A Note on Intertype Relations

[jet city woman]

Yea, there are definitely more important/interesting subjects I could sink my time into the study of (within typology as well)........
At this point, I've milked all the personal insight out of socionics I can possibly gain. It seems that every form of typology becomes very subjective and then there's a point where you just don't need it anymore because you've created your own workable typology system. I don't really need socionics.

I think it becomes a religion for some people and they need it, along with their interpretation of it. Makes sense because it improves their lives, and they don't want to let go. They need a belief system to cling to...... So trying to convince them of other-than what they believe is probably non-productive and could be codependent. (Discussion is one thing; a need to convince is another).

[mu4]

I don't really need socionics.

I think it becomes a religion for some people and they need it, along with their interpretation of it. Makes sense because it improves their lives, and they don't want to let go. They need a belief system to cling to...... So trying to convince them of other-than what they believe is probably non-productive and could be codependent. (Discussion is one thing; a need to convince is another).

Socionics(or what socionics pertains to) doesn't need you is the more important issue...

Ultimately the phenomena that socionics is attempting to describe does not require belief, it is simply a way of explaining what is already existing in the imprecise and ham-handed ways human need to.

If you would interpret socionics thru meme theory, one could say that the personality is a meme(in the metabolized form of asymmetric information preference) that is implanted into a individual by early childhood and which occupies a pervasive interpretation of the world thru that meme. And that all we learn, religion, science, skills interact with that meme. It is akin to the OS of the individual, or even perhaps the command line architecture of the individual. Personality itself is generally viewed as a belief "system" which implies it is subjective, based on mental states and a "sense" of self. It is a merely a construct of belief. The question then becomes whether one can overcome this meme, how trapped one is by this meme, and what are the consequences of abandoning it at later stages of life or if the developmental process of this organism is interrupted.

You speak of belief system as if it were unnecessary, unfortunately this is a fundamental fact, that belief systems are necessary, inescapable and when used for evaluation and examination provide innovative solutions to the world's problems.

[ashlesha]

Yea, there are definitely more important/interesting subjects I could sink my time into the study of (within typology as well)........
At this point, I've milked all the personal insight out of socionics I can possibly gain. It seems that every form of typology becomes very subjective and then there's a point where you just don't need it anymore because you've created your own workable typology system. I don't really need socionics.

I think it becomes a religion for some people and they need it, along with their interpretation of it. Makes sense because it improves their lives, and they don't want to let go. They need a belief system to cling to...... So trying to convince them of other-than what they believe is probably non-productive and could be codependent. (Discussion is one thing; a need to convince is another).

constructive. best post in the thread imo.

Socionics(or what socionics pertains to) doesn't need you is the more important issue...

lol, what?

[mu4]

Are you implying type change is possible?

I've always thought type change is possible, try hammer to frontal lobes, is it possible without irrevocable damage to a individual, I don't know about that.

[jet city woman]

Socionics(or what socionics pertains to) doesn't need you is the more important issue...

Ultimately the phenomena that socionics is attempting to describe does not require belief, it is simply a way of explaining what is already existing in the imprecise and ham-handed ways human need to.

Same sentiments I've gotten from Christian friends..... explaining Christianity.

You speak of belief system as if it were unnecessary, unfortunately this is a fundamental fact, that belief systems are necessary, inescapable and when used for evaluation and examination provide innovative solutions to the world's problems.

I agree that most of the time some sort of belief system is necessary, but I don't agree that someone needs to create it for you, me, or anyone else. I think it's personal and unique.

[mu4]

Same sentiments I've gotten from Christian friends..... explaining Christianity.

Except Christianity is predicated on faith, and not believing in it gets you sent to hell. Socionics if you don't believe in it, no consequences!
Socionics system is scientific which means that it is not "god's" truth, and has the character of being imperfect an understand and explanation.

I agree that most of the time some sort of belief system is necessary, but I don't agree that someone needs to create it for you, me, or anyone else. I think it's personal and unique.

Should it also be logical and consistant and true to nature?

[jet city woman]

Except Christianity is predicated on faith, and not believing in it gets you sent to hell.

Not necessarily. All Christians don't believe this.

Socionics system is scientific which means that it is not "god's" truth, and has the character of being imperfect an understand and explanation.

Socionics is far from scientific. lol. Do you really think socionics is perfect in understanding and explanation?

Should it also be logical and consistant and true to nature?

Depends on the person and what they want it to be. Apparently someone's beliefs don't always have to be logical, consistent, or true to nature, and this in itself is subjective. People have their own perspectives.

[mu4]

Not necessarily. All Christians don't believe this.

Yea, but some do.

Socionics is far from scientific. lol. Do you really think socionics is perfect in understanding and explanation?

....has the character of being an imperfect understanding and explanation. Sorry I didn't really type that right the last time. Scientific systems assume imperfection, religious systems assume perfection. This is because religious systems have a pretense to be divine and sacred and bestowed by God.

Scientific systems does not make this pretense, and is a product of man rather then God. Socionic's system is scientific but it is not (yet) a science, it is a protoscience.

Depends on the person and what they want it to be. Apparently someone's beliefs don't always have to be logical, consistent, or true to nature. People have their own perspectives.

This is interesting...

[jet city woman]

Socionic's system is scientific but it is not (yet) a science, it is a protoscience.

Fair enough. Although I doubt socionics will never see the term "science". "Protoscience" is very optimistic. (Human psychology in itself has never risen to the status of "science".)

This is interesting...

[Aquagraph]

Didn't read any posts since the first page.

Everyone talks about how meaningless socionics is but only few imply that it is meaningful. As if we are fighting against some group that mostly isn't there.

And the ones who do exaggurate it are usually the jesters of the community.

[mu4]

Fair enough. Although I doubt socionics will never see the term "science". "Protoscience" is very optimistic. (Human psychology in itself has never risen to the status of "science".)

No, it will not be called socionics.

But I will say that one day there will be a science of human mind and of human relationships and have methods to determine more accurately the quality of relationships between people.

And that science will consider information processing and information preference and that one of it's analytical methods may be SVD analysis which results in 2^x categorizations of opposing extremes(dichotomies/pairs).

Given this assumption, socionics is on the right track.

[Aquagraph]

Define science unless you just like meaningless term wars.

[ashlesha]

Didn't read any posts since the first page.

Everyone talks about how meaningless socionics is but only few imply that it is meaningful. As if we are fighting against some group that mostly isn't there.

And the ones who do exaggurate it are usually the jesters of the community.

not really tho

[jet city woman]

Define science unless you just like meaningless term wars.

lol well leave it to Ti to notice. I think I just seek clarification in that case, and yes, I've been known to misunderstand based on terms, and seek additional explanation. In my case, though, I don't find it meaningless, and it actually leads me to understanding of another's viewpoint. And that can't be a bad thing. It's like, I need to go from overall-picture to minute-detail stage to get meaning from it.


Are you a jester, Aqua?

[jet city woman]

No, it will not be called socionics.

But I will say that one day there will be a science of human mind and of human relationships and have methods to determine more accurately the quality of relationships between people.

Well, I mean, I have problems identifying how to exactly determine quality, for one. If I look around, quality is so subjective. I suppose it could be about "healthy" behaviors, and there can be measurements of health, but, I think the subjectivity of the matters are going to be an issue in the makings of "determining quality" becoming part of a science. I think a science will determine "what it actually is and how it's going to react" vs. determining quality, which is just really, too opinionated/subjective to be scientific. And who knows if "what is and what will be", for humans, is really measurable, in the way of determining behaviors on a small-scale/individual choice perspective. So far, I would say there's going to have to be an immense amount of work done in order to bring all elements together into one determination. Human beings are just too amazingly random and there are so many factors involved that one system must take in and encompass. That's not to say that insight can't be gained from reading the works that have already been done. The simple exercise of describing anything can lead to personal insight.

And that science will consider information processing and information preference and that one of it's analytical methods may be SVD analysis which results in 2^x categorizations of opposing extremes(dichotomies/pairs).

Given this assumption, socionics is on the right track.

Interesting and I think the real gains will come in the way of neuroscience. I'm not really sure at this point how it will happen, though.... (haven't really thought about it too much).

[Aquagraph]

Are you a jester, Aqua?

No. I am always serious.

[mu4]

Well, I mean, I have problems identifying how to exactly determine quality, for one. If I look around, quality is so subjective. I suppose it could be about "healthy" behaviors, and there can be measurements of health, but, I think the subjectivity of the matters are going to be an issue in the makings of "determining quality" becoming part of a science. I think a science will determine "what it actually is and how it's going to react" vs. determining quality, which is just really, too opinionated/subjective to be scientific. And who knows if "what is and what will be", for humans, is really measurable, in the way of determining behaviors on a small-scale/individual choice perspective. So far, I would say there's going to have to be an immense amount of work done in order to bring all elements together into one determination. Human beings are just too amazingly random and there are so many factors involved that one system must take in and encompass. That's not to say that insight can't be gained from reading the works that have already been done. The simple exercise of describing anything can lead to personal insight.

I think objective(third party) analysis of subjective(first party) preference is the purpose of social sciences. Also one of the problems that is very easy to fall into in the sciences is to view subjective experience as somehow being untrue/not meaningful/not existant, that's largely been found to be a fallacy. It's like being able to predict the characteristics of a computer network or any information system. Subjective experience is a simulation like those systems and by treating it like a simulation like those systems that has protocols of interaction and patters of interaction, it is just as objective as anything else. But it is just measuring the simulation directly and not the physical host of the simulation and it's characteristics, which can influence and be influenced by the simulation. The illusion has a reality of its own and the idea is that these illusions do not form randomly but also from processes which can be comprehended, measured and predicted.

Interesting and I think the real gains will come in the way of neuroscience. I'm not really sure at this point how it will happen, though.... (haven't really thought about it too much).

Certainly neuroscience provides a way of looking at the problem, but it approaches it from a different direction then information science, which deals with abstracting the simulation which is produce by the mechanism described in neuroscience.