Sociotype and the "work hard, play hard" philosophy

[jason_m]

sorry i dont really like these generalizations. I think they are totally off the mark.

I think each quadra is capable of bending/breaking rules, it depends on what value is being targeted by the rule.

As if something like this is not just a simplification, and should be considered airtight...

[Suz]

As if something like this is not just a simplification, and should be considered airtight...

well it's more than that... i think it's flat out wrong.

[jason_m]

well it's more than that... i think it's flat out wrong.

I certainly cannot prove that it's right, so how can anyone prove that it's wrong either, without setting up some type of psychological experiment? Therefore, I would classify the idea as a theoretical construct, useful for illustrating something about how people act, but not the type of thing you could easily say is right or wrong... For this reason, you cannot view anything in socionics they way you would in, say, the hard sciences. You can only see what ideas apply to you, use the ones that do, and discard the ones that don't... I'll admit you're not the only one here who is guilty of this. I would say that nearly everyone has made that mistake at some point in studying the theory, including myself...

Also, I apologize if I seem too hard on you. That's unfortunately the way this relation is... I would find it hard to communicate in any other way, and that's definitely a problem here...

[Suz]

I certainly cannot prove that it's right, so how can anyone prove that it's wrong either, without setting up some type of psychological experiment? Therefore, I would classify the idea as a theoretical construct, useful for illustrating something about how people act, but not the type of thing you could easily say is right or wrong... For this reason, you cannot view anything in socionics they way you would in, say, the hard sciences. You can only see what ideas apply to you, use the ones that do, and discard the ones that don't... I'll admit you're not the only one here who is guilty of this. I would say that nearly everyone has made that mistake at some point in studying the theory, including myself...

Also, I apologize if I seem too hard on you. That's unfortunately the way this relation is... I would find it hard to communicate in any other way, and that's definitely a problem here...

well, it's wrong if the deltas dont relate at all to it, and if my experiences with betas have proven different from your assertion.

you can theorize all you want, and explain away your thoughts to infinity, if they dont prove true practically, then they are wrong.

Before you get all this confidence, you have some socionics learning to do my friend.

Check JWC's version of what you tried to do -- I agree with his.


p.s. no need to apologize... i'm not offended. I just know you dont have any idea of what you're talking about. You're right in that socionics is not like the hard sciences but that does not mean you can just say anything and it'll be correct. Real life is what you check socionic ideas against, to see if you've got it right, and there is some trial and error involved, but there is a way to ascertain these things.