Discussion of Socionics foundations

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

The fact that you are ruling out a basic fundamental dichotomy like Process/Result shows that your actual knowledge of Socionics theory is really weak, Process/Result is essentially the basis for the rings of social progress, which seems to be things that you have zero knowledge about.

Before you start throwing your weight around, trying to "canonize" things, realize that you actually don't know that much and that for every right thing you do you're making a number of wrong decisions.

Why do you believe Process/Result or even Social Progress to be basic or fundamental to Socionics? Although Social Progress has the Process/Result or Left/Right dichotomy at its centre, Aushra's and Gulenko's ideas on Social Progress are not only poorly explained but their connection to Model A lacks demonstration. In fact, the only way we can show how Leading Ie and Creative Li (ILE) can be more like Leading Se and Creative Ei (SEE) than Leading Ie and Creative Ei (IEE) or Leading Se and Creative Li (SLE) is if we were to resort to plus and minus IM elements, something most Socionists including myself consider to be logically superfluous.

One might then argue that without the Process/Result dichotomy being a necessary result of Model A, we can end up with contradictions. If we were to accept both Model A and Process/Result as canon without one being entailed by the other, a clear ILE type in terms of Model A who happens to write in a concrete --> abstract, 'Result' manner would present a major flaw to Socionics.

I would also argue that the ideas of Social Progress are superfluous to a more Model A-centric account of the relationships of Benefit and Supervision where the feelings of inadequacy arise in the former case from the matching of the Beneficiary's Suggestive with the Benefactor's Creative and the Benefactor's Suggestive with the Beneficiary's Vulnerable and in the latter case, from the matching of the Supervisor's Leading with the Supervisee's Vulnerable and the matching of the Supervisee's Leading with the Supervisor's Creative.

In short, because I find it reasonable to believe all parts of the canon should be demonstrable from Model A, I would not consider Social Progress or the dichotomies crucial to it (but not crucial to Model A) to be canon but requiring empirical backing and better explanation before they are canonised. I also find that this demonstrates the strength of my knowledge of Socionics and not any weakness.

Would you be willing to voice which wrong decisions are being made?

[mu4]

Why do you believe Process/Result or even Social Progress to be basic or fundamental to Socionics? Although Social Progress has the Process/Result or Left/Right dichotomy at its centre, Aushra's and Gulenko's ideas on Social Progress are not only poorly explained but their connection to Model A lacks demonstration. In fact, the only way we can show how Leading Ie and Creative Li (ILE) can be more like Leading Se and Creative Ei (SEE) than Leading Ie and Creative Ei (IEE) or Leading Se and Creative Li (SLE) is if we were to resort to plus and minus IM elements, something most Socionists including myself consider to be logically superfluous.

One might then argue that without the Process/Result dichotomy being a necessary result of Model A, we can end up with contradictions. If we were to accept both Model A and Process/Result as canon without one being entailed by the other, a clear ILE type in terms of Model A who happens to write in a concrete --> abstract, 'Result' manner would present a major flaw to Socionics.

I would also argue that the ideas of Social Progress are superfluous to a more Model A-centric account of the relationships of Benefit and Supervision where the feelings of inadequacy arise in the former case from the matching of the Beneficiary's Suggestive with the Benefactor's Creative and the Benefactor's Suggestive with the Beneficiary's Vulnerable and in the latter case, from the matching of the Supervisor's Leading with the Supervisee's Vulnerable and the matching of the Supervisee's Leading with the Supervisor's Creative.

In short, because I find it reasonable to believe all parts of the canon should be demonstrable from Model A, I would not consider Social Progress or the dichotomies crucial to it (but not crucial to Model A) to be canon but requiring empirical backing and better explanation before they are canonised. I also find that this demonstrates the strength of my knowledge of Socionics and not any weakness.

Would you be willing to voice which wrong decisions are being made?

The fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about means you should do some more research before you even start trying to determine what is "canon" and what isn't. I can't really take you seriously because the gaps in your knowledge are glaring and isn't something that can be fixed except by your own investigations. Plus and Minus are logically superfluous because they are already represented by Process/Result, you can't dismiss both however. +/- also has taken on new definitions now and is no longer based in the same thing that Gulenko associated +/- with, which is process/result. Now it deals with function blocking differences.

Google is your friend. There are plenty of articles on this site and on Russian sites. Good luck.

IMO, you're simply not in a position to determine what is canon or not. You need to understand Process/Result before you go any further, you also need to understand ring of social progress as well. A hint, a information metabolism processes information, but what does information processes to and from?

Even if you get past this simple problem, it's obvious you're not ready to establish any sort of canon and neither is any of the individuals you discuss this with. Socionics canon is not simply your cliffnotes on what you know about it.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

The fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about means you should do some more research before you even start trying to determine what is "canon" and what isn't. I can't really take you seriously because the gaps in your knowledge are glaring and isn't something that can be fixed except by your own investigations. Plus and Minus are logically superfluous because they are already represented by Process/Result, you can't dismiss both however. +/- also has taken on new definitions now and is no longer based in the same thing that Gulenko associated +/- with, which is process/result. Now it deals with function blocking differences.

Google is your friend. There are plenty of articles on this site and on Russian sites. Good luck.

IMO, you're simply not in a position to determine what is canon or not. You need to understand Process/Result before you go any further, you also need to understand ring of social progress as well. A hint, a information metabolism processes information, but what does information processes to and from?

Even if you get past this simple problem, it's obvious you're not ready to establish any sort of canon and neither is any of the individuals you discuss this with. Socionics canon is not simply your cliffnotes on what you know about it.

It's not a question of being ignorant of how the rings of Benefit and Supervision are the supposed key of Social Progress, it's a question of whether these stray leaves of theory are even connected to the trunk that is Model A. Plus and Minus elements were believed to serve as the connection. Instead, we have the problem whereby there is no particular element in a particular block that leads to someone being Process or Result, instead they have to incidentally belong to a certain ring... Why am I a Process type? It's nothing to do with what IM Elements I use or prefer, it's just that I happen to benefit types that are also Process, making things circular. Gulenko even makes it quite clear that Social Progress is a separate thing to Model A, contrasting blocks with rings. Suffice to say, Process/Result is not convincing as a dichotomy until it can be shown that an already accepted part of Model A entails it. Without that, things get fuzzy and reading Gulenko's articles on this subject show just how fuzzy it is... social missions etc.

[mu4]

It's not a question of being ignorant of how the rings of Benefit and Supervision are the supposed key of Social Progress, it's a question of whether these stray leaves of theory are even connected to the trunk that is Model A. Plus and Minus elements were believed to serve as the connection. Instead, we have the problem whereby there is no particular element in a particular block that leads to someone being Process or Result, instead they have to incidentally belong to a certain ring... Why am I a Process type? It's nothing to do with what IM Elements I use or prefer, it's just that I happen to benefit types that are also Process, making things circular. Gulenko even makes it quite clear that Social Progress is a separate thing to Model A, contrasting blocks with rings. Suffice to say, Process/Result is not convincing as a dichotomy until it can be shown that an already accepted part of Model A entails it. Without that, things get fuzzy and reading Gulenko's articles on this subject show just how fuzzy it is... social missions etc.

You're ignorant. I don't really want to comment on the literature of Model A because in many ways that's unimportant and I've never care about Model A as a end point of all theoretical discussions. However Process/Result is a fundamental part of socionics, even more fundamental than Model A.

Process/Result is imo far more fundamental than Model A, I don't really think you understand what process/result means in information processing in socionics.

Process type information transformation(using just extroverted nomenclature as these related to energy processes) is -> -> -> - >
Result type information transformation is -> - > -> ->

This is because information metabolism process information like thermodynamic process process energy and is a reversible process.

The Ring of Social Progress exist because information is being processed to a purified form in the creative function and handed off in a uni-directional way to either the beneficiary or supervisor.

This is fundamental architectural features of Socionics, based on far more important axioms of Socionics.

The funny thing is 3rd order dichotomies Positivist/Negativist, Process/Result, Merry/Serious, Judicious and Decisive are far more important architecturally than 1st order Jungian dichotomies.

This is because Jungian dichotomies are empirical and behavioral observations which are much more readily apparent.

However, the underlying essense of socionics is how information is processed, what information is prefered.

Merry/Serious is the / divide, Judicious/Decisive the / divide. Process/Result, the direction of information flow. Gulenko called this evolutionary/involutionary, and for very good reason. Positivist/Negativist isn't something I've investigated fully but as a third order dichotmy
, it's likely very important.

Get off your high horse and realize you actually don't have a great understanding of this topic and are in zero place to decide what is canon or not canon. You're just a kid who has a lot to learn.

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

You're ignorant. I don't really want to comment on the literature of Model A because in many ways that's unimportant and I've never care about Model A as a end point of all theoretical discussions. However Process/Result is a fundamental part of socionics, even more fundamental than Model A.

Process/Result is imo far more fundamental than Model A, I don't really think you understand what process/result means in information processing in socionics.

Process type information transformation(using just extroverted nomenclature as these related to energy processes) is -> -> -> - >
Result type information transformation is -> - > -> ->

This is because information metabolism process information like thermodynamic process process energy and is a reversible process.

The Ring of Social Progress exist because information is being processed to a purified form in the creative function and handed off in a uni-directional way to either the beneficiary or supervisor.

This is fundamental architectural features of Socionics, based on far more important axioms of Socionics.

The funny thing is 3rd order dichotomies Positivist/Negativist, Process/Result, Merry/Serious, Judicious and Decisive are far more important architecturally than 1st order Jungian dichotomies.

This is because Jungian dichotomies are empirical and behavioral observations which are much more readily apparent.

However, the underlying essense of socionics is how information is processed, what information is prefered.

Merry/Serious is the / divide, Judicious/Decisive the / divide. Process/Result, the direction of information flow. Gulenko called this evolutionary/involutionary, and for very good reason. Positivist/Negativist isn't something I've investigated fully but as a third order dichotmy
, it's likely very important.

Get off your high horse and realize you actually don't have a great understanding of this topic and are in zero place to decide what is canon or not canon. You're just a kid who has a lot to learn.

I'm finding it hard to see why Process/Result is more important than Model A. It's hardly more comprehensive. I don't think I can understand what it means to be an ILE through Process/Result or how I pass energy from LSEs through my creative function to EIEs in the comprehensive way I can through Model A. If it's really that different from the framework we see as Socionics then perhaps it's just a different theory. It looks very different from the Jungian-based theory I'm used to and you'd think it would have been mentioned in any introduction to Socionics.

It seems more likely that you're just another kook. There seems to be a growing number.

[mu4]

I'm finding it hard to see why Process/Result is more important than Model A. It's hardly more comprehensive. I don't think I can understand what it means to be an ILE through Process/Result or how I pass energy from LSEs through my creative function to EIEs in the comprehensive way I can through Model A. If it's really that different from the framework we see as Socionics then perhaps it's just a different theory. It looks very different from the Jungian-based theory I'm used to and you'd think it would have been mentioned in any introduction to Socionics.

It seems more likely that you're just another kook. There seems to be a growing number.

You're the kook that's started his own little cult of "classical socionics".

Which isn't even "classical socionics".

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ical_socionics

A lot of people far more knowledgeable about Socionics wrote these even if I find it very limiting. But stop trying to steal their horse, find your own.

Anyways, have fun with your pursuit, but I'm telling you right now you need to call it something else, because you don't even understand what Aushra wrote. I'm not interested in canonizing socionics anymore than it's already been canonized by the previous "classical socionicists" who spent years doing it. I see it as an already dead study for which there is as of yet no successor, which has a lot of interesting and cool features. It's like alchemy or any number of past and present proto-sciences.

Anyways, hopefully you'll realize in the future how ignorant you are, because you're already way off the grid as far as actual Socionics is concerned.

And about Gulenko, Gulenko's pet dichotomy is Process/Result. He call this his fifth dichotomy, +/- and evolutionary/involutionary. It's a central dichotomy in most of his major writings, in style of thinking/social progress and other works. Trying to use Gulenko to dismiss process/result is a joke.

Frankly, if you never figure out your mistakes which are probably many, you're probably better off studying something else.

[Words]

Theories that are not canonised are not ignored however but would be accepted into the canon once empirically demonstrated to be the case through the running of tests in scientific conditions (something the WSS would wish to oversee for the purposes of improving and expanding Socionics).

I would like to see the empirical evidence for classical socionics.

Please show me and I will believe!

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

I would like to see the empirical evidence for classical socionics.

Please show me and I will believe!

Model A is derived from basics that are empirical... Would you say that the Jungian dichotomies are not empirical? The largely empirical Big 5 can be seen as coming to very similar conclusions as those first four dichotomies and Model A comes from logical deductions from them and the Information Aspects. The Aspects themselves are categories or groupings of things which we know to exist in some way even if they exist a figments of our imagination... For instance, I have good evidence (within reason, I'm not inviting universal sceptics) to say that there are emotions, relations, possibilities, durations of time, laws, methods, sensations and actions. Model A simply structures these.

[mu4]

Model A is derived from basics that are empirical...

Model A is not, Model is derived from a some very tenuous hypothesis and analogies, which are then tied to pre-existing empirical observations. Once again you don't seem to really understand Socionics.

The basis of socionics is some very out in left field analogies and intuitions which are not empirical. However, it does neatly explain many pre-existing phenomena and observations.

It's a "rationalist understanding" of pre-existing empirical observations.

It attempts explains and understand empirical observations, but it is absolutely not based in empirical observations.

It's a neat explaination, not a empirical observation.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

Go back to school, do not pass go, do not collect $200..

[Jack Oliver Aaron]

Model A is not, Model is derived from a some very tenuous hypothesis and analogies, which are then tied to pre-existing empirical observations. Once again you don't seem to really understand Socionics.

The basis of socionics is some very out in left field analogies and intuitions which are not empirical. However, it does neatly explain many pre-existing phenomena and observations.

It's a "rationalist understanding" of pre-existing empirical observations.

It attempts explains and understand empirical observations, but it is absolutely not based in empirical observations.

It's a neat explaination, not a empirical observation.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

Go back to school, do not pass go, do not collect $200..

See you haven't properly disagreed with me. I do believe it can be deduced from empirical roots but the explaining will take more time than I wish to spend here. Really I would like to show that these tenuous hypotheses and analogies only look that way if you cut steps. It seems intuitive to us because our unconscious doesn't miss out these steps. I could write an article on it though when I have the time. Would probably be very interesting.

[mu4]

See you haven't properly disagreed with me. I do believe it can be deduced from empirical roots but the explaining will take more time than I wish to spend here. Really I would like to show that these tenuous hypotheses and analogies only look that way if you cut steps. It seems intuitive to us because our unconscious doesn't miss out these steps. I could write an article on it though when I have the time. Would probably be very interesting.

You haven't even begun to understand me or Aushra, and it's important if you want to be able to talk about Socionics. Read the article I linked you and understand it, once you do, we can then dissect it for errors and places where Aushra wasn't clear, because she cut some corners in her work because that knowledge isn't available.

Anyways, you're way overestimating your understanding of this topic, and there are many many individuals who know way more than you. You'll figure that out some day, and it'll probably be the most important day for you as far as this topic is concerned.

Frankly, you probably won't be able to understand me for quite some time. But I'm not going to sell you that I'm right, but what I can tell you is that without a doubt, you have overestimated your own abilities.

[Pookie]

Model A is derived from basics that are empirical... Would you say that the Jungian dichotomies are not empirical? The largely empirical Big 5 can be seen as coming to very similar conclusions as those first four dichotomies and Model A comes from logical deductions from them and the Information Aspects. The Aspects themselves are categories or groupings of things which we know to exist in some way even if they exist a figments of our imagination... For instance, I have good evidence (within reason, I'm not inviting universal sceptics) to say that there are emotions, relations, possibilities, durations of time, laws, methods, sensations and actions. Model A simply structures these.

I don't think you're using deduction and empirical accurately.

In a field based off of abstractions and a balancing of concepts, i think induction is the only way you can really get anywhere in terms of progress.
You can not touch these themes. They are all subjective. How can you deduce concepts empirically? How? Really, show your deductions and your empirical evidence. I guarantee once you type it out, people will be able to roadblock you thoroughly on whether those deductions/empirical data fit the criteria you're imposing for inclusion into the group.

Tangenting off -
In a system that is largely subjective and conceptual, youre doing yourself a favor to give as much weight to the subjective and conceptual, if not more, than the objective conclusions(which in of itself is an oxymoron as conclusions are not objective).

[InvisibleJim]

I love this idea that questioning the basis of the theory, makes you ignorant @Jack Oliver Aaron

Ultimately Hkkmr has lost the logic train that each of these other systems is infact a different empirical formula on top of the pre-existing empirical formula of Model B thus inventing their own alternative model which is less faceted not more faceted.

[Zero11]

Olga's theory that raises temperament above quadra for compatibility and has methods for typing people based on colour and music preferences.

where? I need to see that!

[lagerdemon]

sorry, kind of a noob here, but where exactly can I find scientific peer-reviewed studies that show empirical....anything, about socionics?

[mu4]

sorry, kind of a noob here, but where exactly can I find scientific peer-reviewed studies that show empirical....anything, about socionics?

Socionics was samizdat in the former USSR, and has only recently entered into western thought, this site being one of the main sources of information on this topic. You need to wait a long while. Also as socionics is a social science, it will only be social science research that can be done upon it.

You have a right to be skeptical, but expecting anything concrete in English on this topic isn't reasonable until adequate funding and acceptance by individuals and institutions allows for research to proceed.

[lagerdemon]

Socionics was samizdat in the former USSR, and has only recently entered into western thought, this site being one of the main sources of information on this topic. You need to wait a long while. Also as socionics is a social science, it will only be social science research that can be done upon it.

You have a right to be skeptical, but expecting anything concrete in English on this topic isn't reasonable until adequate funding and acceptance by individuals and institutions allows for research to proceed.

I was hoping there was a translation of the russian PR articles hiding someplace on the internet. Obviously peer-reviewed doesn't mean the contents of the article are true, but I'd be more interested in reading articles by someone with professional writing skills.

[mu4]

I was hoping there was a translation of the russian PR articles hiding someplace on the internet. Obviously peer-reviewed doesn't mean the contents of the article are true, but I'd be more interested in reading articles by someone with professional writing skills.

Many people here on the forum have professional writing skills and have written various things professionally and academically. Kim teaches writing, Golden was a editor, Siuntal is a academic, Octo is an academic, etc etc etc.

The individuals here who put time and effort into this topic certainly include many well-credentialed and experienced professionals, translation is a incredibly difficult task, and someone like Siuntal who has high quality writing skills as well as a knowledge of Russian is very hard to find. This community is very lucky to have someone who is as interested in this topic as well as having knowledge of Russian.

This is a very new topic in the West and many of the individuals here came here right after college or during college/high school, but people grow older, gain skills and knowledge and experience the fullness of life. In time, they will accumulate acclaim and success in their specialty and their words will have weight to others more then today, and hopefully at that time, this topic will gain more traction in the minds of other individuals to a point where research can proceed. This is a long and hopefully worthwhile journey which has been endeavored by many members of this community.

It's characteristic of many individuals to blame their lack of understand or knowledge on inadequate resources but it's often also their lack of character and ability which produces such a consequence.

[lagerdemon]

It's characteristic of many individuals to blame their lack of understand or knowledge on inadequate resources but it's often also their lack of character and ability which produces such a consequence.

Like who?

[InvisibleJim]

sorry, kind of a noob here, but where exactly can I find scientific peer-reviewed studies that show empirical....anything, about socionics?

You won't.

[silke]

sorry, kind of a noob here, but where exactly can I find scientific peer-reviewed studies that show empirical....anything, about socionics?

There are a number of socionic schools and research groups that periodically publish articles which you can find posted on their sites. For example this study on Reinin traits was done by the group at School of Dynamic Socionics. There is no formal peer review or any other centralized system of checks between these schools and 'quality' of these studies varies. You can find the abstracts to many of them in Socionics, Mentology, and Personality Psychology which appears to be a socionics journal with the highest impact factor.

As someone who has been involved in the peer-review process of scientific publications in the West I can tell you that it's no guarantee of the credibility of the study. Quite often the professors who receive the articles for review assign them to their overworked postdocs and graduate students who either don't have the interest and time for a thorough scrutiny of the work or aren't too familiar themselves with how to assess the validity of the research methodology and permit questionable material to pass through for publication.

[lagerdemon]

There are a number of socionic schools and research groups that periodically publish articles which you can find posted on their sites. For example this study on Reinin traits was done by the group at School of Dynamic Socionics. There is no formal peer review or any other centralized system of checks between these schools and 'quality' of these studies varies. You can find the abstracts to many of them in Socionics, Mentology, and Personality Psychology which appears to be a socionics journal with the highest impact factor..

If I'm going to read about socionics I require well-written articles that don't sound like some random dude got a notebook of acid and decided to become a mystical guru wizard princess, hence my request for peer-reviewed articles.

As someone who has been involved in the peer-review process of scientific publications in the West I can tell you that it's no guarantee of the credibility of the study.

Ya, i said as much in previous post. I admit I was jabbing a bit with the empirical evidence part of that post, b/c a)i think empirical has been used like 40 times in this thread and I wondered if maybe there was some empirical evidence somewhere that i didn't know about, but didn't rly wonder dat b/c der rnt nun lolololol. But ya, the peer-review part was just b/c journals usually don't publish esoteric-mystical garbage(at least that I've read) so it'd be easier 2 understand rather than having people try to explain it with false or bad analogies and suuuuch.

[ashlesha]

lol. its not that socionics lacks evidence. its that you lack character.

[InvisibleJim]

lol. its not that socionics lacks evidence. its that you lack character.

This.

The lack of evidence for socionics is simply due to your lack of character.

Or more correctly: You lack character and socionics lacks evidence. So therefore Socionics does not lack evidence.

[mu4]

lol. its not that socionics lacks evidence. its that you lack character.

Eh, I never said that. I actually said that socionics lacks evidence, so it's not for people that are looking for evidence from other people. However this study is for people who are looking to find and discover that evidence by themselves thru their exploration. If people don't have enough character to accept the study for what it is, I don't know what to say. The work to discover the evidence(or not) is in the future not the past. People should have enough character to deal with the state of affairs as it is now instead of whining incessantly about evidence that doesn't exist and won't until someone does the work. It's pointless and slights all the effort that the other members have put into this study.

What I said is that some people blame their lack of understanding and knowledge on inadequate resources(which is the state of affairs in socionics). This is not a study for people who aren't research minded and willing to study things with their own eyes and mind instead of reading something completely established.

[InvisibleJim]

You lack character and you're a whiner so socionics doesn't lack evidence even though there is no evidence.

p.s. thinking something is true without evidence is called belief.



Amaze.

Here is a picture of a double rainbow.

[InvisibleJim]

You lack character and Socionics lacks evidence. So therefore Socionics does not lack evidence.

If you would merely alter your lack of character to have more character then there would be no problem.

You heard it here first.

You unbelievers are all lacking character.

[mu4]

You lack character and Socionics lacks evidence. So therefore Socionics does not lack evidence.

If you would merely alter your lack of character to have more character then there would be no problem.

You heard it here first.

You unbelievers are all lacking character.

It's not about unbelievers, I could care less about that. It's about whiners.

1. Socionics lacks evidence

This is readily apparent and self-evident.

2. There are people who want to establish Socionics with evidence.

3. There are people who don't believe in Socionics or find it useful and leave, that's fine.

4. There are people who whine incessantly about Socionics lacking evidence.

You can do it once or twice, but incessant whining is disingenuous and annoying. It's also bad character to lie about what other people are saying. Jim you're one of the biggest liars on this forum, so please stop. Nobody is trying to say that socionics has evidence.

Just stop whining you whiner.

If people don't like socionics of believe it has any worth, just stop doing it instead of asking others to spoon feed them knowledge and understanding.

[ashlesha]

its not whining to call a spade a spade.
you want to spritz it with lavender and put a pretty dress on it and then you have the gall to call the naysayers disengenuous.

[mu4]

its not whining to call a spade a spade.
you want to spritz it with lavender and put a pretty dress on it and then you have the gall to call the naysayers disengenuous.

It's whining and disengenous to incessantly request evidence knowing full well it doesn't exist and might only exist in the future.

I'm not trying to spritz it with lavender. I will say to anyone that socionics lacks evidence.

However it's disingenuous to keep asking for evidence when others have said that decent evidence doesn't exist.

1. Ask for evidence
2. Told it doesn't exist and will exist perhaps in the future
3. Ask for evidence again and again even after being told that it doesn't exist yet.

Is this not simply the act of a lunatic or a fraud? The answer to the first question has been conclusively given, yet over and over again the question is asked as if the answer has never been given. Such actions are without merit and character. It's simply disingenuous and dishonest.

[ashlesha]

It's whining and disengenous to incessantly request evidence knowing full well it doesn't exist and might only exist in the future.

I'm not trying to spritz it with lavender. I will say to anyone that socionics lacks evidence.

However it's disingenuous to keep asking for evidence when others have said that decent evidence doesn't exist.

1. Ask for evidence
2. Told it doesn't exist and will exist perhaps in the future
3. Ask for evidence again and again even after being told that it doesn't exist yet.

Is this not simply the act of a lunatic or a fraud? The answer to the first question has been conclusively given, yet over and over again the question is asked as if the answer has never been given. Such actions are without merit and character. It's simply disingenuous and dishonest.

me: the emperor has no clothes
you: of course he has no clothes
me: why are you parading him around, then?
you: he'll have clothes one day, i am sure
me: why doesn't he stay at home for now or at least wrap a towel around his wrinkly ass?
you: because he'll have clothes one day
me: but he doesn't yet, so whats with the flashing? my eyes
you: quit your incessant whining. one day he'll have clothes.

[silke]

me: the emperor has no clothes
you: of course he has no clothes
me: why are you parading him around, then?
you: he'll have clothes one day, i am sure
me: why doesn't he stay at home for now or at least wrap a towel around his wrinkly ass?
you: because he'll have clothes one day
me: but he doesn't yet, so whats with the flashing? my eyes
you: quit your incessant whining. one day he'll have clothes.

that's a good question, lungs
so why are you parading the poor naked emperor around? and not just the emperor but also his crazy south american cousin who's just as much of a nudist
care to provide some sort of answers and justifications for this?

[InvisibleJim]

that's a good question, lungs
so why are you parading the poor naked emperor around? and not just the emperor but also his crazy south american cousin
care to provide some sort of answers and justifications for this?

Scientifically accepted socionics article pls? Apparently Not

Accepting Coherent Logic? No.

Ad hominems and Personal Attacks preferred to rational discussion? Yes

[ashlesha]

that's a good question, lungs
so why are you parading the poor naked emperor around? and not just the emperor but also his crazy south american cousin who's just as much of a nudist
care to provide some sort of answers and justifications for this?

yes. i don't pretend socionics is real. i talk about it because it amuses me. i don't spend hours of my life translating articles to give myself some kind of inflated sense of importance over expertise in something that has about as much validity as palm reading. i don't parade my typings in an authoritative fashion or create paragraphs of subjective rhetoric supporting them as if they actually have any more validity than anybody elses because i'm aware that its all opinions. i approach the topic how it should be approached. the problem isn't with socionics, its with pretending that socionics is more than it is.

i don't care if the emporer is naked. that's not the point. nudity is fine. just be honest about it instead of moronically clapping your hands over his outfit.

[mu4]

me: the emperor has no clothes
you: of course he has no clothes
me: why are you parading him around, then?
you: he'll have clothes one day, i am sure

This is false, so stop lying about this.

What is being said is this, one day it may or may not have cloth, that is unknown.

I know you have problems dealing with uncertainty but other people don't have the same problem.

What other individuals take as a fun hypothesis you accuse them as taking as a religion. Now, there are some people who take this as a religion, but well I hope they stop.

[ashlesha]

This is false, so stop lying about this.

One day it may or may not have cloth, that is unknown.

It's whining and disengenous to incessantly request evidence knowing full well it doesn't exist and will only exist in the future.

.

[silke]

LOL you guys are a riot I haven't laughed so hard in a while

[ashlesha]

i never said it was anything more than a hobby. you'll probably never get it.

[ashlesha]

do you really not see a difference in the way socionics is approached/discussed by people who "believe" in it and people who don't?
do you really think its impossible to talk about socionics unless you "believe" in it?

[silke]

i never said it was anything more than a hobby. you'll probably never get it.

do you really not see a difference in the way socionics is approached/discussed by people who "believe" in it and people who don't?
do you really think its impossible to talk about socionics unless you "believe" in it?

lungs talks about socionics - it's a hobby
other people talk about socioincs - it's a religious faith

can you name those that you consider to be religious devotees of socionics so at least there is some indication as to where you've arbitrarily picked to draw the line for yourself?