Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 80 of 80

Thread: Why MBTI is Useless

  1. #41
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    you make a lot of assumptions

    yea, carpetbombing with ad hominems!!! go go alpha NT circlejerk!
    I'm not ad homineming you at all, since I don't disagree with you that socionics is not a science. Also X is useless is a value statement not a logical one. Science is supposed to be about truth not usefulness. Usefulness is determined by the design, you can design all sort of useless things.

    My problem with you is entirely ethical and my criticism is that you have been doing this for 9 years with the same message, and you have nothing new too add and what you do is attention seeking. You're free to do this but it's very much a nuisance on my forum an/d I'm informing you of this. It's ok to do a lot of stuff on this forum, including what you do, but I thought people should know what I thought about your 9 years of the same ole same ole.

    When you present a logical statement that I can deal with logically and analytically I'll consider it, until then your attention seeking is very annoying to me and of course others as well.

    This isn't ad hominem since I'm not attacking your character to discredit your argument, I'm just question your character because your argument is stupid.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    To find it useful you should type correctly people and think a little about people's behavior to notice this system. As for that video, - there is nothing to prove MBT or Socionics is totally wrong or hence useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Sorry about your "theory."
    It's Jung's theory. Sorry you did not know.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  3. #43
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    this is an interesting video. This guy makes sense to me.

    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  4. #44
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,815
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The inferences about cpig''s inner character are as factually wrong as they are ethically gross. You aren't very insightful or hannibal lector-ish in that way sorry so plz stop it. It's embarrassing. He doesn't deserve that- and well... I think it's actually reinforcing his point.

    I'm the queen of derailment but I wish we all would stay on topic.

  5. #45
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,378
    Mentioned
    450 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think @Capitalist Pig's issue is more to do with there being (in MBTI) no reliable data to show the dichotomies exist other than Extroversion/Introversion and Rational/Irrational, nevermind the eight functions. According to the wiki page on the MBTI there is also no real evidence that individuals exist within a spectrum (they all generally fall within to a narrow band in the middle). Also in Socionics, there has been no studies of any great scale into whether the IMs in any individual can be reliably measured (whether by the individual, or by a group of experts). The IMs themselves have not been defined as far as I know other than through descriptions (rather than lists of "instruments"/facets), and any research that has been done has probably not be done in a way that is scientifically rigorous.

  6. #46
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    I think the speculation about cpigs motivations and mental state is pretty off base and not particularly relevant anyway.
    It is pretty relevant when all he ever offers is criticism. Maybe if he offered criticism with some counter-criticism, we'd know he at least accepts the theories merits, as well as its flaws.

    Stop defending him for being vapid,
    good bye

  7. #47
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starfall View Post
    We should all just kill ourselves now.
    You can.
    good bye

  8. #48
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reactance View Post
    It is pretty relevant when all he ever offers is criticism. Maybe if he offered criticism with some counter-criticism, we'd know he at least accepts the theories merits, as well as its flaws.

    Stop defending him for being vapid,
    stop feeding my attention-seeking

  9. #49
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Alright fine, we can just be hostile assholes. /bored

    Have fun...
    good bye

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    i do what i want
    < redacted >

    I am also interested in the empirical evidence of this crap as well. I mean, it's nice to talk with different people from all over the world, but this became too cult like. We need clarity and organisation and most importantly, proof to end up the cult status! It's pointless come on!
    Last edited by nondescript; 10-14-2015 at 02:08 PM.

  11. #51
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    not interested in getting involved in the debate in this thread, but why do people who think such-and-such typology is bullshit continue to hang around forums like this, arguing about why it's bullshit? i don't understand what the point of that is. the equivalent is like if someone hung around on astrology forums, arguing with people about how much astrology is bullshit. why would you waste your time doing that? lol

  12. #52
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    998 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    not interested in getting involved in the debate in this thread, but why do people who think such-and-such typology is bullshit continue to hang around forums like this, arguing about why it's bullshit? i don't understand what the point of that is. the equivalent is like if someone hung around on astrology forums, arguing with people about how much astrology is bullshit. why would you waste your time doing that? lol
    It's usually due to some personal investment and/or disillusionment. Not saying this is the case here. When I left Christianity I spent some time trolling Christians with talk of aliens among other things, like quoting from the book, "Holy Blood Holy Grail". I also knew more about their religion than most of them which made it easy. Not something I am particularly proud of now but at the time I was angry about most of my experiences with Christians and the church. I finally let it go when I found a mentor, of sorts, that taught me that my beliefs were serving a purpose for me just as their beliefs were serving a purpose for them. He also told me that I thought that I was superior to them, just as I had thought I was superior when I was one of them. Letting that go was like a ton of weight off me. I still do it though when someone is too serious but now I am no longer serious about it and I try to have more respect for their beliefs. Until they annoy me past a certain point.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  13. #53
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    It's usually due to some personal investment and/or disillusionment. Not saying this is the case here. When I left Christianity I spent some time trolling Christians with talk of aliens among other things, like quoting from the book, "Holy Blood Holy Grail". I also knew more about their religion than most of them which made it easy. Not something I am particularly proud of now but at the time I was angry about most of my experiences with Christians and the church. I finally let it go when I found a mentor, of sorts, that taught me that my beliefs were serving a purpose for me just as their beliefs were serving a purpose for them. He also told me that I thought that I was superior to them, just as I had thought I was superior when I was one of them. Letting that go was like a ton of weight off me. I still do it though when someone is too serious but now I am no longer serious about it and I try to have more respect for their beliefs. Until they annoy me past a certain point.
    i identify with this too, because i did something similar when i left religion - i would be angry with Christians and tell them why their beliefs were stupid etc. this was when i was in middle school or something - i got over it eventually, and now have a similar way of dealing with it as you do

    leaving religion is a very personal and transformative thing, so i can understand having this kind of response after feeling disillusioned. i guess i'm confused regarding my original question, because don't view being into typology, then getting "disillusioned" by it, and continuing to criticize it for years afterward as quite the same thing - it seems so much more petty and pointless. is it really the case that the people who are the most "anti-typology" are also the ones who felt the most disillusioned by it?

  14. #54
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think he is critizing typology itself, it seems like more-so he is being critical of people's beliefs in it to begin with. Sometimes people speak in the affirmative when they discuss typology, without paying homage to the truth that this could all be 'not-true' and so in doing so seem silly from a critical stand-point.

  15. #55
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wacey View Post
    I don't think he is critizing typology itself, it seems like more-so he is being critical of people's beliefs in it to begin with. Sometimes people speak in the affirmative when they discuss typology, without paying homage to the truth that this could all be 'not-true' and so in doing so seem silly from a critical stand-point.
    yeah but this is a forum to discuss said typology, is every single post supposed to come with a disclaimer "this may or may not be bullshit, don't forget!" would you expect religious people on a Christian forum to do this same (just an example)? honestly if anybody is on a forum just to tell ppl there that their beliefs are bullshit, i'd probably see that person as a troll.

    i'm not saying socionics or typology can't be criticized or whatever, i know they've got their problems. i think most people are aware of them too, and they're often alluded to in various discussions.

  16. #56
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    yeah but this is a forum to discuss said typology, is every single post supposed to come with a disclaimer "this may or may not be bullshit, don't forget!" would you expect religious people on a Christian forum to do this same (just an example)? honestly if anybody is on a forum just to tell ppl there that their beliefs are bullshit, i'd probably see that person as a troll.

    i'm not saying socionics or typology can't be criticized or whatever, i know they've got their problems. i think most people are aware of them too, and they're often alluded to in various discussions.
    oh yeah dont get me wrong I am not trying to justify it for him. I might even be wrong altogether...?

  17. #57
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    It's usually due to some personal investment and/or disillusionment. Not saying this is the case here. When I left Christianity I spent some time trolling Christians with talk of aliens among other things, like quoting from the book, "Holy Blood Holy Grail". I also knew more about their religion than most of them which made it easy. Not something I am particularly proud of now but at the time I was angry about most of my experiences with Christians and the church. I finally let it go when I found a mentor, of sorts, that taught me that my beliefs were serving a purpose for me just as their beliefs were serving a purpose for them. He also told me that I thought that I was superior to them, just as I had thought I was superior when I was one of them. Letting that go was like a ton of weight off me. I still do it though when someone is too serious but now I am no longer serious about it and I try to have more respect for their beliefs. Until they annoy me past a certain point.
    I think so too, which is why I criticized him for it. It's not that the point he makes is wrong, it's that his actions are not scientific as he seems to be promoting but rather his actions are rooted in ethics and sentiment.

    Socionics may be useless(subjective evaluation) to some on this forum, but it is often quite meaningful still to these individuals.

    Socionics because it is rooted in personality, identity, and social designation is in the same domain of questions that humans grip with using philosophy, psychology, religion, art.

    The same questions, "Who am I? What is one's place in the world? How can one be happy." are muddle thru in these topics. Somes answers obscure while others reveal and it is hard to determine which answer in which study is right.

    Socionics is not a science, and one should not pretend it has scientific validity, but it also isn't a cult, astrology or magic either. The explanatory mechanisms are in line with cognitive science (brain, information processing, information preference) and the descriptions are psychological (Jung). There is no secret knowledge known to just a few or special techniques hidden behind a onerous paywall or indoctrination. This is as open a study as exists operating in a voluntary community.

    Science also cannot produce satisfactory answers for many of the questions man asks and even if it could in time, human lives are short and we cannot wait.

    I'm not going to go deeply into this because people have said this far better than I, I will leave some links.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

    I might have been a bit harsh on him out of frustration but you don't have to rely on only science to live your life, you also don't have to evaluate everything on the basis of some measure of useful/uselessness. It would be immeasurably more banal and stunted world without the subjective and inter-subjective facets of our world, sometimes beautiful and sometimes monstrous.

  18. #58
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    I think so too, which is why I criticized him for it. It's not that the point he makes is wrong, it's that his actions are not scientific as he seems to be promoting but rather his actions are rooted in ethics and sentiment.

    Socionics may be useless(subjective evaluation) to some on this forum, but it is often quite meaningful still to these individuals.

    Socionics because it is rooted in personality, identity, and social designation is in the same domain of questions that humans grip with using philosophy, psychology, religion, art.

    The same questions, "Who am I? What is one's place in the world? How can one be happy." are muddle thru in these topics. Somes answers obscure while others reveal and it is hard to determine which answer in which study is right.

    Socionics is not a science, and one should not pretend it has scientific validity, but it also isn't a cult, astrology or magic either. The explanatory mechanisms are in line with cognitive science (brain, information processing, information preference) and the descriptions are psychological (Jung). There is no secret knowledge known to just a few or special techniques hidden behind a onerous paywall or indoctrination. This is as open a study as exists operating in a voluntary community.

    Science also cannot produce satisfactory answers for many of the questions man asks and even if it could in time, human lives are short and we cannot wait.

    I'm not going to go deeply into this because people have said this far better than I, I will leave some links.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

    I might have been a bit harsh on him out of frustration but you don't have to rely on only science to live your life, you also don't have to evaluate everything on the basis of some measure of useful/uselessness. It would be immeasurably more banal and stunted world without the subjective and inter-subjective facets of our world, sometimes beautiful and sometimes monstrous.

    Well said. I think that socionics is very useful for addressing our need to understand our consciousness in real time, something which draws in the people that may eventually come to criticize it.

    I think the criticism comes because while people experience life subjectively, socionics claims some sort of objectivity of the subjective life. This should be entirely open to criticism, although I think it should be done civilly. It really wouldn't be a big deal if typing was done for purely understanding oneself, but I have found many people using it to aggressively(and hastily) type people based from limited information because they strongly believe in the premise of pure types. I for one believe that one ought to have the freedom to relate to any subjective descriptions one can relate to. Why? For one, it's my subjective experience and no one else's. Two, because if I'm not honest with my experiences, I can't correctly identify my type, if it exists at all. If I can identify with descriptions that cross a few types and quadra, it makes me quite skeptical that there are such things as pure types. In fact it seems more like something you have to force yourself into than actually exists.

    Its really quite annoying and irritating to see what happens to people on these types of forums. Basically, someone comes from the outside, says a few things about themselves and people jump to conclusions about their type. You end up with statements such as "you like nature and must be some Si type". What it does seem to be is a very social phenomenon, where people form little hierarchies based on stereotypes. They often type themselves and others without any sort of standard and many of these people are obsessed with who is really what pure type, almost to the point of paranoia, as seen by the number of MBTI INFJ videos that go on and on about all the INFPs that mistype as INFJs. They are often very condescending, elitist, and not at all objective.

    Now I'm concerned with truth, whether it is about myself or the objective nature of the universe, but I can be a real fuck off too. I don't mean to criticize people's beliefs for the sake of it, but to understand what is and what isn't.

    While its true the each person's brains has an innate cognitive structure(it must be true), it does not follow that Jung correctly identified what those cognitive structures are. I think he did give us a very good starting point though.

    ***edit: I think the people on typology forums tend to be more open minded than average and cool people, which is why I like to hang around.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  19. #59
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tjay is fucking nailing it in this thread.

  20. #60
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    (i don't mean that to "take sides" or whatever. Just the truth of the posts.)

  21. #61
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,371
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJay View Post
    I think the criticism comes because while people experience life subjectively, socionics claims some sort of objectivity of the subjective life. This should be entirely open to criticism, although I think it should be done civilly. It really wouldn't be a big deal if typing was done for purely understanding oneself, but I have found many people using it to aggressively(and hastily) type people based from limited information because they strongly believe in the premise of pure types. I for one believe that one ought to have the freedom to relate to any subjective descriptions one can relate to. Why? For one, it's my subjective experience and no one else's. Two, because if I'm not honest with my experiences, I can't correctly identify my type, if it exists at all. If I can identify with descriptions that cross a few types and quadra, it makes me quite skeptical that there are such things as pure types. In fact it seems more like something you have to force yourself into than actually exists.

    Its really quite annoying and irritating to see what happens to people on these types of forums. Basically, someone comes from the outside, says a few things about themselves and people jump to conclusions about their type. You end up with statements such as "you like nature and must be some Si type". What it does seem to be is a very social phenomenon, where people form little hierarchies based on stereotypes. They often type themselves and others without any sort of standard and many of these people are obsessed with who is really what pure type, almost to the point of paranoia, as seen by the number of MBTI INFJ videos that go on and on about all the INFPs that mistype as INFJs. They are often very condescending, elitist, and not at all objective.
    yes, i think these are valid criticisms. a difference i have here is related to the bolded: what you describe in these paragraphs i see as a problem related more to some people's application of socionics, not so much of socionics theory itself. i see these things as being distinct, though often conflated. i don't think using/studying/applying socionics must necessarily lead to the kinds of conclusions some people make - using the theory in the way that you are describing (i.e. overly strict, unrealistic categorizations.) but it often does happen this way - and as you noted, not just with socionics, but other typologies as well. socionics is a (unique) theory and it has the limitations of one (whether it's a "good" theory or not is up for debate), and it's when people ignore/forget this that this kind of stuff happens.

  22. #62
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @TJay
    You're right and it is a problem. I think it might be a better theory if they took the types out of it and instead created a theory that posits different ways of being with reality. Then the relationships and explanations become relative to what's going on with people and how they are thinking, perceiving, and feeling in a given context, along with other people.

    Because honestly a lot of socionics has made a lot of sense in my life, whether scientific or not, if I throw away the idea of an absolute type and just perceive the interactions with myself and others. I guess it's why I keep coming back. But if I confine myself to its stereotypes and idea of having an absolute type, no it doesn't make much sense and is kind of silly in that regard, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    (i don't mean that to "take sides" or whatever. Just the truth of the posts.)
    Okay, but Cpig hasn't shown any interest in the merits of socionics here, only criticism. He forces people to justify their time, behavior, and beliefs with socionics, while never acknowledging them as valid. He's forcing people to be defensive and deserves that reaction, at least.
    good bye

  23. #63
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reactance View Post
    Okay, but Cpig hasn't shown any interest in the merits of socionics here, only criticism. He forces people to justify their time, behavior, and beliefs with socionics, while never acknowledging them as valid. He's forcing people to be defensive and deserves that reaction, at least.
    i saw it as an opening to debate the merits of socionics that could be engaged with or ignored at will. and i don't see how ignoring his posts would cause negative consequences for anyone, so i'm not seeing people being forced into anything. responses are totally justified and interesting to read. (i just thought calling him insecure and painting a negative portrait of him as a person was an uncalled for diversion).

  24. #64
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, if you can't see how his approach is hostile, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Fair enough about the diversion; I'm assuming you're talking about mu4s posts then, which I only skimmed.

    Alright.
    good bye

  25. #65
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    i saw it as an opening to debate the merits of socionics that could be engaged with or ignored at will. and i don't see how ignoring his posts would cause negative consequences for anyone, so i'm not seeing people being forced into anything. responses are totally justified and interesting to read. (i just thought calling him insecure and painting a negative portrait of him as a person was an uncalled for diversion).
    I don't see my frustration with him as being a diversion. It was a frustrated reaction to his actions. His taunt at the end of the first post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cpig
    Pretty much all of this is equally applicable to Socionics. Sorry about your "theory."
    His verbalization engages the reader individually and has really zero relevance to the topic. The first diversion was his alone. It's the childish(What I think) "nyah nyah nyah" playground taunt. The evidence of his diversion is clear. I don't even disagree with his argument since it's not "his" but rather an argument against MBTI, which isn't socionics. As far as usefulness and uselessness of socionics, I'll leave that to the individual.

    As far as his attempt to engage the forum at the "Your" level, I think I have the leeway to do this since he opened the door.

    And this taunt was not a debate about socionics but about why people discuss it because it's "useless" or somehow interest in this theory has negative meaning for him.

    So he was the first to go negative portrait as well.

    Let's be quite clear about this.

    Capitalist pig is the first to create a diversion, the first to engage in negativity(at a personal level) and he cannot escape criticism for that.

    I consider his action a character flaw but others can have their own opinions about this, but this is over and done with and there are more interesting things to discuss.

    If he would like to answer some questions. I welcome others to answer these questions as well and I will make some separate threads for this.

    "Why is socionics meaningful to you?"

    "How did you began your interest with socionics?"

    "What did you get from socionics and/or socionics community?"

  26. #66
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJay View Post
    Also, just because Socionics is more sophisticated than MBTI, doesn't mean it is true. What it certainly is, is more interesting.
    I agree. I think whether socionics is true or not is irrelevant. Most of us are here bc its just something fun to think about. I dont think most functional ppl really apply it to real life interactions in any life changing way (and they shouldn't!). I feel its mostly about ppl making observations and comparing/sharing life experiences here.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  27. #67
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    As far as his attempt to engage the forum at the "Your" level, I think I have the leeway to do this since he opened the door.
    "sorry about your 'theory'" is provocative and antagonizing, but it doesn't reach the level of deliberate character assassination. i don't think we'll come to an agreement about this. but -on the forum, several people collaborating to paint a negative picture of one other person is a fairly frequent occurrence, usually involving assigning them a different type (and i've played my own role in this before), and i think this is something to consider when wondering why some people might carry hostility about the way socionics is practiced (and ultimately the theory itself).

  28. #68
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    "sorry about your 'theory'" is provocative and antagonizing, but it doesn't reach the level of deliberate character assassination. i don't think we'll come to an agreement about this. but -on the forum, several people collaborating to paint a negative picture of one other person is a fairly frequent occurrence, usually involving assigning them a different type (and i've played my own role in this before), and i think this is something to consider when wondering why some people might carry hostility about the way socionics is practiced (and ultimately the theory itself).
    I think I was harsh but I was frustrated. I do question his character but this is a very subjective distrust, based on how I have seen his behavior for many years. I sort of wish he would stop just like I wish people would stop protesting gay pride rallies. I would say my response was not my best moment, I could have been more creative instead of angry.



    Nevertheless, I think socionics is meaningful to Capitalist Pig and think this question is something he should ask of himself. and perhaps answer.

    There is a certain fact that in social life people will form groups and spread similar opinions, sometimes not exactly in a nice manner. I can't see that being a consequence of the study but mere human nature.

    If he does happen to have a grudge against socionics, it's perhaps better to let it go and find forgiveness. Holding on to a grudge is toxic and painful.

    "Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies." Nelson Mandela

  29. #69
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,800
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Annnnd here we have yet another socionics predicted interaction with a Fi-base (lungs) supervising a Fi-polr (mu4).

  30. #70
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ Out of curiosity, how do you figure?

    I think maybe Lungs cares more about how people characterize one another than she does about how someone makes others feel. Fe vs Fi perhaps.
    good bye

  31. #71
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,800
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reactance View Post
    ^ Out of curiosity, how do you figure?
    You mean where do I see supervision?

    If that's what you are asking I noticed how lungs picked up on mu4's weakness with Fi and put pressure on him for it by instructing to him that an antagonizing opening comment doesn't make it ethical to engage in what she sees as "character assassination". You can see how this caused mu4 some discomfort were he backtracks and admits to being too harsh.

    Assuming mu4 is ILE, this interaction seems to suggest an EII typing for @lungs rather then ESI since it plays out more like supervision then conflict.
    Last edited by Muddy; 10-18-2015 at 07:42 AM.

  32. #72
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    I'm not ad homineming you at all, since I don't disagree with you that socionics is not a science. Also X is useless is a value statement not a logical one. Science is supposed to be about truth not usefulness. Usefulness is determined by the design, you can design all sort of useless things.

    My problem with you is entirely ethical and my criticism is that you have been doing this for 9 years with the same message, and you have nothing new too add and what you do is attention seeking. You're free to do this but it's very much a nuisance on my forum an/d I'm informing you of this. It's ok to do a lot of stuff on this forum, including what you do, but I thought people should know what I thought about your 9 years of the same ole same ole.

    When you present a logical statement that I can deal with logically and analytically I'll consider it, until then your attention seeking is very annoying to me and of course others as well.

    This isn't ad hominem since I'm not attacking your character to discredit your argument, I'm just question your character because your argument is stupid.
    then feel free to use the ignore feature

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    To find it useful you should type correctly people and think a little about people's behavior to notice this system. As for that video, - there is nothing to prove MBT or Socionics is totally wrong or hence useless.



    It's Jung's theory. Sorry you did not know.
    oh ok

    Quote Originally Posted by glam View Post
    not interested in getting involved in the debate in this thread, but why do people who think such-and-such typology is bullshit continue to hang around forums like this, arguing about why it's bullshit? i don't understand what the point of that is. the equivalent is like if someone hung around on astrology forums, arguing with people about how much astrology is bullshit. why would you waste your time doing that? lol
    I don't know why people like that do such a thing.

  33. #73
    Reficulris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,028
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddytextures View Post
    You mean where do I see supervision?

    If that's what you are asking I noticed how lungs picked up on mu4's weakness with Fi and put pressure on him for it by instructing to him that an antagonizing opening comment doesn't make it ethical to engage in what she sees as "character assassination". You can see how this caused mu4 some discomfort were he backtracks and admits to being too harsh.

    Assuming mu4 is ILE, this interaction seems to suggest an EII typing for @lungs rather then ESI since it plays out more like supervision then conflict.
    Interesting observation. Not sure if I agree on the typing of lungs though.

    my take on the conflict is that mu attacks an attitude thats somewhat prevalent on the forum rather than the individual specifically. Carpet bombing so to speak. Its more ruthless and less personal then character assassination.

  34. #74
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,566
    Mentioned
    321 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless.

    I agree with video title. Tests are meaningless in this area if you want to get deeper. However it actually explains something very important: There are lots variability in our thinking. The idea is to understand how you are aligned towards the world. MBTI does not do very good job in this. You can use it nonetheless.
    First: You need to understand that there are 8 base types and each of them are divided into two subcategories. And they are bit blurry because every real world category is bit blurry. It is not exact.
    Furthermore: When you introduce outside variables into your system does it mean that it collapses? Any personality system there is is very crude and is not supposed to be taken as the truth. You can still play with them, develop them, compare them and try to look if patterns are plausible and maybe even test them.

  35. #75
    Whoobie77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Appalachia/Midwest Borderlands
    TIM
    ILI Counterphobic 6
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...3bb71de240.pdf

    here's some science which seems to indicate NP (MBTI) types are more generally represented among the gifted.

    this makes sense to me, as tends to have an academic, universalist quality to it, while types (like myself) tend to be caught up in our own schemes.

    I'm a skeptic myself, but I think to say it has NO scientific applicability is wrong. I took a PSY 110 course recently, and they still include MBTI in the survey textbooks. Just like Freud is still in there, and as I'm almost certain there are psychoanalysts who apply Freud's "unfalsifiable" ideas and improve the lives of mentally ill people.

    that's what interests me: do things work? if heuristics work, whether they come from science or bureaucracy or religion or tradition, I think they are at least worth considering. Jungian psychoanalytics seems to help identify gifted kids (even if there are no actual types) and might help them get in a better position than shitty, one size fits all public education. Is it the magic cure to all your problems which will give you a multitude of friends and the love of your dreams? fuck no. but it's a tool amongst many

  36. #76

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    I don't see my frustration with him as being a diversion. It was a frustrated reaction to his actions. His taunt at the end of the first post.


    His verbalization engages the reader individually and has really zero relevance to the topic. The first diversion was his alone. It's the childish(What I think) "nyah nyah nyah" playground taunt. The evidence of his diversion is clear. I don't even disagree with his argument since it's not "his" but rather an argument against MBTI, which isn't socionics. As far as usefulness and uselessness of socionics, I'll leave that to the individual.

    As far as his attempt to engage the forum at the "Your" level, I think I have the leeway to do this since he opened the door.

    And this taunt was not a debate about socionics but about why people discuss it because it's "useless" or somehow interest in this theory has negative meaning for him.

    So he was the first to go negative portrait as well.

    Let's be quite clear about this.

    Capitalist pig is the first to create a diversion, the first to engage in negativity(at a personal level) and he cannot escape criticism for that.

    I consider his action a character flaw but others can have their own opinions about this, but this is over and done with and there are more interesting things to discuss.

    If he would like to answer some questions. I welcome others to answer these questions as well and I will make some separate threads for this.

    1. "Why is socionics meaningful to you?"

    2. "How did you began your interest with socionics?"

    3. "What did you get from socionics and/or socionics community?"
    Ok:

    1. Because it allows me to preempt other persons and to stay in control so to speak. Self-typing is a bitch though. And frankly, completely useless.
    2. Because the MBTI nomenclature ( INFJ being NiFe ) didn't make any sense at the time. Now that I better think about it, logical reasons aside, MBTI's way of describing it is better and more applicable. Socionics descriptions and...things are just needlessly complicated just for the sake of it(to "explain" something?).
    3. I even lost things: I lost my time, I lost a lot of energy and even kinda chipped my relationships. What's the up side? Nothing, I'd say. But I did learn how different people can be.

  37. #77

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddytextures View Post
    You mean where do I see supervision?

    If that's what you are asking I noticed how lungs picked up on mu4's weakness with Fi and put pressure on him for it by instructing to him that an antagonizing opening comment doesn't make it ethical to engage in what she sees as "character assassination". You can see how this caused mu4 some discomfort were he backtracks and admits to being too harsh.

    Assuming mu4 is ILE, this interaction seems to suggest an EII typing for @lungs rather then ESI since it plays out more like supervision then conflict.
    Yeah, I agree. For conflict relationship, see my and mu's interaction: hint there is none. He IGNORED me 2 seconds after I spoke. And I still can't believe the obscenities he has a habit of saying in the chat ( he once said, quote, " let me put my D in your V, A and M " ...fucking REALLY? Other person is just a TOOL to you? ) . He is most often rude, vulgar and completely self-absorbed. Which actually doesn't mean a conflict relationship, but rather that I don't care for him as a person. Neither would I want to be around him tbh. Shame that I can't ignore him .

  38. #78

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TJay View Post
    this is an interesting video. This guy makes sense to me.

    This was...very enlightening tbh. I can understand what he is talking about because I do get the mathematical concepts that correlate to a fallacy thad DNardi did. Namely:

    If:

    f(x) -> x+1

    DOESN'T MEAN:

    f(x) -> x+1, x e C , x != 0(or in other words ANY number)

    or that:

    f-1(x) = 0 (or in other words inverse does not exist)

    This is what DNardi did. Just because he proved f(x) -> x+1, he IMMEDIATELY assumed the second true were, get these kicks, true as well! Hah! But where are the tests, where is the proof lol? Just because one is proven, doesn't mean that everything related to it is true as well. Oh wtf...

    Maybe DNardi should go back and study High School math some more ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •