Yea, but you need a mechanism to falsify the claim and the mechanism would have a real practical benefit as well. Most people know better not to do this, and generally as other posters have mentioned, people don't really take kindly to that kinda of shoddy thinking. It's not that common, at least not in the form of a universal claim.Originally Posted by Ashton
The mechanism I think only exists when there are blatant errors, otherwise as Octo said too much controversy exists.
Most people's understanding of socionics is BS because they disregard the facts and bend the rules to have themselves apply to a type of desire rather than the type they really are. It's a shame.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Factual counterclaim does exist in socionics as much as it exist anywhere else.
The issue of what a scotsman is can also be equally confounding..... are we talking about a national scotsman or an ethnic scotsman?
Likewise the qualifiers for what a type is are confounding as well in their own unique ways -- every base of knowledge suffers the kind of entanglement you've brought up between theory and practice.
However like I've said several times this is a needless complication about what the fallacy is about, its about an ad hoc attempt after the fact to make something work out. In socionics this can apply by people changing typings to make their understandings work out after the fact -- it doesn't mean they are wrong but it's definitely not evidence of a strong understanding.
If you have a example factual counterclaim that can prove anything please provide it. The fact remains that any counterclaims in socionics are just opinions and althrough some opinions may be more accurate then other, there is as of yet no means to measure that opinion.
You started this post with a intellectual dishonest title, which you have admitted to, the fallacy you present is not yet prevelant in socionics.
In socionics, a very good rule that one can make concerning behavior is that one cannot make a universal claim about a behavior being related to type. This is what you should have said in the first place.
I think you've tried to defend yourself and your fallacies with a lot of smoke and mirrors, it's simple, just realize that this fallacy isn't that important as of yet, and that universal claims about behavior are not substantiated by socionic theory. This way you can say that people who make universal claims about behavior as being related to socionic theory as being against the theory and making unsubstantiated claims.
Anyways most people don't do this, most people don't make universal claims, just probabilistic claims.
Then you can concentrate on one of the really important thing that is missing from socionics, a valid mechanism to produce a socionic typing that can be validated empirically by observing the quality of relationships between individuals based on intertype relations.
What I meant was that some people take classical socionics to argue what socionics is. When you give another idea or explain anything that goes against the classical ideas, suddenly you are wrong or creating another system. It's fallacious to take the classical ideas as infallible; and it's false to portray all those that go against classical ideas as misled or not practicing socionics.some of those Russians are very much alive - socionics really isn't that old, so stop depicting them prematurely deceased
I'm going to participate...
At least some of his counterclaims are factual. He's observing the behavior of people in the forum. Whether you think socionics should be applied through a forum, then that's different, but it is factual.
In socionics, a very good rule that one can make concerning behavior is that one cannot make a universal claim about a behavior being related to type. This is what you should have said in the first place.Probabilistic claims are not what people are making when they say someone is xxxx type or argue that their understanding of socionics is correct and another is not. It's different if they are arguing someone has a lack of knowledge on the matter and directs them to the knowledge, but that still doesn't mean that knowledge should be considered correct over someone who has found it to be unhelpful/misleading. All systems of thought have limitations on what they can do or exemplify.Anyways most people don't do this, most people don't make universal claims, just probabilistic claims.
Then you can concentrate on one of the really important thing that is missing from socionics, a valid mechanism to produce a socionic typing that can be validated empirically by observing the quality of relationships between individuals based on intertype relations.
Think about it this way:
Person A has an idea about socionics and wants to share it to broaden their understanding of socionics.
Person B can either claim that idea is wrong and ignore it, claim it is right and use it as an ultimate principle, or can incorporate it into a broader, more inclusive, more tolerant scope of socionics.
If Person B claims it is wrong, person A is going to be annoyed because person B is being provincial and person A isn't learning any more than they started with.
If Person B claims it is right, person A is going to be annoyed because person B is being provincial and person A isn't learning any more than they started with.
If Person B argues for its uses and problems, person A is going to be pleased because they are learning more than they did when they started.
Do you agree with Person-A's approach, hkkmr? I really hope you do.
HLd
Yo. I enjoy literature am i infp ?
I'm talking about factual counterclaim as it pertains to the fallacy. Not to factual observations of behavior on the forum. You can make factual observations but these cannot be proven as far as socionic assessment. I can say that you responded to my post, and this is a factual observation, but it does not mean it is related to socionics.
Once again you misunderstand me, I'm talking about universal claims concerning how a sociotype relates to behavior and how making those claims may not be advisable.
Person A or person B can express what they wish. People can express their ideas and criticism as they wish and hold their own opinions. It's ok for people to be annoyed.
I don't think HLD really cares about the fallacies. He was using them to make a point that you seem keen on not even addressing.
Oh, right. I apologize.Once again you misunderstand me, I'm talking about universal claims concerning how a sociotype relates to behavior and how making those claims may not be advisable.
It's not about being annoyed. It's about not being able to learn. It's equivalent to someone telling you you can't do something or shouldn't think a certain way. Now I know, if you consider yourself a Ti ego, that you can understand that.Person A or person B can express what they wish. People can express their ideas and criticism as they wish and hold their own opinions. It's ok for people to be annoyed.
If he's not concerned about fallacies, why is he talking about it? Also the same thing I said to you applies, factual observations can be made, but they might not be relevant to socionics.
Criticism does not prevent learning, I've found that it more often facilitates learning. If someone tells you can't do something, there may be a reason for it, or there may be a way to do it regardless of that reason or a way to circumvent the reason.
What boggles me is that you are focusing on knit-picking his attempt to portray his point, rather than trying to understand it to begin with. I realize the two form a whole in terms of forming an argument, but if you aren't even looking for the point, all you're going to do is knit-pick every form of reason he throws at you, while never grasping the idea of what he's trying to picture for you. You have to put forth some effort on your part at least or it's futile. He can't teach someone that doesn't want to learn.
Now you're misunderstanding me. I support criticism (in the unequivocal sense) and think it leads to learning. What I don't support is denying the usefulness or validity of a claim just because it has logical flaws (what doesn't?); all you'll do is write it off, instead of considering its uses. That's pointless.Criticism does not prevent learning, I've found that it more often facilitates learning.
Last edited by DividedsGhost; 12-13-2011 at 05:50 AM.
What is his claim? He's never really made that clear.
I have absolutely not been focused on knit-picking, most of my post contains explanations of what is actually happening as well as actual problems and needs in socionics.
I've also spent a lot of time defending myself from misunderstandings and misrepresentation of what I'm saying.
I mean I've made suggestions on the sort of things people can do or focus their time on.
1. Figure out a mechanism to assess type, would allow for disproving certain claims
2. Don't make universal claims relating sociotype and behavior
I'm critical of what I see as fallacies in his arguments, but also have been trying to present my own interpretation of how things are here as well as suggestions for what to do.
Some people aren't willing to consider criticism (in the unequivocal sense).
Considering that any association someone tries to make about behavior to type begins universal until they learn otherwise, the Scotsman fallacy is one exemplification of how people ignore criticism.
The funny thing is, I'm not even sure you both disagree on the fundamentals of the argument now.
Last edited by DividedsGhost; 12-13-2011 at 05:49 AM.
I don't think this is a good idea as it will drive us down a further confounding tangent, if I did provide one, your next move would be to criticize it, and we would have another thing to debate on that would be further removed from the core issue of this topic.
How about relax a little, its an internet forum, not an scholarly journal -- "intellectually dishonest title".... I don't see how I'm being dishonest, but even if I were umm who cares its just an internet forum.
Yea but that's sloppy thinking in and of itself as that assertion, strictly speaking would have to be validated or proved somehow. Maybe it is possible to make a universal claim -- it hasn't been rigorously disproven. In fact I find the entire question of whether it is pure opinion or pure fact to be somewhat unrealistic, almost EVERYTHING in life is a mixture, an entanglement of both. So characterizing something like "scotsman" as pure fact and something like "socionics" as pure opinion seems shortsighted tbh.
Lol isn't importance subjective, I mean it seems a little grandiose for you to go around telling other people what is important and not. I found this topic to be important, not in a pompous intellectual scholarly journal way, but in a more interesting way -- I was hoping to spark discussion on sources of error in people's understanding in hopes of improving people's methodology.
This sounds equally as pompous and grandiose... I mean your acting like you have solid evidence of this assertion, when in fact its more like just what you think... which is cool, normally I'm fine with that kind of expression of thought, but your playing it off as something more, like your professing some infallable truth -- and there's this undertone of aggression to it as well, like your stuffing it down someone's throat and making them swallow because its so obvious your correct.... that's the pompous part.
If you want to be strictly logical, then probablistic claims themselves are universal as your making an assumption that a system is characterized by probabilitys accurately.
Tbh I don't really care about the "quest for a valid mechanism" or anything, I just wanted to point out how logical fallacies and errors can apply to socionics because I found it interesting. The idea was that this knowledge could help people be more accurate in their typings. As to the future of socionics academically, right now I'm pretty indifferent to it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
