It is the core of the theory.
Why is the dichotomy object/field = E/I. This was her first physics and philosophical link to socionics.
Remember physics is philosophy, it's natural philosophy.
And the idea of body/substance/field these were discuss long before we empirically verified these explanations and quantified it in what we call physics. And mostly this was because we created tools which allowed us to make more precise measures which allowed such a thing to occur.
Modern physics uses a lot of information terminology and vice versa, because information in physics represent physical quantities and qualities. The basis of the socionics is that the mind is a information metabolism that reflects physical quantities and qualities with mental information, which is hosted on the physical platform of the brain and body.
Hey, this is not a new idea, considering this is the basis of many philosophical perspectives for hundreds of years, if not thousands.
If you want to look at socionics from the very most basic idea.
It's:
State(static) A acted on by function(dynamic) b
Or you can call it A(b)
Or Compression acted by function Heat Addition if you want to mirror the carnot cycle terminology.
The resulting is State(static) C, expansion
So the equation is A(b) = C
But you can convert state C to A as well, with function d.
C(d) = A. This also works in reverse. -C(b) = A, -A(d)= C
Why are A and C in incompatible. Because state C and A cannot be freely converted without either function b or d.
Why are b and d incompatible because b is defined as -d.
The human mind is constantly processing abstractions that represent states and applying functions to them.
Yea, it hurts my head too, as I've gotten older I've only gotten moreWell, new to me, in any case seeing as I don't study physics in my spare time or other scary scientific topics which hurt my brain. I'm not sure if I got all that, but I have no question you are Ti ego..
I found this whole thing unclear, can you explain your argument with more clarity.
Last edited by male; 03-26-2010 at 12:16 AM.
Its not elaborate in the same way having a 100,000 pennies is more elaborate than having a 100 dollar bill. But the 100 dollar bill is the better choice.
Last edited by male; 03-26-2010 at 12:16 AM.
whats wrong with me is I'm an emo kid apparently... I also am satan and I'm fat and ugly, and evil and mean and jewish and black and a member of the kkk and I club baby seals for fun.... but guess what..... regardless of all that.... everything I said still stands. So deal with it.
I mean what do you expect... that you'de be like "what's wrong with you".... then I'd withdrawl into introspection and be like "OMG.....!!!! What ISSSS WRONG with ME!"
See 8:18 and listen how the guy tries to protect himself from getting tazed by attempting to incite shame by asking "What is wrong with you" to a rather apathetic officer....
People who say "Whats wrong with you"..... HUGE PET PEEVE of mine.....
I mean WTF do you expect people to reply to that with?
Its a psychologically subversive comment designed to incite shame into another person so that you can gain the upper hand and force demands on them for the relief of that shame
Its not my problem other people can't keep up mentally and become confused. Plus I'd be more than happy to breakdown the idea for those that are having this problem.
Removed at User Request
It's pretty easy to relate to the guy there... the officer was in the wrong in several ways, though the the only thing that could have been lawsuit-worthy was the tazing, which was justified at the time it was done for reasons that the guy didn't understand at all (hence why he tried to sue afterwards).
I'm having trouble thinking of a more appropriate phrase for the guy to use there... it's pretty good as expressions of horror go.
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
These archetypes of seasons, colors, elements, astrological signs... They make attempts to predict your personality, to encompass all of what makes you you. Socionics doesn't have the position to claim causality on an individual's personality. There could be correlations, but that doesn't provide fact. Socionics is about cognition, like how Jung was, and is putting forth a method of how we perceive and use information, which is exactly what IEs are all about. But what information you are sensitive to, or whatever, doesn't determine your personality traits, as we can tell on here, personality differs person to person, even between types. Therefore, equating Socionic types to archetypes like the ones listed here is futile, because they are aiming at too different of objectives.
Lol well I figured there might be some people who at least would side with the victim over the officer, from the video on youtube its interesting to note that it goes about 50/50.
Some people feel the officer was in the right, while others feel he was not.
For this reason, I don't feel like making a judgement about the correctness of the situation right now in the interest of brevity, as doing so will generally draw negative criticism from one half of the people out there regardless of my reasoning.
My point wasn't to vindicate the officer, it was more utilitarian. The idea is, when you have a tazer or gun pointed at you, its not smart to rely on psychological ploys to difuse the situation. I personally think, regardless of the guy felt he was wronged, it would have been in a strictly utilitarian viewpoint in his best interest to sign the ticket as "No Consent" and Contest it in court, citing the possible use of excessive force.
Now to be personal about it (and I really don't expect anyone to agree with me on this part)... I feel the officer was in a bad situation, the guy was acting like he was about to drive away, or I can at least see how the officer interpretted it as that, and officers can't just let people walk away and not comply or they are pretty much useless as an occupation and not even worth existing. This is an extreme example, but what if there was a theif that ran away with something of yours? Wouldn't you want the law to not let them go, instead of backing down because they weren't willing to take it to the level of using any kind of force? I mean do you think its even realistic that a theif would stop and even take the time to diplomatically negiotiate with you over giving the goods back? The same idea applys in general across all matters of law enforcment. Unfortunately people don't want to comply to what officers say and generally it forces them into a position to either relinquish their power and become effectively useless or to use force. Really the only time I personally feel strongly for the people that stand against the officers and won't comply is when they are not comply out of something larger than themselves... in a higher pursuit of justice that isn't contained within a law or government offical, but contained in some kind of soulful empathic human compassion element. Generally this did not apply to the guy, it would be one thing if he didn't have time to talk with the officer because he was transporting his bleeding dying friend to the hospital to save his life... but the guy simply felt the charges brought before him were inaccurate. The fallacy of this is that signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt, but an understanding of the charges laid against you. You do have american freedoms and rights though to have your case heard by a court with a jury though, thats where rights come in. Police don't have the authority to determine your guilt or innocence, and thats a good thing if you think about it.
I realize that you may not agree with this, but if you wish to discuss this more, please reply civilly because I don't need things getting more out of hand, or just pm me.
Edit: Also I realize the guy may have been horrified (which I really don't think -- he seemed more offended/confrontational than overtaken by fear). But regardless even if the guy was afraid, the officer can't operate out of the reference frame that every person is potentially just afraid of them, because people will take advantage of that, and for the truely afraid and innocent that is unfortunate, but life is sometimes cruel, and in an ideal world, there would be no need for war or law enforcement, because people wouldn't kill, steal, rape, and so forth. But regardless I honestly think the guy was more offended/proud/confrontational than he was truely in horror... I don't know but my instinctive reaction to someone pointing a gun/tazer at me if I was in horror would be to put my hands up and beg them not to shoot and plea for mercy... of course if your proud and offended that would seem degrading, but you make these decisions in life.... death or dishonor... and I really don't think signing a ticket of no consent is some dignity-depraving action thats worth taking a tazer over, and even actions that are worthy.... you still may take the tazer for it....... but thats a decision you make.
Last edited by male; 03-26-2010 at 03:25 AM.
Well thats a tricky subject socionics has this Information Element framework, but I really think thats to provide motivation and rationale for personality types.
And look sure its valid to say, personality types are not the same as a persons unique personality. If that were true every INTj would act exactly the same. But you would agree that personality types have their utility and so forth.
My motivation is therefore to place an analogy between personality types and archetypes (not match people with archetypes to describe their unique character).
Elemental archetypes really are not that big of mystical thing either... take Fire..... Fire basically means Passion/Desire/Intensity.... etc (which you probably are aware of).... and really its not complete voodoo to notice out of interpersonal intelligence that some people out their are more passionate, take greater value and stock into their desires, take initiative more, and are more intense........ and that not every person in the world is exactly the same in this regard.
Establishing a linkage between these elemental archetypes and socionics could potentially provide a quick shortcut to explaining out why some people are more passionate than others, or more generally "more 'fire-like'", and this can be done by running the exercise backwards and seeing how information elements correspond to this outward behavior manifestation.
Something like; this person I've noticed tends to be more dramatic and conflicting... this is correlated with the elemental archtype of fire.... which is correlated with betas..... which is correlated with Fe.... perhaps this person's dramatic personality is a result of a higher ego-preference for Fe based information, and that person over there, which has Fe in there id block, may appreciate this fiery attitude and find it exciting because of Fe in there id block, while this person with a Fe PoLR might be turned off and exhausted by these excess displays of drama and conflict, they find impede them from using their producing function.
At any rate whether or not what I wrote above is true, hopefully you can at least possibly agree that this exercise has the potential for making such correlations.
There's too much room for generalizations. Someone can be passionate and driven on a regular basis, which is the "domain" of fire, as any type. This is better correlated to MBTI, which is trying to determine personality traits, and openly correlate themselves with other typing methodologies (I have a popular MBTI book that has correlations of MBTI and Enneagram types). But Socionics has less to do with identifying personality than MBTI, astrology, or whatever. These inter-type relations are so poignant not because they show traits meshing together, but how thought-processes coincidence, compliment, or clash.
So when you assign Beta, let's say, fire, it automatically implies that the rest of the quadras are not-fire, and if they had fire-like qualities, they are most likely more Beta. Looking for "shortcuts" to figure out someone's type loses the integrity of the process, and leads to mistyping. It's like you hear someone using vulgar language often, and in your mind, eliminating them from being certain types because you think those types are typically "polite" or "diplomatic." I find things like this to be brining down Socionics and making the process harder, in actuality.
I actually agree that the officer was in a bad situation too; I read the YouTube comments myself, and I'm convinced that the officer "started it," but by the time the officer used the taser, I think they were both just scared.
Probably giving in would have been the most utilitarian approach, though I could also see the guy thinking that the officer was getting something out of bothering him even if the ticket didn't stick, and wanting to not condone that sort of nuisance. It's likely what I would have thought, anyway... people pull that sort of thing all the time, trying to rob you by making it easier to just give in. If you don't give in, it hurts in the short run, but they're less likely to try to pull that sort of thing in the future; basically their business model fails and they have to try something else.
These situations that are bad for everyone involved happen rather often, and often they're time-sensitive (as this one was), so you don't have the luxury of learning the other person's viewpoint.
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
What the fuck is wrong with you, don't talk to me. I didn't want to talk to you in the first place. Go away. I thought you were going to ignore me. Please do it.
Thats fine, but all science is based on observation, at some level observation has to be made in some manner to come to a conclusion. You can't type by closing your eyes and going into your own world, because your typings then don't represent reality and are all just figments of your imagination. YOU NEED SOME OBSERVATION.
Know I can understand your reluctance to what I wrote above, I didn't put an extreme amount of effort into that, so I left off saying "You may not agree with this". I was more or less illustrating a concept than giving a concrete example.
At any rate it sounds like the issue to this really come to down to what your saying here...
To me I think this is false in general... I don't think its possible to have a personality model where people see things like night and day. Saying the way betas perceive information is daytime and the way deltas perceive information and process it is like nightime; they are both complete opposites. I generally find personality to not be some segmented process of taking in information, where there is nocoherency for the human species. I believe people generally take in information in a similar way fundamentally, only that people have preferences to what they prioritize and that unique strategy of prioritization which is embedded in the subconcious is responsible for the outward characteristics of the individual. HOWEVER, EVERYONE IS WORKING WITH THE SAME SET OF TOOLS. There is no Beta-Tool and Delta-Tool, but tools betas prefer and tools deltas prefer.
I think even deeper these subconcious preferences are manifested by some deeper motivation of personality that can be described by say associations with archtypes.
For example betas and Fe. I don't think betas prefer information of Fe and other types are ignorant to them, but rather there is something subconcious at work that gives the betas with Fe in their ego block a sort of confidence when handling things that are based in Fe. This subconcious preference could in fact be linked to something dealing with archtypes.
In all honesty the very fact socionics is ambigious on the answer to why information preference exists, prevents me from taking IE too seriously beyond simply using it as a tool to derive the characteristics of personality types.
Good this I am fine with, I can live under these conditions, and I am not putting you on ignore because now that is what you would like me to do.
Last edited by male; 03-26-2010 at 04:25 AM.
Unfortunately, the entire premise of Socionics is built on that, and it hasn't been proven. Which is why Socionics is considered a sort of protoscience, in a sense. But IEs are the foundation of Socionics... If they are seen as something in the sidelines, then the true process of Socionics is being ignored.
True, I am in agreement that ,as far as the guy's perspective goes he seemed to be in a position of feeling maybe like the officer was as you put it "getting something out of bothering him".
I can definitely emphasize with the guy in this regard, even if I was in the wrong, I don't like people being pushy and forcing me to do things against my will. Most people don't.....
The thing is when I zoom out to the objective level (because at the subjective level both parties disagree) I think the guy wasn't justified in the first place before the arguement escalated. I think that if he didn't want to get tazed he should have remained calm and listened before getting argumentative and escalating the tension, because honestly it seems like he may not have known that signing the ticket wasn't an admission of guilt, but the officer said it, but the guy was too busy attempting to build an argument, and how do you stop someone who simply won't listen? I am not saying tazing was right, but it definitally makes the situation worse, and was one of the major cause for the tension escalating between them. And you do not want to escalate tension with the police or military personal etc... because they already have enough tension to deal with from possible threats etc.... There jobs involve life and death and escalating tensions with those types brings out something you don't want to interfere with.
Last edited by male; 03-26-2010 at 04:15 AM.
I don't think so... or perhaps I dont care... I am interested in utiliarianism and truth.... I could care less about the true process of socionics, as long as whatever model of personality is useful and true, I am for it. I have no need to worry about defending theories that are untrue or un-useful.
Its not unreasonable to think their is something deeper to understand about information elements than what you've traditionally aqquinted yourself with. Otherwise your simply claiming you've found a perfect theory of knowledge that is unbreakable.... which is a pretty lofty thing. I mean I study physics and almost every theory and model and so forth has always been revised as time goes on. Einstein revised Newtonian Physics.... Quantum Physics revised Classical.... etc..... personally I'd rather place my sentimentality for the truth over my sentimentality for the "good ol' socionics that I know and love".
Defending the idea of IE as the foundation and first principle of thought surrounding Socionics seems a bit constrained and closed-minded to me, I mean what if there is something beneath that to be discovered.... are you really telling me you'de resist that, even if its true?
I am not saying there is (something deeper to socionics), I just don't understand your resistance to exploring that.
Removed at User Request
I'm not resistant to exploring Socionics in any manner, but not paying credence to IEs is like skipping the basics and starting to create new ideas for a subject. I'm just looking at what is at the moment, and when everyone has a handle on what is, then move forward. I am all for what works, but I'm more for what works that doesn't dilute integrity. What is your understanding of the building blocks of Socionics? Maybe I'm wrong and have come to a completely different understanding, but if you take out IEs and function placements, what do you have??
well really this topic was honestly a more light-hearted analogy making thing... than it was any heavy duty learning.
I don't know I completely understand this, but for whatever reason.... I just look at this differently.
People have these sorts of clashes of will, it just seems natural.... its nature, like animals fighting for terrority. Its just a sort of instinctive power based thing. In honesty I don't think the guy was sociopathic, its just that most people in those kinds of positions, are type-A, alpha male, problem-solving types.... there is a sort of world that revolves around this mentality and its not always based in violence and needless pain. Then there is the world of the lovers and artists and humanists..... there is a sort of world that revolves around this mentality. I don't think both worlds understand each other and conflict arises that is ultimately unnessicary and its really no ones fault in the deepest since, but the ultimate moral high-ground is those that are willing to learn and accept those on the other side.
I think from the perspective of the type-A, alpha male, problem-solving types he was thinking the guy would have ran away... because to him and in the world of type-A, alpha male, problem-solving types... the action is taken fairly quick -- you either choose to comply or not and then follow through and follow through with much willpower and intensity. He saw the situation turning in that direction and acted quickly... but I don't think the officer set out that day to taze someone or to assert his power by teaching someone a lesson.
Further, the guy on the other hand may have not understood this idea and was merely confused and didn't understand the signals he was giving out non-verbally. The same way predators will attack people when they do something they don't realize is non-verbally threatening. Predators though in nature I don't have a thing against... I love lions and wolves and such..... wolves are great especially in my opinion.... and I think if you can learn to understand the communication in that kind of world you can easily live in peace. There are kinds of people that learn this communication in this world and can live with wolves and such....
The same applys to situations like this. People can learn from each other, and most police I think probably have programs where they consider better more diplomatic ways of dealing with conflicts.... but I think its a tough job for all the conflicts your expected to manage and to do it purely out of carebear power instead of force (even if its non-lethal), I definitally wouldn't want to be a cop.
Also there are people that are essentially the same (more conflicting power driven) as cops but they are aligned with social groups against the law, and cops are expected to deal with them without force? Alot of these groups have a sort of charisma about them, but honestly in reality some crime groups are pretty nasty, I remember hearing this one case where this gang killed a black man holding a baby just to assert their fear and power in a neighborhood. Thats pretty messed up... killing something innocent like a father holding their child (the guy they interviewed was laughing at it also but only slightly as if he was arrogantly proclaiming how bad he was). To me police over all seem the lesser of two evils, though they are not perfect, and there is corruption and bad cops, still they seem the lesser of two evils and only really the corruption itself should be surgically targeted rather than a massive recall of the whole law system.
Last edited by male; 03-26-2010 at 05:09 AM.
That's true. The guy would have been able to slow down the situation, and gotten a reasonable discussion.
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
Removed at User Request
You consider this a problem? Would you consider the jungle law better?
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
could you please explain this out more clear, I don't know exactly what you mean, but I think your onto something I'd like to understand more clearly
Removed at User Request
lol now I apparently own the POV of naturalism......
I am just playing around with ideas here not defining a moral code.
By the way, I am not saying the jungle law is better, but its the only law that truely exists... people don't do things because the law tells them to, they do thing because they want to, if a person follows the law, its not because they don't possess the will to not comply, its because they choose to... its not like you physically are incapable of turning around if a congressmen passes a law telling you not to turn around. Therefore in discovering the true meaning of these peoples actions you have to consider their motivations and desires and not just the surface elements, because those are all unnatural and synthetic constructions.
Besides I'm undediced if I think the cop was right or not.... I am just saying I can see where he is coming from.... ideally I don't want people to get tased so stop trying to peg me as some kind of villian just for wanting to think about something and defer judgement.
Also let me ask..... I don't know everything about this situation.... but lets create one, for a thought experiment. If there was a driver who broke the law, was speeding and got pulled over, ignored the officer and drove away...... is it better to let that person drive away or to stop that person by tazing them? Just considering these single options (and I realize there are more options). Give the reason for why you chose one over the other.
Last edited by male; 03-26-2010 at 06:49 AM.
Removed at User Request
Lets leave it at that. All I am going to say is I am glad I am not a cop, or else I die from over-analyzing everything I did to death out of neurotic worry that I'm doing something inhumane and immoral to other people.
Sure I understand that, but all I am saying is the cop probably thought the guy was making a run for it. I'll agree the situation could have been handled better, but then you can argue that the situation could have been handled better by both sides.
Anyways thats the tricky part, and honestly if I was that guy I probably wouldn't give a shit about the cops POV, I'd probably be upset and feel unjustly tazed.
But at the end of the day, there are far worse things than getting tazed for not signing a ticket.... once people start burning books, controlling knowledge, forcing cultural values onto me, and arresting people for thinking things.... then I'll be really upset. Until then I don't really over-obsess about the occasional upset of civil order. We are all human, it happens, I'd rather move on and enjoy life without worrying I am some kind of evil person than take a stand over such a small ordeal and over-analyze it to death until I explode.
Really I intend well here, just in all honesty there are alot of people who don't follow the law on small traffic things and it annoys me... 5 months ago I got ran off the road by an aggresive driver in a black BMW because they thought I was tailgating them, it was in a suburbian neighborhood and when I went to pass her in the right lane, she moved her car suddenly to the right and forced me to hit her car or go into the curb.... so I hit the curb, my wheel exploded, and she just drove off, the guy in front of her stopped and asked if I was ok and told me I should report the lady to the police, but this lady just drove on by, as if she was justified in putting my life in danger out of some stupid pride or something... honestly its shit like that that makes me not mind if the occasional driver catches a tazer. I see too many people who just fuck up and instead of admitting it they pat themselves on the back like its ok, they write themselves way too many passes, and people around them pay the price. To me the idea of someone trying to talk themselves out of ticket and run away seems like this, and because of that I don't mind if they catch a tazer to let them know their is a boundary to which people will not tolerate their actions.
I am just glad I don't have to be the one defining that boundary. And what I am talking about in the paragraph goes beyond this specific case, its why in general I don't find it evil for police to use tazers on non-compliant motorists who break the law. This specific case I'll just say, it didn't go well for either side, and it could have been a better situation.
Last edited by male; 03-27-2010 at 04:08 AM.
I'd say the actual reason that the guy was tazed was for a movement that could have put the cop in mortal danger if certain variables that the cop had no way of knowing were different. Or at least, that's the argument that protected the cop from the $100,000 lawsuit... for all the cop knew, the guy could have been pulling a gun in that last turn.
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
see thats an even better reason to use the tazer (than merely preventing the guy from running), but honestly I don't feel like that guy was packing any heat, but whatever, I'm getting extremely tired of analyzing all elements surrouding the situation.
Removed at User Request
Yea its a difficult situation, but I feel you on the fact that brute force isn't always the best approach and can cross the line into bullying.
I basically feel split about the whole situation, and I think in general most people do, and at the end of it all, people decide to gravitate to one side or the other. To me there is a line that seperates "forcing people to do things" and "excess force", and I don't really get emotional about these situations until it crosses into that terrority where it just becomes blatantly inhumane and cruel. In times of war, like the russians in germany - or the japanese in china, it was common practice to rape the women of the town you invaded and loot it. On the spectrum of human rights, that kind of stuff is completely inhumane and excessive. A tazer to an uncompliant motorist feels a little gray to me, so forgive me if I am not about ready to grab my sword and go on a crusade against it (figuratively speaking of course).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
