Hope for a Cure

[ashlesha]

iow, if you're doing it right you're doing it wrong.

[glam]

for example, according to the model, duality is the best possible type of relationship and helps cover your weak spots while highlighting your strengths. there is really no other interpretation. so to say "duality is awesome and i should marry my dual" isn't really a stretch or a misapplication going purely by the theory.

iow, if you're doing it right you're doing it wrong.

but people should recognize that not all duals are created equal, due to all other non-socionics factors. like i said, if people are going to ignore non-socionics factors while choosing who they're going to marry purely based on socionics, that's their problem.

[ashlesha]

but people should recognize that not all duals are created equal, due to all other non-socionics factors. like i said, if people are going to ignore non-socionics factors while choosing who they're going to marry purely based on socionics, that's their problem.

of course its their problem. its completely their fault. but they'd be following socionics to the letter. how can you not conclude, then, that socionics is flawed?

[glam]

of course its their problem. its completely their fault. but they'd be following socionics to the letter. how can you not conclude, then, that socionics is flawed?

i never said socionics wasn't flawed? all models are limited somehow in explaining the phenomenon they are addressing, and models also often go through changes with the discovery of new data (something which socionics could benefit from, imo), in order to be refined & improved.

i also never said anyone should follow socionics "to the letter", in fact i'm arguing the opposite - for people to recognize its limitations due to its status as a model. anyone who uses socionics in such a way might as well declare it their religion.

i don't understand what exactly it is you're disagreeing with me about.

[ashlesha]

i don't understand what exactly it is you're disagreeing with me about.

i know you are arguing against people following socionics to the letter. you were just also saying it wasn't socionics "fault."

and i wouldn't put it that way either - i wouldn't place "blame" on a model instead of the people using it. but people misapply it when they use it correctly. it IS a problem with the theory.

i'm not even really sure if thats an important point of disagreement, though. i think in the end it probably comes down to how much value we place on it in terms of whether its worth trying to apply it or not.

[glam]

i know you are arguing against people following socionics to the letter. you were just also saying it wasn't socionics "fault."

and i wouldn't put it that way either - i wouldn't place "blame" on a model instead of the people using it. but people misapply it when they use it correctly. it IS a problem with the theory.

i'm not even really sure if thats an important point of disagreement, though. i think in the end it probably comes down to how much value we place on it in terms of whether its worth trying to apply it or not.

understand socionics -> understand its limitations -> apply it if you will

if people on step #3 misapply it because they skipped step #2, that's not socionics' fault for someone not understanding that the theory isn't a magic wand for their relationships should they choose to apply it.

i think the disagreement could be related to that, what you said said regarding each individual's determination of its value, interpretation of socionics as a theory, and also on what the "correct" way to apply socionics is.

because i suspect we probably disagree on what "using the model correctly" (among other language throughout this conversation) actually means. but i don't really feel like arguing semantics to be honest.