Where do temperaments come from?

[krieger]

This is a conclusion of exactly what you said: we use j/p only to define the position of the Rational/Irrational functions, changing each of them (N for S, T for F - what's called "Internal/External") makes no difference in j/p.

The point is that you can make the rest of the dichotomies work under a function paradigm by introducing certain other notions to the function model: +/-, Limiting/Empowering, Valued/Unvalued (if you hadn't already) and Strong/Weak.

You need to move beyond this rigid conception of functions where the possibility that there might be some property you haven't identified yet is excluded off hand.

[krieger]

Wtf is "quadra succession"? I assume it is an artificial construct based on the +/- dichotomy. Afaik it is neither acknowledged by most socionists, not observable for real.

Please, they talk about it extensively. They describe quadras in terms of seasons and life stages. They explain historical events in terms of it. I'm not going to look up the sources for you.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

I don't deny this, but the fact you guys appear to claim that:
- using j/p is the same thing as not using it - and of course, we're not talking about naming;

Most people use both I/E and J/P to describe functions with. The burden of proof is on you when you say only one of these is real.

- those are conclusions deductible from the Model A itself, that it's all what we need for finding them.

I don't claim such a thing. Like I said, there need to be introductions to the model for some of the Reinin dichotomies to be made to work.

Remember that Reinin thought that he concluded this exclusively from the available Socionics information (believing that XXXx <=> Model), he didn't find these traits outside, but made these combinations then tried to look for similarities in types. This is why this is so disputed, simply that these supposed similarities/traits are not to be found in real people - there is no empirical evidence for them.

Empirical evidence is generally scarce in socionics. Just that they are difficult to prove the existence of doesn't mean they aren't there. If there was evidence, Reinin would already be part of canon socionics, so what you say here is rather trivial.

My personal experience is similar, while I could see the correct dichotomies in real life - they jumped out in my face, actually - the others I could simply not find to be real, hence that Negativist example. And no, I was not looking for signs of "negativity" as in the general meaning, I specified you that I used the descriptions and the most careful I was in how they express quantities, remainders, and so on.

This means you have only eliminated one way in which the dichotomy could be interpreted. Time to move on to another.

One thing I recommend is not to use Positivist/Negativist and Process/Result in isolation, but to combine them to form quasi-temperaments; this helps to specify the characteristics more narrowly so that they are more fleshed out:
Positivist/Process/Static: "eureka" style of thinking; optimism in the belief that you can solve a problem
Negativst/Process/Dynamic: problem dwelling; trying your best to understand a problem
Positive/Result/Dynamic: oppurtunity based thinking; switching very quickly between promising ventures
Negativst/Result/Static: rejecting things you find that don't fit in with what you have

Whether these new dichotomies are there, I don't know, I couldn't find them so far and some I already dismissed experimentally. Don't get me wrong, I don't deny all, for some simply I could not find whether they are true or false, it would be a pity to dismiss them just like that. My only conviction is that this system build around j/p out of the void is wrong and it doesn't explain them. Some people call this "mental masturbation", it's good as an intellectual exercise and that's all, if you ask me, I am personally interested to find the things which are for real.

Well that's how I feel about your way of framing things. Maybe you should explain it again sometime.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

labcoat: why did you put Static/Dynamic, to put people in check? Check is not checkmate.

Uhm, because Static/Dynamic is necessitated when you put two of those terms together? There is no such thing as a Negative/Result/Dynamic type. You'd have to rewrite the entire system to make that happen.

If I had to call two of the dichotomies "fundamental" and the other "derived", Negativist/Positivist would easily be the derived one. It's the most superficial of the three.

Then why didn't you exemplify with types, as long as you know those ways of thinking are to be found among them? Did you actually verify these in real types, at least in the descriptions, or something?

Descriptions can be wrong so focussing on them can be misleading. I just look for real life people that I've typed using other methods.

Your explanations above have no concrete justifications, can you explain and give some examples? One is unable to even discuss about this because it's pure speculation, so far, there's no such think in common among the types in the same group of those, is it? Can you demonstrate these things, or are you waiting for me to "take the burden" to prove something else?

Justification is a difficult topic in socionics regardless of how you approach things. I don't have a quick and easy way to show you how all this manifests, no. I can only point you in a general direction. One good thing to focus on is the way ESFps are volatile and difficult to contain, whereas ESTps are relatively controlled.

Without empirical evidence we could not type. Why are the dichotomies existent in the classical model so easily observable and exactly these are not? I don't think it's a coincidence.

Because people always pick the low hanging fruit first, duh.

"Doesn't mean they aren't there" - but it also doesn't mean they are there, are you again waiting for someone to prove wrong something you failed to prove right in the first place? Until you or someone else will do that they simply don't exist, there's nothing else to do for the skeptics.

I can go without proof for quite a while. All I need is a few indications to work with this stuff. I think you're pretending to care about proof more than you really do. Most of what you write here doesn't have a empirical basis any more than my writing here does.

I was always ready to acknowledge those, I even tried to read your dialogues and that socionics 2.0 but couldn't validate anything in my head, they're abstract conventions based on conventions based on other conventions and so on, there was no palpable external thing one could validate with, neither in the functions, descriptions or people :|.

Those dialogues are about a very flimsy set of dichotomies that I only barely acknowledge myself. On top of this, the messages were written on the fly and not verified or corrected. I'm not in any way surprised if you don't recognize what's in them.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

This was not the issue, but the fact that Positivist+Process are all anyway Static, and so on, only two of these dichotomies were required, the other is redundant. This is obvious even for the fact that 16/2/2/2 = 2, instead of 4, so you would have needed 8 groups using 3 dichotomies.

Is there some point to this? I could have used 2 and omitted the third but chose not to. There is no rational reason to neglect mentioning one.

So I suppose there is no way that we talk on common ground, therefore to ever agree...

I don't see how that follows. We can exchange methods and paradigms and see how well they work for us.

So where are the higher fruits then, why can't people see them at all?

Some people see them more easily than others. Sometimes all it takes is for one person to point something out for the rest to notice the thing.

Totally irrelevant. The point was that those dichotomies don't exist and you can't prove them even to someone who has all the goodwill in the world (that doesn't include blind belief).

Then, you can check my posting history for explanations almost all my understanding, how the approach I use neatly, this time for real, matches everything with new insights and realizations of why old things were there already in the Socionics model descriptions. My last one is here, three posts. Things match perfectly with all what we know, descriptions of types and functions, quadra values, it's all explained there for a child to understand.
Now please, don't focus on me anymore, because I don't use j/p more than Irrationality/Rationality on functions so I don't have to prove anything about this matter, until the contrary is proven (by you or myself), these dichotomies simply don't exist for me.

They do exist and you are deficient in not noticing them. Gee, we seem to be at an impasse...

My opinion is that you'd better get on the real shit and don't waste any more time with that philosophy. We may have constructive discussions.

And btw, the concepts you use have proven by practice (our discussions) to be in contradiction to different things, to invent new problems, somewhere there is a contradiction. I don't remember much to be concrete, apart for that discussion we had when I was telling you that j/p is not fundamental, sadly at that point I had no argument against it so we got stuck that time.

There are no significant contradictions raised by my introductions. The last time we spoke about I/E and J/P and which of the two is fundamental you failed to provide proof of the claim that the Russian socionists consider J/P non-fundamental, on top of the fact that such an appeal to authority was the best argument you could suggest to provide in the first place.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Can you make a thread about your views on the fundamentality of I/E some time? I may be sceptical, but I am also curious about how you deal with the problems that would occur in the formation of a paradigm on that basis.