Socionics doesn't exist

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

@ immediate dismissal rather than consideration of evidence
One less tool in the tool-set for you.

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

[Crispy]

@ you thinking the world was flat UNTIL we discovered it wasn't
You are a HOOT.

[Trevor]

Just bloody leave us discuss this bloody thing which doesn't even exist, will you? don't be such a bloody Grinch about it.

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

@ you thinking the world was flat UNTIL we discovered it wasn't
You are a HOOT.

Incorrect, the world was flat until I made it spherical.

[Creepy-]

@ you thinking the world was flat UNTIL we discovered it wasn't
You are a HOOT.

I'm pretty sure many people thought the world was flat until it was discovered that it is not.

[Crispy]

@ you thinking the world was flat UNTIL we discovered it wasn't
You are a HOOT.

I'm pretty sure many people thought the world was flat until it was discovered that it is not.

If pretty sure if he doesn't live in that time period your interpretation is nonsensical. (Try reading it again )

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

I'm pretty sure many people thought the world was flat until it was discovered that it is not.

If pretty sure if he doesn't live in that time period your interpretation is nonsensical. (Try reading it again )

I did live in such a time period actually, the man speaks the truth. Let us not make fun of dead people, okay?

[Crispy]

Not with your current body you didn't, which as far as we know is what matters.

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

Not with your current body you didn't, which as far as we know is what matters.

I've been using NZT for years, it has made me live for hundreds of years and has kept my mind sharp.

[Creepy-]

If pretty sure if he doesn't live in that time period your interpretation is nonsensical. (Try reading it again )

I thought you were using a hypothetical situation as an analogy.

[Crispy]

The situation took place in the present reminiscing over the past's time-line

[rat1]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided.

philosophy fail

[Logos]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided.

philosophy fail

I'm glad I'm not the only one who picks up the use-mention fallacy that forms the premise of this thread.

[aestrivex]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

what a ton of bullshit. a criticism of the concepts within the theory of socionics is one thing, but you're just stating that in the absence of neuroscientific evidence (giving no evidence you understand what that evidence would mean) all personality models are useless. go do your epistemology homework again; i give you a failing grade.

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

what a ton of bullshit. a criticism of the concepts within the theory of socionics is one thing, but you're just stating that in the absence of neuroscientific evidence (giving no evidence you understand what that evidence would mean) all personality models are useless. go do your epistemology homework again; i give you a failing grade.

You fail to understand what I wrote before. All personality types are personality fragments therefore they cannot be true personality types. I am the only true personality type because I am all of them, hence socionics only exists for me.

[aestrivex]

what a ton of bullshit. a criticism of the concepts within the theory of socionics is one thing, but you're just stating that in the absence of neuroscientific evidence (giving no evidence you understand what that evidence would mean) all personality models are useless. go do your epistemology homework again; i give you a failing grade.

You fail to understand what I wrote before. All personality types are personality fragments therefore they cannot be true personality types. I am the only true personality type because I am all of them, hence socionics only exists for me.

chicken butt.

[Creepy-EddieMorra]

You fail to understand what I wrote before. All personality types are personality fragments therefore they cannot be true personality types. I am the only true personality type because I am all of them, hence socionics only exists for me.

chicken butt.

Personality fragment.

[Marie84]

I am the only true personality type because I am all of them, hence socionics only exists for me.

you're going to edge out The Penetrator as my favorite troll account

[The Penetrator]

I am the only true personality type because I am all of them, hence socionics only exists for me.

you're going to edge out The Penetrator as my favorite troll account

Fuck you. Fuck you both.

[Crispy]

Hey... Hugo? Was that whose this was?

[Jarno]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

i posted an article about this some time ago.

The first function, like Jung's types, is 100x more efficient than the other functions.
That's what I remember.

BTW your own definition of science is incorrect. But I don't go into that anymore, you can read a book about it.

[Anglas]

Eddie, when you were saying socionics you had in mind Santa Claus?

[Absurd]

Neurology explains why one feels a certain way, creating a false self lacking what neurology calls an "Organic I" or real self.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Eddie, when you were saying socionics you had in mind Santa Claus?

This made me laugh out loud.

[Morcheeba]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

i posted an article about this some time ago.

The first function, like Jung's types, is 100x more efficient than the other functions.
That's what I remember.

BTW your own definition of science is incorrect. But I don't go into that anymore, you can read a book about it.

I disagree that the first function is more efficient. I like the model on socionics.us. In order to have an ego, we have to accept certain information, and then produce information to give the first function a leg to stand on. I also think the demonstrative function has much of an influence on our behavior as the first function.

[somavision]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

I'm assuming this is a troll, however if not...

This is non-sense... trait theories of personality have been well established and recognised within mainstream psychology for some time, [see Costa and McCrae, Goldberg etc], whilst some work has been done to link the observed traits [e.g. extraversion and introversion was linked by Hans Jurgen Eysenck to differences in cortical arousal controlled by the ARAS.] these theories developed from empirically observed data. There is no fundamental requirement to have direct understanding of the neurological mechanisms that result in the patterns observed from psychometric testing to demonstrate that the patterns exist.

Of course socionics is different in that it makes some larger claims than other personality theories. However the core of the theory is observable and consistent in everyday interactions, and when focusing purely on valued functions, I've never met a fully developed, seld aware adult who doesn't identify with the concept of valued and unvalued functions. In fact so much of the basis can be attributed to a universal common sense theory [e.g. Ne is incompatible with Se] that it has a very natural elegance to it's logical construct. Socionics is an interesting and useful tool, not something to worship, but something to observe, test and learn from.


EDIT: Shit I Bit.