SRSI's view on Socionics and MBTI (in Russian)

[Tigerfadder]

In theory, that is desirable I agree that it is something to aspire to always. However, in practice, that isn't always feasible with regards the importance of absolute precision in conveying extremely counter-intuitive and complex aspects of reality.

The biggest risk is the distortion that comes from "simple words", in fact, it is a big problem which is why we are forced to create & utilise new vocabulary to minimise its effect. The only reason for advanced vocabulary is not to be pretentious but rather to minimise communication interferences from the miscommunication of ideas.

And finally regarding this:
"Just maybe you think too highly of your own intellect"
This idea makes no sense to me, with regards to intellect the proof is "in-the-pudding", or the thought-product as opposed to the agent. I don't see why personality attributes inherent to a person matter with regards to analysing the strength of their intellect. Whether the person has intellectual pride or not is irrelevant is critiquing the product of their thought.

The intellect thing was in respond to how you responded to the post previously. A bit dicky. Anyhow ya if something can be described more precise with more words that is to best, if something can be explained simply that is the master description. Anyhow I think Jung did great work but it have evolved and been redone in ways that cover it better. Model A is way better frame to make theoretical conclusions than something about subjective objects, which, does not exist.

[Soupman]

The intellect thing was in respond to how you responded to the post previously. A bit dicky. Anyhow ya if something can be described more precise with more words that is to best, if something can be explained simply that is the master description. Anyhow I think Jung did great work but it have evolved and been redone in ways that cover it better. Model A is way better frame to make theoretical conclusions than something about subjective objects, which, does not exist.

If you read the whole response you'd figure out there is information missing based on the PM communication we heard which didn't necessarily end well. Regardless this was just a blunt message about the failure of communication between me and him.

Dude did you miss the earlier arguments/post? That perspective is not universal and critical thinking also exposes why - everyone gets inspired differently by "Jung" and the esoteric ideas behind "thinking" "feeling" "intuition", & "sensation" allude everyone. And there isn't a universal metric to discern the most appropriate interpretation of the ideas. With the exception of the esoteric idea of "information-abstraction-styles" very few seem to grasp.

[Tigerfadder]

If you read the whole response you'd figure out there is information missing based on the PM communication we heard which didn't necessarily end well. Regardless this was just a blunt message about the failure of communication between me and him.

Dude did you miss the earlier arguments/post? That perspective is not universal and critical thinking also exposes why - everyone gets inspired differently by "Jung" and the esoteric ideas behind "thinking" "feeling" "intuition", & "sensation" allude everyone. And there isn't a universal metric to discern the most appropriate interpretation of the ideas. With the exception of the esoteric idea of "information-abstraction-styles" very few seem to grasp.

ya I read it. Actually when you was saying "esoteric ideas" I thought you meant the fact that Jung entire base is from the perspective of the perceiver. For example Si is defined as how the perceiver of Si view an object. Basically everything Jung states is the perspective of the perceiver. The subjective part is how the person have storied their memory and apply it to this object.

But ya, you were a dick.

[Soupman]

ya I read it. Actually when you was saying "esoteric ideas" I thought you meant the fact that Jung entire base is from the perspective of the perceiver. For example Si is defined as how the perceiver of Si view an object. Basically everything Jung states is the perspective of the perceiver. The subjective part is how the person have storied their memory and apply it to this object.

But ya, you were a dick.

You didn't read the intro of my post which clearly quotes why our PM conversation ended terribly, as for your moral perspective as to whether I'm being a dick or not, is none of my concern. It doesn't compute, I have no malicious intention surrounding that, that's not how I think.

Now from a 3rd level thinking perspective, the issue at hand here is questioning what/how (perhaps why) Jung thought about what he conceptualise - that issue is important because it helps deal with the chaos of deviating interpretations about his ideas. If we simply focus on our individual interpretations of his ideas, we will merely waste time trying to force each other to see what we desire to see when there is no empirical system to falsify the numerous diverging interpretations various people seem to conceptualise.

[Tigerfadder]

You didn't read the intro of my post which clearly quotes why our PM conversation ended terribly, as for your moral perspective as to whether I'm being a dick or not, is none of my concern. It doesn't compute, I have no malicious intention surrounding that, that's not how I think.

Now from a 3rd level thinking perspective, the issue at hand here is questioning what/how (perhaps why) Jung thought about what he conceptualise - that issue is important because it helps deal with the chaos of deviating interpretations about his ideas. If we simply focus on our individual interpretations of his ideas, we will merely waste time trying to force each other to see what we desire to see when there is no empirical system to falsify the numerous diverging interpretations various people seem to conceptualise.

I did read the thread and the point aint in the content but the presentation.

Yes! To understand Jung we need to look at Jung first and not only the ideas, where did they come from? From what perspective was they created? I do this in the scenario of him being IEI. Why is it important? If in this case he is Ni, which in the subjective whatever thingy he perceive the world of a machine of laws that play out and we get the reality as today. When he approach this he do it from trying to understand what the person he is (he was a terapeut of sort) terapeut to perceive the world, in order for him to understand the person. To take only visuals he was trying to understand what the person he was dealing with saw in this world, where the focus was.