General Principles of the Dominant Functions

[Mattie]

Okay. I personally don't see it as "weak," its obviously the right way to go about it, to read the material itself and agree with why Socionics manifests how its been described many times over and over again. Obviously you can go further back in typology and change all the variables out to suit whatever abstractions you want, however I think you are probably overestimating how able you are to apply those, and idealizing your ability to think objectively by not allowing yourself any physical root. I have still been applying Socionics ordinarily, and still change my type upon learning about new sources, listening to people and keeping an open and adaptive mind. There has been some interpretation trouble on my behalf from various sources, but that's not going to keep me from sniffing out such BS as "these basics are nothing but wrong stereotypes, my ideas are better." I've been here for years too, didn't just come into this typology yesterday, and you have to be able to apply what's been given in an intelligent manner. If you fail at doing so then you try again, else change your interpretation around, to in due course fit around some other idea, but not Socionics. Even fitting well around your personal ideology, it is still of no use to others like myself who want an objective tuition. There's a lot more to it than just these descriptions, nonetheless these are essentially some of the most important, most objectifiable and most provable sources of Socionics, and all the other ideas one is to bear from it stand as designated possibilities and connections / correlations.

The fact that you're steadfast in thinking your approach is objectively better than mine, while I'm observing that all of our understandings have been subjectively constructed, says it all. The part that is weak about your argument is that you think just because there is an authority on Socionics means everything they've said is correct and applicable, and that fallacious thinking. Socionics isn't based on anything that has been proven, meaning that the authority could be very wrong, and anyone else could be closer to the truth. Since there is no or little motion for this sort of provability, anyone can take any sort of take on Socionics and still be "right." And just by observing your time here, I can't say you have a lot of weight behind thinking that your way is at all better than any other persons' way.

[717495]

Socionics isn't based on anything that has been proven,

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

[Mattie]

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

Uh, no, Filatova makes false claims to Socionics being a proven process. If there was proof that Socionics actually existed, those would be the first articles we would have our hands on, that would be huge news. It would mean, for a fact, that everyone's brains are wired to receive and metabolize information that way. There is NO proof for this, and Socionics is ultimately a hypothetical. If you have been thinking that this is some fact that we all are learning here, I'm sorry to say that's not the case. Which is why anyone can take their own perspective of Socionics and be as "right" as the authorities, because there is no proof Socionics exists. I really hope no one was gullible enough to just read it from Filatova and think it was true. Model A isn't proven, the IMEs aren't proven, the Jungian functions aren't proven... Yeah, there are "some standards," and they are science and reality, both which Socionics tries to be a part of.

[717495]

It would mean, for a fact, that everyone's brains are wired to receive and metabolize information that way. There is NO proof for this,

Where does it say Socionics supports this?

[Creepy-cinq]

Uh, no, Filatova makes false claims to Socionics being a proven process. If there was proof that Socionics actually existed, those would be the first articles we would have our hands on, that would be huge news. It would mean, for a fact, that everyone's brains are wired to receive and metabolize information that way. There is NO proof for this, and Socionics is ultimately a hypothetical. If you have been thinking that this is some fact that we all are learning here, I'm sorry to say that's not the case. Which is why anyone can take their own perspective of Socionics and be as "right" as the authorities, because there is no proof Socionics exists. I really hope no one was gullible enough to just read it from Filatova and think it was true. Model A isn't proven, the IMEs aren't proven, the Jungian functions aren't proven... Yeah, there are "some standards," and they are science and reality, both which Socionics tries to be a part of.

If Socionics is so unproven, hypothetical and abstract, why then would you bother to categorize yourself as ENFp and place it in your personal stats?

[Creepy-female]

If Socionics is so unproven, hypothetical and abstract, why then would you bother to categorize yourself as ENFp and place it in your personal stats?

Mutual exclusivity strikes again lol.

[Mattie]

If Socionics is so unproven, hypothetical and abstract, why then would you bother to categorize yourself as ENFp and place it in your personal stats?

Here's the sparknotes answer provided by dolphin:

Mutual exclusivity strikes again lol.

Now if that didn't make sense to you:

Because I can entertain abstract ideas without having to cement them into my understanding of reality? How do fiction writers write? Everything they do is hypothetical, reaching from the abstract to try and be concrete, and have created an elaborate lie for people to buy into it. Why do they write? Your question is just a lash out against me in attempt for me to look hypocritical rather than genuinely placing yourself into my position. My comments don't demean Socionics or anyone's way of doing Socionics, until it comes to a "my way is objectively better than your's" which is what the issue here is. Everything you paraphrased from me is true, but those aren't prerequisite to being interested in something that has potential application. The problem occurs when people actually think Socionics is a fact, and because it exists indefinitely, there's only one way to do it correctly. I am NeFi and use it in application because it is what I understand in relation to this hypothesis, I don't go to other people, state I am NeFi in a general description about myself, and state how things should work because of this designation. I am fully aware that I have come to my own subjective understanding of Socionics, and that understanding (and honestly, it seems like this doesn't clash with anyone else) categorizes whatever appropriate aspects of me as NeFi.

Now, you can try again adding something intelligent to the conversation rather than stooping to attack someone's character.

ETA: Didn't see the response:

Where does it say Socionics supports this?

Augusta directly takes from a particular hypothesis of information metabolism and proposes Model A as the system for which it happens. I'm not sure what you consider Model A, and I'm also not sure how/where exactly you think IME interaction happens in a person.

[Creepy-cinq]

Because I can entertain abstract ideas without having to cement them into my understanding of reality? How do fiction writers write? Everything they do is hypothetical, reaching from the abstract to try and be concrete, and have created an elaborate lie for people to buy into it. Why do they write? Your question is just a lash out against me in attempt for me to look hypocritical rather than genuinely placing yourself into my position. My comments don't demean Socionics or anyone's way of doing Socionics, until it comes to a "my way is objectively better than your's" which is what the issue here is. Everything you paraphrased from me is true, but those aren't prerequisite to being interested in something that has potential application. The problem occurs when people actually think Socionics is a fact, and because it exists indefinitely, there's only one way to do it correctly. I am NeFi and use it in application because it is what I understand in relation to this hypothesis, I don't go to other people, state I am NeFi in a general description about myself, and state how things should work because of this designation. I am fully aware that I have come to my own subjective understanding of Socionics, and that understanding (and honestly, it seems like this doesn't clash with anyone else) categorizes whatever appropriate aspects of me as NeFi.

Now, you can try again adding something intelligent to the conversation rather than stooping to attack someone's character.

I don't see the issue as being concrete so much as dealing with categories, structures and terms . The moment someone places some form and definition, you seem adverse to it and you shoot it down. It seems you like to keep socionics undefined and nebulous. Structure of course means limitations leading to potential stereotypes. You don't like stereotypes, you've made this abundantly clear in so many ways over the last months. Yet, you have no issues categorizing yourself as ENFp - leading of course to limitations. Seems truly silly. I've read Filatova's book and I'm in general agreement with the terms. The are not too different from what Aushra proposed. I think Filatova made it explicitly clear her book was introductory. So, it seems redundant to be so critical of the elementary nature of the book's contents when the author has already admitted it to be. It's almost as if you're jealous. Is the issue the fact that someone has finally defined the functions reasonably - there is no more mystery, new newness anymore? Move on to something else, Mattie.

[717495]

Augusta directly takes from a particular hypothesis of information metabolism and proposes Model A as the system for which it happens. I'm not sure what you consider Model A, and I'm also not sure how/where exactly you think IME interaction happens in a person.

Though I don't see a lot of necessary, important, basic or mainstream information about it. It's not essential to understanding Socionics. If I wanted to know if I'm telepathic with my soulmate, how my neurons affected my personality type, and what the secret of life is, I would go ask maritsa. If I wanted to learn about Socionics, the practical theory that means something in real life, then I'd read the basic material on it and apply it like it's been applied. I have enough abstract unpractical meaningless things to do, such as writing and music. I don't someone helping me turn this into another mental guessing game. Life here is short, do what you got to do, don't pretend to be something you're not. I can't pretend or afford to be a interested in these open-ended scientific questions that lead to virtually nowhere in my life. Most people aren't going to be interested in a typology that's that sketchy and unpractical, especially when they already have proof that this one works. If you really have something better, go publish a book.

[Mattie]

Though I don't see a lot of necessary, important, basic or mainstream information about it. It's not essential to understanding Socionics. If I wanted to know if I'm telepathic with my soulmate, how my neurons affected my personality type, and what the secret of life is, I would go ask maritsa. If I wanted to learn about Socionics, the practical theory that means something in real life, then I'd read the basic material on it. I have enough abstract unpractical meaningless things to do, such as writing and music. I don't someone helping me turn this into another mental guessing game.

The problem you have here is that you want all the complicated stuff being worked out by other people while you take the "practical" bits and use it. So, what you're saying is Socionics is fact without looking into the claim it makes. If the hypothesis originates from the hypothesis of information metabolism, everything about it further validates (or invalidates) Socionics, as well has Jungian functions. All of what I said and am saying here is in response to this:

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

Beside you sliding in some insults, you are purporting that Socionics is true and part of reality. If information metabolism is false, Socionics is false. if Jungian function are false, Socionics is false. By you saying that Socionics is a part of reality, you are saying information metabolism is true and a part of reality, and that Jungian functions are true and a part of reality. None of this has been proven. The ambiguity that haunts this forum wouldn't exist if that was the case. Therefore, you have no more weight in your perspective in "respecting Socionics 'authority'" than any other perspective one might have when handling the applicability of the subject.

Now, what separates me from you (and cinq, see how she presented herself in this thread) is that I don't need Socionics to be proven true or false to understand the abstract ideas and how it possibly can be applied; along with this understanding, I don't put the way I think objectively over another's, because I don't have any more 'proof' than the next person, along with the 'authorities.' If they do, find the research and this is all done! There will be less ways, if not one way, to do Socionics since it is embedded into reality.

You can't just make a random claim and say something is a part of reality but not want to get into the details of how it is. In actuality, you don't know how it is a part of reality, which is why you have a weak argument here.

ETA:

I don't see the issue as being concrete so much as dealing with categories, structures and terms . The moment someone places some form and definition, you seem adverse to it and you shoot it down. It seems you like to keep socionics undefined and nebulous. Structure of course means limitations leading to potential stereotypes. You don't like stereotypes, you've made this abundantly clear in so many ways over the last months. Yet, you have no issues categorizing yourself as ENFp - leading of course to limitations. Seems truly silly. I've read Filatova's book and I'm in general agreement with the terms. The are not too different from what Aushra proposed. I think Filatova made it explicitly clear her book was introductory. So, it seems redundant to be so critical of the elementary nature of the book's contents when the author has already admitted it to be. It's almost as if you're jealous. Is the issue the fact that someone has finally defined the functions reasonably - there is no more mystery, new newness anymore? Move on to something else, Mattie.

Sounds like you more have an obsession with me. Maybe you can move on to someone else.

[Brilliand]

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

I have a problem with this view - if there is any conflict over what qualifies as "proof," then I require that the stricter definition be taken. In other words, Socionics is not proven, and I ask that you make a distinction between objective proof and sufficient evidence to convince you.

Socionics is currently in a state where it is supported by evidence but not as well-supported as most of us may like, and imo Mattie has decent justification for thinking as she does.