great paragraphs from what you're reading

[Singu]

the problem is the predictive power of "inner dynamic" theory is so pervasive that people take it for granted, as if its not there, because we use it so frequently. "inner dynamics" account for more successful and reliable predictions every day according to the own criteria given. its just ignored because you can't write a paper about what everyone already knows, unless you're a real genius. this is just the bleating of the mediocre trying to spin their means by which the uncreative can be creative (this is a Maslow quote--why don't you look that one up?, since we're on about great paragraphs, not some rando no name), and try to elevate it above their betters. amusingly, such an attempt does seem right up your alley, so I can see why this passage appeals to you

Er, did you just call Albert Bandura a random no-name? He's the most cited psychologist alive, fool. Way more important and influential than Maslow. Sorry, but Maslow is more pop-psychology. Why don't you look THAT up.

Also, you haven't read or understood anything. It says that other factors like external and environmental factors must be considered, since internal unconscious causes can easily be altered by outside factors. The so-called "inner dynamics" (I assume you're talking about psychodynamics) can't be considered to be the only factor if we were to predict behaviors.

though the calculations ended up not being perfect, that they needed to be made, and that additional planets must exist is precisely how inner dynamic theory works, which is to say it posits an underlying scheme to an outter manifestation that is later proven true by its predictions.

...No it doesn't. Like it says, psychodynamics works by observing the behavior first, and then deducing the motivation from the behavior, which is circular. This is more like Aristotles saying that there is gravity because objects are "attracted to each other".

it is precisely through this imaginative process that new knowledge is created, the idea that you can only proceed linearly from observation in developing theory cuts an entire half off of the development of human knowledge.

I don't disagree, but that's not how psychodynamics work.

[Bertrand]

This is more like Aristotles saying that there is gravity because objects are "attracted to each other".

first of all, this conversation is set in the context of socionics. it doesn't deduce motivation. it deduces cognitive function in terms of structure. motivation is inferred only when there is no possible other explanation, then it can be properly "deduced" and this happens. also aristotle conveys 4 different types of causes, because causality is a function of how to organize information across axes, particularly the time axis, and it can be done different ways. what Jung added was the 5th axis "the collective unconscious" its actually the most sophisticated model of causality there is. and aristotle's insight was that people understand causality differently, which was later articulated into how they organize their "grid" across functions of time/space and now the unconscious. each priveledges their own understanding and views the world in those terms. all of the above fails to acknowledge that and falls back on more basic modes of understanding, and I can understand the attraction to reduce things to the lowest common denominator, but that is the criterion of "truth" for only certain types, namely low res Ti valuers

Bandura is in the same league of Zimbardo and Milgram, by no means insignificant

significant to who? I already take for granted singu represents the voice of psychology in the sense that is antithetical to jung. the problem is we're on a board inspired by jung. its not news that jung is in the small minority, so if the Fe criterion for truth is motion for its own sake in its own respective echo chamber, then yes, super significant. in light of history, no more significant than any random scholastic who time has totally forgotten

the fact that people are dazzled by academia as if it this must be significant is just Ti seeking to the max, based on who says the most words. its a total Fe perspective on Ti

[Singu]

Stop BSing Bertrand, you have no idea what you're talking about.

For someone who supposedly likes "creative thinking", you sure don't do a whole lot of thinking. I know that you have a boner for Jung and Jordan Peterson, but that doesn't mean that they were right. Even just a little bit of thinking can expose the problems that psychodynamics faces.

all of the above fails to acknowledge that and falls back on more basic modes of understanding, and I can understand the attraction to reduce things to the lowest common denominator,

Psychology is NOT the "lowest common denominator", or low-level complexity like physics. Psychology is more high-level "emergent phenomena". And yes, such phenomena can have both a predictive and explanatory model. However, the whole point of this is deeper level of understanding, now shallower. There is nothing wrong with simplicity and elegance, which is what pretty much all great theories will eventually fall back to.

significant to who? I already take for granted singu represents the voice of psychology in the sense that is antithetical to jung. the problem is we're on a board inspired by jung. its not news that jung is in the small minority, so if the Fe criterion for truth is motion for its own sake in its own respective echo chamber, then yes, super significant. in light of history, no more significant than any random scholastic who time has totally forgotten

the fact that people are dazzled by academia as if it this must be significant is just Ti seeking to the max, based on who says the most words. its a total Fe perspective on Ti

You are an idiot, and you have no idea what you're talking about. How about you do some study for once, or how about you come up with an actual predictive and explanatory model that can predict and explain anything in real life, fool, instead of making lame Socionics ad hominems over and over again like a clueless fool.

FOOL! You are worthless and pointless.

[Aylen]

"The Void

But yet creation's neither crammed nor blocked
About by body: there's in things a void-
Which to have known will serve thee many a turn,
Nor will not leave thee wandering in doubt,
Forever searching in the sum of all,
And losing faith in these pronouncements mine.
There's place intangible, a void and room.
For were it not, things could in nowise move;
Since body's property to block and check
Would work on all and at an times the same.
Thus naught could evermore push forth and go,
Since naught elsewhere would yield a starting place.
But now through oceans, lands, and heights of heaven
By divers causes and in divers modes,
Before our eyes we mark how much may move,
Which, finding not a void, would fail deprived
Of stir and motion; nay, would then have been
Nowise begot at all, since matter, then,
Had staid at rest, its parts together crammed.
Then too, however solid objects seem,
They yet are formed of matter mixed with void:
In rocks and caves the watery moisture seeps,
And beady drops stand out like plenteous tears;
And food finds way through every frame that lives;
The trees increase and yield the season's fruit
Because their food throughout the whole is poured,
Even from the deepest roots, through trunks and boughs;
And voices pass the solid walls and fly
Reverberant through shut doorways of a house;
And stiffening frost seeps inward to our bones.
Which but for voids for bodies to go through
'Tis clear could happen in nowise at all.
Again, why see we among objects some
Of heavier weight, but of no bulkier size:
Indeed, if in a ball of wool there be
As much of body as in lump of lead,
The two should weigh alike, since body tends
To load things downward, while the void abides,
By contrary nature, the imponderable.
Therefore, an object just as large but lighter
Declares infallibly its more of void;
Even as the heavier more of matter shows,
And how much less of vacant room inside.
That which we're seeking with sagacious quest
Exists, infallibly, commixed with things-
The void, the invisible inane.
Right here

I am compelled a question to expound,
Forestalling something certain folk suppose,
Lest it avail to lead thee off from truth:
Waters (they say) before the shining breed
Of the swift scaly creatures somehow give,
And straightway open sudden liquid paths,
Because the fishes leave behind them room
To which at once the yielding billows stream.
Thus things among themselves can yet be moved,
And change their place, however full the Sum-
Received opinion, wholly false forsooth.
For where can scaly creatures forward dart,
Save where the waters give them room? Again,
Where can the billows yield a way, so long
As ever the fish are powerless to go?
Thus either all bodies of motion are deprived,
Or things contain admixture of a void
Where each thing gets its start in moving on.
Lastly, where after impact two broad bodies
Suddenly spring apart, the air must crowd
The whole new void between those bodies formed;
But air, however it stream with hastening gusts,
Can yet not fill the gap at once- for first
It makes for one place, ere diffused through all.
And then, if haply any think this comes,
When bodies spring apart, because the air
Somehow condenses, wander they from truth:
For then a void is formed, where none before;
And, too, a void is filled which was before.
Nor can air be condensed in such a wise;
Nor, granting it could, without a void, I hold,
It still could not contract upon itself
And draw its parts together into one.
Wherefore, despite demur and counter-speech,
Confess thou must there is a void in things.

And still I might by many an argument
Here scrape together credence for my words.
But for the keen eye these mere footprints serve,
Whereby thou mayest know the rest thyself.
As dogs full oft with noses on the ground,
Find out the silent lairs, though hid in brush,
Of beasts, the mountain-rangers, when but once
They scent the certain footsteps of the way,
Thus thou thyself in themes like these alone
Can hunt from thought to thought, and keenly wind
Along even onward to the secret places
And drag out truth. But, if thou loiter loth
Or veer, however little, from the point,
This I can promise, Memmius, for a fact:
Such copious drafts my singing tongue shall pour
From the large well-springs of my plenished breast
That much I dread slow age will steal and coil
Along our members, and unloose the gates
Of life within us, ere for thee my verse
Hath put within thine ears the stores of proofs
At hand for one soever question broached.

Nothing Exists Per Se Except Atoms and the Void"

Excerpt from "On the Nature of Things" By Lucretius