Socionics For Dummies

[Singu]

Where is the problem here?

Well what is the point of anything, if all you can say is "I'm right because I think I'm right"? That's just an arbitrary judgment. Would anyone be convinced by that argument?

Let me put it this way.

We know that a "particular kind of a smile (Te smile)" is something that objectively exist "out there" in the real world. But when you're the one that is observing it, then it's only a partial observation. How do we know that that smile doesn't exist outside of your observation? For example, others might point out that other types have the same smile. So when you claim, "Well I see it in Te types! It must be a Te thing!", that's not very convincing.

[Number 9 large]

Yes, yes it does. The opposite of subjective is objective which means things that anyone can see. The existence of a chair is objective - anyone can see it. The thoughts inside your mind are subjective because only you can perceive them. The kind of food you like is subjective because it differs from person to person. Claiming that the people who agree with the weird associations you make somehow "see it" and everyone else doesn't, doesn't make it any less subjective.

I wouldnt call objective as "something that can be seen"
Schizophrenic people "see" hallucinations, do they exist in objective reality now?
Objective reality exists outside of us, whether we can perceive it or not is irrelevant, thats exactly what makes objectivity objective

[Number 9 large]

Its an evidence based society now aramas, I wouldnt even bother.

Yea lets go back to the times where "because I believe it" was a good argument.

[Exodus]

I wouldnt call objective as "something that can be seen"
Schizophrenic people "see" hallucinations, do they exist in objective reality now?
Objective reality exists outside of us, whether we can perceive it or not is irrelevant, thats exactly what makes objectivity objective

The key word there is "anyone".

[Number 9 large]

The key word there is "anyone".

Blind ppl cant see

[Olimpia]

Well what is the point of anything, if all you can say is "I'm right because I think I'm right"? That's just an arbitrary judgment. Would anyone be convinced by that argument?

Let me put it this way.

We know that a "particular kind of a smile (Te smile)" is something that objectively exist "out there" in the real world. But when you're the one that is observing it, then it's only a partial observation. How do we know that that smile doesn't exist outside of your observation? For example, others might point out that other types have the same smile. So when you claim, "Well I see it in Te types! It must be a Te thing!", that's not very convincing.

His idea could be made more feasible in discussion by tying it to the theory.

For example, you could argue that this particular kind of smile is related to Fe Role.

A part of is emotional expression. Te itself has no relation to ethics or emotions, hence associating a smile with Te itself is not entirely "correct" when it comes to the theory (if you are being nit-picky). But again, if you argue for it to be common in Fe Role individuals, we can work with that. At the same time, it is still a micro-cue, which again is problematic...

[Sol]

Socionics is so special region of knowledge where people from the start suppose they may trust to own opinion more than to opinions of the ones who read about the subject some more than types descriptions like they did yesterday and which had years of experience.

if you argue for it to be common in Fe Role individuals

any regular kind of emotional expression is more common and more expressive at Fe types than at T types

P.S.
the forum got another your LII dual - FarDraft

[Desert Financial]

Olimpia = IEI

[Number 9 large]

Socionics is so special region of knowledge where people from the start suppose they may trust to own opinion more than to opinions of the ones who read about the subject some more than types descriptions like they did yesterday and which had years of experience.



any regular kind of emotional expression is more common and more expressive at Fe types than at T types

P.S.
the forum got another your LII dual - FarDraft

Beg to disagree, ExTP can be more expressive than Fi lead

[golden]

the reason behavior is not the end-all be-all of type is because acting in accordance with behaviors associated with a type would make you that type. its essentially one dimensional, where the point has always been two people can act similarly for totally different reasons. if behavior controlled type and type was just a collection of behaviors typing would be unpsychological and entirely empirical. it would be a matter of going down a checklist and seeing where the plurality of your behavior lands you, and then inferring a cognitive process on the basis of that. essentially it would make the cognitive process piece completely meaningless and redundant. what you have are "characters" not a psychological theory. actors could be whatever type they chose, among other weird consequences. that is shallow and not really the point. people do live in that world, but its the world of social appearance and not psychological. this social approach contaminates psychology at every turn as a consequence of typology's popularity, but its just losing track of the real insight and purpose of the theory, which is not just a catalogue of characters, but rather a way to develop real understanding. these same socially oriented people don't really experience misunderstanding because they don't interact on a level where misunderstandings tend to really matter. in other words, they live their lives unscientifically and unpsychologically, so of course the problem of miscommunication is lost on them, but this is a consequence of them not even perceiving the issue typology was really aimed at to begin with. to them its just another meaningless novelty so there is no problem with taking such an approach, because they have no sense of what is lost by doing that. its like if the goal posts are sufficiently lowered there is no problem with making socionics just a mirror on behavior, but its not really socionics at that point. its essentially just another version of the "what [insert franchise here] character are you" test

I don’t think behavior is the be-all regarding type, or that there is some simple, formulaic correspondence between behavior and type. I’ve actually argued in the past more on the side of there being a broad range of what a type can seem like, of there being exceptions and outliers, and of the need to consider people’s own experiences and how they articulate those, because even though people have blind spots regarding themselves, they also have an inner life I’ve no direct access to.

Still, over the years I’ve come to see there is a need for common sense. What are the ego functions? What are the functions I expect to see somehow communicated for a given type? If they are missing, and if the communication patterns even contradict what the theor(ies) say about ego functions, then okay, maybe it’s possible there is some hidden and mysterious thing happening, but then Socionics becomes more like a holding site for some future understanding. Or magic.

[Adam Strange]

I don’t think behavior is the be-all regarding type, or that there is some simple, formulaic correspondence between behavior and type. I’ve actually argued in the past more on the side of there being a broad range of what a type can seem like, of there being exceptions and outliers, and of the need to consider people’s own experiences and how they articulate those, because even though people have blind spots regarding themselves, they also have an inner life I’ve no direct access to.

Still, over the years I’ve come to see there is a need for common sense. What are the ego functions? What are the functions I expect to see somehow communicated for a given type? If they are missing, and if the communication patterns even contradict what the theor(ies) say about ego functions, then okay, maybe it’s possible there is some hidden and mysterious thing happening, but then Socionics becomes more like a holding site for some future understanding. Or magic.

That's how I see it.

We are Tycho Brahe, waiting for Kepler.

[golden]

That's how I see it.

We are Tycho Brahe, waiting for Kepler.

Sure, that may very well be. I’m not just being rhetorical.

But if it’s correct, then what conclusions can we draw for the present?

[Bertrand]

instead of letting everyone say whatever because none of it matters we could admit that 99% of discourse is white noise and try to home in on the stuff that isn't instead of adding to the problem by diluting standards and generally entertaining things we already know or should know are dumb.. or at the very least admit in principle that while we don't have it all locked down yet there is still better and worse and there's a lot we can identify as, whatever better may end up ultimately being, this is not it.. to say otherwise is to simply say there's no up or down and renders socionics completely meaningless, which is exactly how some people like it, but those people are only out for themselves and should not be relied upon

[Desert Financial]

...okay, maybe it’s possible there is some hidden and mysterious thing happening, but then Socionics becomes more like a holding site for some future understanding. Or magic.

[Adam Strange]

Sure, that may very well be. I’m not just being rhetorical.

But if it’s correct, then what conclusions can we draw for the present?

Observations of data are key. We can observe the past and make predictions about the future by correlations.

Tycho Brahe's observations of planetary motion were extremely accurate and were perfectly able to predict eclipses and where the planets would be in 100 years. They merely lacked an explanation of motions based on the underlying motivating forces. Kepler devised some laws for planetary motion, and Newton's theory of gravitation provided an (incorrect - refer to the precession of Mercury's orbit) explanation of the forces responsible for the planetary positions that Tycho measured, but none of what followed detracted from the accuracy or predictive power of the observations themselves.

[Bertrand]

the difference is planets and people are different, unless you disagree. if people are fundamentally the same as planets then its just one more person in the "science will ultimately explain all human activity" camp.. further, our behavior will become as predictable as the movement of the planets themselves. this sort of rationale ultimately begs the question on the nature of humanity itself.. socionics becomes more or less idle except as a way to predict action on the basis of what we already know--that humans are machines with determinable destinies. it predefines the mystery of human behavior out right at the beginning. its not that humans are special, its just that we don't understand them for the clockwork they really are.. yet. this is not actually a psychological viewpoint because it denies in principle the radical difference in perception and cognition and subjective experience. its like treating people as if they were cars, and the only admission is Im not an expert mechanic.. that is not how humanity is to be understood, at least not psychologically, rather it is a subset of a peculiar instance of a psychological perspective. to universalize that perspective is to elevate the part above the whole. this elevation is precisely what Jung would call "one sidedness" in a culture. its as if people have understood nothing, but talk as if they do

[golden]

I spent years in an anti-materialist cultic environment, and as a result I cherish science.

The scientists I’ve worked with aren’t pretending that they know everything. Mostly the opposite, they are working on tiny little pieces of reality and understand how limited that can be. I’m also a semi-Buddhist, and the Tibetan monks I speak with are pro-science. Their attitude about science is often, “Yes, that’s it, that’s what we’ve been talking about all along.” And they want to align themselves with science because they want to describe reality as accurately as possible. It doesn’t threaten the Mystery, because they already have that part established.

But pop culture and the science-industrial complex that gives us big pharma and Monsanto as invisible gods imo stoke the implicit message that science has all the answers.

What are we talking about here, though? All I was asking for was what I think is common sense, and in Socionics terms I define that as IF we are doing Socionics, and not something else, and there is such a thing as an ego, and stronger and weaker dimensionality of IEs, then please don’t tell me that they’re invisible, don’t tell me that Te dom is equally expressive to Fe dom—it usually isn’t—don’t tell me that one expression like a lifted mouth corner (looks like contempt, btw) is the key to understanding what someone’s type is. That’s one eensy bit of information, it’s like reading a book with a microscope one letter at a time and hoping to understand its thesis from a smattering of alphabet.

[Desert Financial]

please don’t tell me that they’re invisible

I think you're touching on a matter that makes the process of finding scientific certainty in Socionics a Catch-22.

Application of the theory depends on abstract concepts, which are sold as self-evident. So, the inherent subjectivity involved with Socionics is at odds with materialistic science, like the science guided by logical positivism. No matter how much we iron out the theory through scientific means, such as neurological research, the element of subjectivity, as Western Society regards it, will remain. And, if that subjectivity is invisible or/and impossible to measure, as some thinkers and even scientists have posited, then a pure reliance on the scientific method will never validate the "self-evident" aspects of Socionics. Consequently, if we rely purely on science to guide our worldviews, then the implementation of Socionics becomes nullified. For example, typists frequently depend on intuition to assess the types of others. Therefore, without the assumption that intuition even serves as a viable means of perception, as Socionics would have it, the intuitive process of typing falls flat. And, if we simply rely on the micro-cues, and a person's type really concerns the abstract "essence" of who they are, then the typing process falls flat once again because micro-cues are largely irrelevant.

If there's any truth to the theory, the process of its validation requires a paradigm shift in order to reconcile the problems and questions of what we consider to be the subjective world. What we consider subjective and what we consider objective have to be merged, either through theories posed by quantum mechanics or some other way if we expect to preserve Socionics with the scientific method intact. Some psychologists who are privy to quantum mechanics have floated the idea that since field theory claims the universe is made of energy, that consciousness is energy as well. So, this might reconcile the apparent division between subject and object in a way that provides proof for Socionics and cognitive psychology as well. If not, then something needs to be thrown in the garbage can or reworked entirely in the vein of Dario Nardi's research.

Also, I'm sorry to hear that you were in a cult-like atmosphere.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The West need to pair with the East in order to define Socionics via something like IPIP. If Socionics is to get any credibility, it needs to be shown to be superior to other systems of boxing people, which from a Socionics perspective would probably involve proving that duality relationships are the least harmful.

[sbbds]

What we consider subjective and what we consider objective have to be merged,

This isn’t necessarily hard to do on an amateur level, but it is also why Socionics will remain at the hobby discussion forum level for the conceivable future. And it honestly demands a lot better more mature discussion capabilities than the ones that are on hand now here ...

[Skepsis]

The West need to pair with the East in order to define Socionics via something like IPIP. If Socionics is to get any credibility, it needs to be shown to be superior to other systems of boxing people, which from a Socionics perspective would probably involve proving that duality relationships are the least harmful.

If you box someone and change the construct of their face in the process, will their type via VI change?

[Not A Communist Shill]

If you box someone and change the construct of their face in the process, will their type via VI change?

That depends on whether type is in the eye of the beholder, or whether it comes from within.

[sbbds]

change the construct of their face in the process

By this do you mean attempting to interpret their facial features in a different way?

[Skepsis]

That depends on whether type is in the eye of the beholder, or whether it comes from within.

The hematoma projects itself in an effort to express the blood within

Or just....

[Skepsis]

By this do you mean attempting to interpret their facial features in a different way?

"Hey, I like your Si eyes"

"I just have seasonal allergies, but thank you."

[Singu]

All I'm seeking are, like with anything else, explanations.

For example, why should a particular kind of a smile be a "Te thing"? Can anyone explain how that works?

If no one can explain it, then maybe there's nothing to it. Or at least, I, or anyone else, won't be convinced by it. Why should I simply take your word for it, and trust it upon faith? After all, "science" is about "take no one's word for it", or "Nullius in verba" in Latin.

If it "works", then it must be able to be reproduced. And if it were to be reproduced, then it must be explained how it works. It's as simple as that.

[Bertrand]

if you wanna see some Fe role look no further than bret kavanaugh's hearings

[Aramas]

if you wanna see some Fe role look no further than bret kavanaugh's hearings

"Yes, I drank beer.... I still drink beer... Uh...."

The second I saw that, I wondered, "Why the hell is this on national TV? If this is what we've come to, we're definitely going down."

[Bertrand]

they showed the hearings in a big classroom at the law school and tried to have some serious legal discussion about it.. I lasted about 5 minutes

what a shitshow, its like America really doesn't know how to act anymore

[timber]

Its called spontaneity: something that makes them laugh or smile, not ROLE. Role is inside their minds--> something tells them that they should act such and such way..that's the role function.

This is DIFFERENT.

Like don't you guys TRY to think outside the box. Yeesh.

[timber]

All I'm seeking are, like with anything else, explanations.

For example, why should a particular kind of a smile be a "Te thing"? Can anyone explain how that works?

If no one can explain it, then maybe there's nothing to it. Or at least, I, or anyone else, won't be convinced by it. Why should I simply take your word for it, and trust it upon faith? After all, "science" is about "take no one's word for it", or "Nullius in verba" in Latin.

If it "works", then it must be able to be reproduced. And if it were to be reproduced, then it must be explained how it works. It's as simple as that.

This isn;t science its art. Negate what is said makes no difference to me. I don;t care about convincing you haha.

PS, I'm way further down the quadra line then you so everything you ever say is already goes without saying and is just common sense. I'm miles down the road, you need to keep up.

[sbbds]

they showed the hearings in a big classroom at the law school and tried to have some serious legal discussion about it.. I lasted about 5 minutes

what an exciting wank session

[Aramas]

they showed the hearings in a big classroom at the law school and tried to have some serious legal discussion about it.. I lasted about 5 minutes

what a shitshow, its like America really doesn't know how to act anymore

They just wanted to eat proverbial popcorn, enjoy the drama, and take a break from the regular bullshit.

[Bertrand]

ha I wish.. I would have much preferred the "regular bullshit".. but it was deadly serious in the stupidest imaginable way

the kind of room where if you started cracking jokes or opened a bag of chips everyone would look at you like how could you take such a momentous occasion so lightly

they had zero self awareness of what a ridiculous circus it is to begin with, and a degree of contempt via casualness would have been deserved

these are the people who ought to be able to distinguish between a political charade and real law too. and their problem if they had one was not because this percolates down into real law, because we're, after all, talking about the highest court. basically the world was totally upside down in every conceivable way. it was like a trump supporter mentality except there weren't a lot of trump supporters in the room, but its the mentality that is worse than the candidate. its like people lost all understanding of what matters. a modern day bread and circus, but instead of an uproarious audience it was more like the clowns were on TV and in our highest offices and everyone sat in deadly earnest watching the show. like I said, backwards or upside down

the proper response to this kind of nonsense should be to laugh it out of town, but Trump and everything flowing from him are like idiots who got taken seriously

I guess this is maybe how all the low IQ people felt when obama was in office: how could anyone take this monkey seriously!

[Aramas]

ha I wish.. I would have much preferred the "regular bullshit".. but it was deadly serious in the stupidest imaginable way

the kind of room where if you started cracking jokes or opened a bag of chips everyone would look at you like how could you take such a momentous occasion so lightly

they had zero self awareness of what a ridiculous circus it is to begin with, and a degree of contempt via casualness would have been deserved

these are the people who ought to be able to distinguish between a political charade and real law too. and their problem if they had one was not because this percolates down into real law, because we're, after all, talking about the highest court. basically the world was totally upside down in every conceivable way. it was like a trump supporter mentality except there weren't a lot of trump supporters in the room, but its the mentality that is worse than the candidate. its like people lost all understanding of what matters. a modern day bread and circus, but instead of an uproarious audience it was more like the clowns were on TV and in our highest offices and everyone sat in deadly earnest watching the show. like I said, backwards or upside down

the proper response to this kind of nonsense should be to laugh it out of town, but Trump and everything flowing from him are like idiots who got taken seriously

I guess this is maybe how all the low IQ people felt when obama was in office: how could anyone take this monkey seriously!

I wonder how much worse it'll get lol. If it gets any worse they might as well have a holiday and film Congress Critters Gone Wild.

[Singu]

This isn;t science its art. Negate what is said makes no difference to me. I don;t care about convincing you haha.

PS, I'm way further down the quadra line then you so everything you ever say is already goes without saying and is just common sense. I'm miles down the road, you need to keep up.

Well good like trying to convince anyone, let alone people outside of this forum.

I think people really underestimate how crazy and insanely cult-like this forum and Socionics really is.

[Number 9 large]

Well good like trying to convince anyone, let alone people outside of this forum.

I think people really underestimate how crazy and insanely cult-like this forum and Socionics really is.

I think you overestimate how crazy and cultlike this forum really is

[Singu]

I think you overestimate how crazy and cultlike this forum really is

Proving my point.

[sbbds]

A cult where nobody can agree on anything and there are constant arguments lol.

[golden]

A cult where nobody can agree on anything and there are constant arguments lol.

Actually, real cults are much more like this than you might think. Lots of conflict and power plays and people setting up weird lil’ fiefdoms, saying their way of approaching the belief system is the best or the purest and you just wouldn’t understand.