Socionics For Dummies

[sbbds]

Then explain why my motivation must be that "I want people to have things explained to me".

Why not something else, such as "I'm just trolling and want to annoy people", or something like that, and countless other explanations? They're all equally valid, because they're all basically explanationless and have no compelling reason to prefer one over the other.

... I never mentioned that.

Look like someone’s doing this all to themselves here, bud.

[Singu]

... I never mentioned that.

Look like someone’s doing this all to themselves here, bud.

Uh, yes you did:

Now I see why you like your spiel so much. It’s a good way to set the stage for telling people they need to prove themselves to you off the bat. There a problem arises tho because nobody cares about doing that for you.

I'd suppose it depends on what you meant by "doing that for you". Anyway, what is my motivation, according to Model A? And why should we take the Model A's supposed explanation at a face value? What makes it the correct one?

[sbbds]

Uh, yes you did:



I'd suppose it depends on what you meant by "doing that for you". Anyway, what is my motivation, according to Model A? And why should we take the Model A's supposed explanation at a face value? What makes it the correct one?

Good job with quoting me! Now: Can you find the word “explain” there anywhere?

[Singu]

Good job with quoting me! Now: Can you find the word “explain” there anywhere?

You quoted me saying "Define competence, which will be defined by a theory.", and you said "Now I see why you like your spiel so much.". I'd assume that this "spiel" that you're talking about is about me asking for a definition which will be defined by a theory, which is an explanation...!

Yes, it could be that this is about misunderstanding or misinterpreting things, as that happens all the time because no communication is perfectly clear. So anyway, what is my supposed motivation, according to Model A? And how would we know that that motivation is the correct motivation out of many other possible motivations? And why would that have to do with Fi, Ti, etc, other than just saying that they have to do with them?

[sbbds]

I'd assume that this "spiel" that you're talking about is about me asking for a definition which will be defined by a theory, which is an explanation...!

Lmao you’re totally wrong by the way.

A theory proves nothing.

[Sol]

A theory proves nothing.

Partly you are correct. Any idea needs objective experiment for final approvement.
But it's also possibly to take a theoretical basis for some idea and to trust it for practical usage. For example, some med was effective on many people and we assume it will work similarly on other ones. With practically useful result so will be, though not with anyone.
The problem with Socionics - there is too much of theory without any objective approvement. Too weak basis to trust highly to many theories.

[Singu]

Partly you are correct. Any idea needs objective experiment for final approvement.
But it's also possibly to take a theoretical basis for some idea and to trust it for practical usage. For example, some med was effective on many people and we assume it will work similarly on other ones. With practically useful result so will be, though not with anyone.
The problem with Socionics - there is too much of theory without any objective approvement. Too weak basis to trust highly to many theories.

Well no offense to Sol but this is just wrong on so many levels.

What makes something right or wrong will always be based on the arguments. And that argument will keep changing as people keep making new arguments and find new ways to be more objective. What people thought was "totally objective" before might be found out to be not so objective after all, and hence people find better ways to be more objective through better arguments.

This just goes to show that there's no such thing as "Te", as these supposed "super objective" Te or Ti types keep making plain bad arguments based on bad thinking and bad philosophy. I don't blame them or their innate abilities, I blame their bad philosophy that they got from their bad culture. These types of thinking are cultural, not innate.