Derail/Function placement vs strength

[Singu]

People can say anything about things like "dimensionality" and "Model A", but they've never even been tested and those concepts and its definitions are highly vague and broad and abstract and things like "dimensionality" may just as well be meaningless.

There are some other theories that can explain our cognition, such as the Dual process theory, the "System 1 and System 2" kind of thinking, and it seems to be backed up by many evidence, at least. It's not perfect of course, like with any theories it is still in the process of refinement, but it's gaining traction and is applied in multiple disciplines.

So people on here can armchair philosophize and psychologize all they want, but it will likely not create anything substantial.

Gulenko is not confined within a bubble of socionics beliefs, that's for sure. I have read much of what he theorizes from other sources before I even heard of socionics (I was never much into MBTI thankfully) so it isn't really new to me. I spend more time reading sources outside socionics to learn about cognitive abilities which allows me to correlate things I actually observe and have firsthand experience with. Most recently it has been dna for me which is not there yet. Hopefully soon.

So yeah I believe he is taking bits a pieces from different theories and trying to correlate to socionics but of course there are going to be some contradictions and some things that just can't be correlated. I also do my own correlations between socionics and other systems. Not actively trying to correlate as much as it just kind of makes sense one day and then I can write about it. He is consciously and actively correlating. I think that is why people shouldn't even bother with things like his cognitive styles until they have a solid understanding of the basics.

Yeah, I think he's just basically plagiarizing and saying, "This fits in with Socionics, that fits in with Socionics".

[hatchback176]

I think we've all reasoned that Singu is a Te-valuer and can't conceive that there is more to reality than object-oriented objectivity. No matter how much we tell him processes, imagination, behavior, morality, values, time, memories, sanity, logic, relationships, fields, identity, introspection, willpower, ownership, philosophy, etc. are not objective objects and we object his denials regarding the efficacy of Socionics Methodology.

[Singu]

I think we've all reasoned that Singu is a Te-valuer and can't conceive that there is more to reality than object-oriented objectivity. No matter how much we tell him processes, imagination, behavior, morality, values, time, memories, sanity, logic, relationships, fields, identity, introspection, willpower, ownership, philosophy, etc. are not objective objects and we object his denials regarding the efficacy of Socionics Methodology.

Aren't you also a Te-valuer? lol...

[hatchback176]

"Whereas dorsolateral areas are recruited for processing externally generated information (e.g., the monitoring and manipulation of presented facts), frontopolar areas are recruited additionally for the evaluation and manipulation of internally generated information."

People like you that can't change their representations to communicate or translate their information in a trans-contextual manner don't impress me at all.

[Skepsis]

I think we've all reasoned that Singu is a Te-valuer and can't conceive that there is more to reality than object-oriented objectivity. No matter how much we tell him processes, imagination, behavior, morality, values, time, memories, sanity, logic, relationships, fields, identity, introspection, willpower, ownership, philosophy, etc. are not objective objects and we object his denials regarding the efficacy of Socionics Methodology.

This is a weak, lame, argument and amounts to a variant ad hominem. It seems people can try and justify anything they want through their cognitive functions, or lack thereof. It only deflects from deeper philosophical truths.

Singu is obvious skeptical about socionics and cognitive functions, as am I. Whether "Ti" or "Te" valuers realize it or not, socionics is making claims about objective reality. When someone "types" someone, they are making observations and making conclusions based on these observations. They aren't transcending time and space, lol. These are attempts at their own empirical system, and as many critics point out time and time again, the system is pseudoscientific. The confirmation bias is terribly obvious and significant.

So, one can whine about others being Te and not understanding their Ti, which sounds retarded, or one can engage in reasonable debate about what consciousness is, what we do know about it, etc. Socionics is very dogmatic. It is not a science. It has however given us a unique language to discuss more abstract concepts.

[hatchback176]

Whiner, retarded, dogmatic, deflector, mystical, biased. The only ad hominems are stemming from you.

[Bertrand]

yeah its funny to me what singu and now chains perceive "ad hominem" to mean

i think its bound up in their failure to appreciate what an argument and what an explanation is. socionics explains peoples behavior, so if you use it "against" someone it is not an ad hominem because you're not making an argument, whereas what chains is doing right here is making an argument, and then actually using language that operates against the person as a mode of carrying persuasive/logical force

if a psychological explanation renders someones argument less forceful as a consequence that doesn't transform it into a logical fallacy, its actually a logical basis for why their argument should properly be less forceful or is something other than what it purports itself to be, which thus rightfully shifts the consequence of the argument

[Number 9 large]

if a psychological explanation renders someones argument less forceful as a consequence that doesn't transform it into a logical fallacy, its actually a logical basis for why their argument should properly be less forceful or is something other than what it purports itself to be, which thus rightfully shifts the consequence of the argument

This ''psychological explanation'' is what we call ad-hominem, because it doesn't attack the message but the messenger, making the message look weaker in comparison, because of its association with the messenger. It's another strawman, no matter how ''rightful'' you think it is, fi lead

[Bertrand]

I get that, but its a folk understanding of the term, which has an actual technical meaning at odds with that understanding. in other words, its not a species of non sequitur

precisely because there is a logical nexus and they take issue with the underlying approach they call it an ad hominem, but that is not an ad hominem. it mistakes what ad hominem actually functions to rule out which is not every approach you think should not bear on the argument, but only those that do not in fact bear on the argument, as a matter of pure logic

someone's use of socionics may in fact be mistaken or wrong, but it is not in principle not logically connected, when someone explains someone's actions through the lens of socionics. it is not, in other words, a category error. which is what a true ad hominem is. rather, it may just be wrong for other reasons

[Singu]

Here are some interesting recent and cutting-edge researches on how emotions and cognition might work in our brain:

How are Emotion and Cognition Integrated?

Humans tend to experience cognition and emotion as fundamentally different. Emotion is infused with feelings of pleasure or pain and manifests in readily discerned changes in the body, whereas cognition often appears devoid of substantial hedonic, motivational, or somatic features. These apparent differences in phenomenological experience and peripheral physiology led many classical scholars to treat emotion and cognition as distinct mental faculties (de Sousa, 2014; Schmitter, 2014). But contemporary theorists have increasingly rejected the claim that emotion and cognition are categorically different (Damasio, 2005b; Duncan and Barrett, 2007; Lindquist and Barrett, 2012; Barrett and Satpute, 2013; Pessoa, 2013), motivated in part by recent imaging evidence demonstrating the overlap of emotional and cognitive processes in the brain (e.g., Shackman et al., 2011b; Raz et al., 2012, 2014). The neural integration of emotion and cognition should not be surprising—after all, the human brain did not evolve to optimize performance on laboratory measures of ‘cold’ cognition or to passively respond to experimental manipulations of emotion, such as threat of shock. Our brain, like that of other animals, is the product of evolutionary pressures that demanded neural systems capable of using information about pleasure and pain, derived from stimuli saturated with hedonic and motivational significance, to adaptively regulate attention, learning, somatic arousal, and action.

A number of contributors highlighted advances in our understanding of the neural mechanisms that serve to integrate emotion and cognition.

- https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...015.00058/full

How the brain processes emotions
Neuroscientists identify circuits that could play a role in mental illnesses, including depression.

- http://news.mit.edu/2016/brain-processes-emotions-mental-illness-depression-0331



Fundamentals of Neuroscience/Emotion
Emotions are cognitive, not innate, researchers conclude

[Number 9 large]

I get that, but its a folk understanding of the term, which has an actual technical meaning at odds with that understanding. in other words, its not a species of non sequitur

precisely because there is a logical nexus and they take issue with the underlying approach they call it an ad hominem, but that is not an ad hominem. it mistakes what ad hominem actually functions to rule out which is not every approach you think should not bear on the argument, but only those that do not in fact bear on the argument, as a matter of pure logic

someone's use of socionics may in fact be mistaken or wrong, but it is not in principle not logically connected, when someone explains someone's actions through the lens of socionics. it is not, in other words, a category error. which is what a true ad hominem is. rather, it may just be wrong for other reasons

Yeah idk wtf ur talking about: ad hominem is attacking the messenger instead of the message, end of story. All the other stuff youre saying is irrelevant

[Bertrand]

what's the difference between saying someone did x because "they were stupid" or because "we measured their IQ to be 3 standard deviations below the norm, and their behavior is explained by them being physically unable to appreciate the nature and consequence of their actions"? Really, what are generally considered ad homs are proto-psychological statements of a bygone age. Low IQ has actually had like 50 different words associated with it because over time each word became an insult. There is a point of convergence between insults and logically connected phenomena. In the end it comes down to what you mean by your ad hominem. This is why if you read most philosophy you'll never see people throwing around ad homimen accusations, in terms of it being a fallacy, because that's something people do on the internet to score points. the bottom line is if something truly is an ad hominem, its better to explain why it lacks any force than to call it an ad hom and move on. truly. which is why people who are fundamentally serious about what they're saying really dont get hung up on "ad hom" or whatever. if someone truly ad homs you, they've done your argument a favor, because they've demonstrated that their counter argument relies on something lacking a logical connection, which to point out in detail is the deathblow to their argument. to simply say "such and such is an ad hom" willy nilly, is tantamount to saying "neener neener I'm right, you're wrong" but says nothing beyond that if you don't show how

to take anything that operates against the person categorically off the table is not the intention of ad hominem, in fact to do so would invalidate huge forms of ethical and psychological reasoning. the idea has always been you can make arguments against the person they just have to be logically connected (this is the basis for criminal law). ad hominem is a logical disconect that only seems connected but is not in fact. what psychology represents is the actual extension into that unknown that people have always known exists but not precisely how. inasmuch as they illuminate the how they reclaim territory from "ad hominem" because the connection becomes demonstrable and not speculative

[Number 9 large]

what's the difference between saying someone did x because "they were stupid" or because "we measured their IQ to be 3 standard deviations below the norm, and their behavior is explained by them being physically unable to appreciate the nature and consequence of their actions"? Really, what are generally considered ad homs are proto-psychological statements of a bygone age. Low IQ has actually had like 50 different words associated with it because over time each word became an insult. There is a point of convergence between insults and logically connected phenomena. In the end it comes down to what you mean by your ad hominem. This is why if you read most philosophy you'll never see people throwing around ad homimen accusations, in terms of it being a fallacy, because that's something people do on the internet to score points. the bottom line is if something truly is an ad hominem, its better to explain why it lacks any force than to call it an ad hom and move on. truly. which is why people who are fundamentally serious about what they're saying really dont get hung up on "ad hom" or whatever. if someone truly ad homs you, they've done your argument a favor, because they've demonstrated that their counter argument relies on something lacking a logical connection, which to point out in detail is the deathblow to their argument. to simply say "such and such is an ad hom" willy nilly, is tantamount to saying "neener neener I'm right, you're wrong" but says nothing beyond that if you don't show how

to take anything that operates against the person categorically off the table is not the intention of ad hominem, in fact to do so would invalidate huge forms of ethical and psychological reasoning. the idea has always been you can make arguments against the person they just have to be logically connected (this is the basis for criminal law). ad hominem is a logical disconect that only seems connected but is not in fact. what psychology represents is the actual extension into that unknown that people have always known exists but not precisely how. inasmuch as they illuminate the how they reclaim territory from "ad hominem" because the connection becomes demonstrable and not speculative

The thing ad hominem does by attacking the messenger is invalidating the argument in a way.
If i said ''x means y'', thats a statement.
If i said ''a child says x means y'' you are already inclined to take the statement less seriously.
Context matters, and therefore ad hominems matter. They get rid of Ti and bring in the Fi to the argument

[Bertrand]

what do you mean when you say "a child says x means y" and what do you mean when you say "you are already inclined to take the statement less seriously"?

what i mean is someone makes an argument (x means y)
what if i told you that a child said it, would that make you just as confident in the statement being likely true?

ad hominem is not something everyone does that needs to be attenuated to some degree or another, its a specific unjustified logical leap. ad hominem is not a stand in for like "everyone should reason more objectively and not consider the credibility of the speaker" what you are confusing is the difference between soundness and validity. ad hominem is a mistake as to validity. credibility and determinations on reliability or actuality in light of the circumstances goes more to soundness

its the same problem singu has with "challenging a premise" this is a question of soundness, and is a legit form of reasoning. challenging premises is not of ad hominem because it is not challenging the logical connection (i.e.: validity) its challenging the truth of the underlying premises not their connectors

when you say "you only believe x or y because of socionics" what one is doing is saying the language you use is merely incidental to your beliefs which are subjective thus what you are saying is not objectively true, not because it does not logically follow, but because it is founded on an picture of the world I do not share. that is not an ad hominem

[Number 9 large]

what do you mean when you say "a child says x means y" and what do you mean when you say "you are already inclined to take the statement less seriously"?

what i mean is someone makes an argument (x means y)
what if i told you that a child said it, would that make you just as confident in the statement being likely true?

[Skepsis]

I get that, but its a folk understanding of the term, which has an actual technical meaning at odds with that understanding. in other words, its not a species of non sequitur

precisely because there is a logical nexus and they take issue with the underlying approach they call it an ad hominem, but that is not an ad hominem. it mistakes what ad hominem actually functions to rule out which is not every approach you think should not bear on the argument, but only those that do not in fact bear on the argument, as a matter of pure logic

someone's use of socionics may in fact be mistaken or wrong, but it is not in principle not logically connected, when someone explains someone's actions through the lens of socionics. it is not, in other words, a category error. which is what a true ad hominem is. rather, it may just be wrong for other reasons

Socionics pretty much invented this unique type of fallacy, where junks of reality aren't available to everyone because of IMs. You can't argue anything because they are used to end discussions.

"Ti polr, must be you can't understand the complex logical structure of socionics"

"Te dominant, all your demanding evidence is tiresome. I don't need 'evidence' as long as it makes logical sense"

Must be the flat earthers, like socionicists are Ti dominants,lol. It makes complete logical sense, but only if you ignore evidence.

[Bertrand]

its not a unique type of fallacy you're just ignorant as to what the body of knowledge already out there addresses

its weird that I'd have to teach you a class on informal/formal fallacies to sort you out, but its like even though that's the case, it won't undermine you making all these blanket statements. there's a word for that too: dunning kruger

the point is socionics didn't invent the idea, they just described how it could be in greater detail. for example I just called you ignorant, which is contesting your underlying premises, not your logical reasoning. socionics just details the underlying mechanism as to how it could be that you might be ignorant but not realize it. you seem to be lacking in Te skills for example, not necessarily Ti. none of this is fallacious you just don't like it

at the very least, the informal point of contention would best be described as me allegedly begging the question (as to the truth of socionics), not ad hominem, being at the bottom of this all

[Skepsis]

See, you did it again. "Lacking in Te skills" is meaningless. It is overly vague, just an opinion, and are using it to invalidate my criticisms instead of addressing them directly.

[Bertrand]

I didn't address them directly because its tantamount to asking you to go to college

[Skepsis]

Ad hominem

[hatchback176]

Well done, Bertrand. As of now there is no logical or objective method for listing all possible hypotheses to explain a phenomenon other than to call it brainstorming and throw it under the rubric of creativity. If someone is going to pretend that they're being comprehensive and sharing a complete train of thought then they had better have a series of viewpoints to apply. If Socionics adds tools to a person's Meta-Cognitive Skill Set and makes their communication more well-rounded then it's a true source of wisdom.

[Bertrand]

ad hominem is attacking the messenger instead of the message, end of story.

it comes down to them mistaking Fe for Ti

[Skepsis]

So, people who defend socionics are Fe users who are Ti seeking,lol

[Bertrand]

im saying youre broad brushing (perceived) "attacks on messenger" as categorically logically fallacious which is a statement of politeness and not logic

[Number 9 large]

it comes down to them mistaking Fe for Ti

irrelevant

[Bertrand]

x says the sky is blue
the sky cannot be blue because x cheats on his wife

this is an ad hominem


x says the sky is black
x says that because he is blind

this is not an ad hominem
its not even an argument

[Skepsis]

False eqivalency

[Skepsis]

Unlike IEs, eyes we know exist and how they perceive light. We know that lacking eyes means one cannot perceive light. This is science.

[Bertrand]

we know x cheats on his wife

I also feel like you're the same type of person that if we had this conversation pre science you'd argue that we don't know whether eyes mean sight and you'd call that an ad hominem too. its like did ad hominem not exist pre science? really what you do is simply appeal to an amorphous and group-bound definition of what "counts" for knowledge, without seemingly investigating what makes such a thing true or justified, thus anything that is not "group approved" just becomes false, or at best, questionable to the point of fallacious to rely on. its fine that you do this, since your life's objective is probably to be a social butterfly, but you have to consider how extremely useless such an approach is when it comes to generating actual knowledge, or assessing nascent forms of understanding such as socionics. of course you don't accept it as accepted, because your criterion to do so is so incredibly asinine it makes me wonder why you're even here

[Skepsis]

X is a douchebag

[at sirac son of sirac]

we know x cheats on his wife

I also feel like you're the same type of person that if we had this conversation pre science you'd argue that we don't know whether eyes mean sight and you'd call that an ad hominem too. its like did ad hominem not exist pre science? really what you do is simply appeal to an amorphous and group-bound definition of what "counts" for knowledge, without seemingly investigating what makes such a thing true or justified, thus anything that is not "group approved" just becomes false, or at best, questionable to the point of fallacious to rely on. its fine that you do this, since your life's objective is probably to be a social butterfly, but you have to consider how extremely useless such an approach is when it comes to generating actual knowledge, or assessing nascent forms of understanding such as socionics. of course you don't accept it as accepted, because your criterion to do so is so incredibly asinine it makes me wonder why you're even here

Not everyone knows why they do things.

I suppose one might say that not knowing why one does things indicates irrationality in the socionic sense of an 'p' type, but why stretch socionics further than perhaps it was intended... I imagine many people are simply instinct driven, regardless of rationality or irrationality, or perhaps that's just my 'p' type perspective.

[Bertrand]

true, in my darker moments I think of such people as being social automatons. honestly sometimes I don't even know why I bother responding to such silly criticisms because its just like an empty force of nature. I guess on some level I assume there are third parties that might be heartened by hearing my perspective because they're likewise worn down by these kinds of people, such that maybe I can cast a ray of light into their life by objecting. Maybe thats pathetic and self important, but I still think it could be true, because I know I always get really inspired by seeing people pierce through this sort of oppressive fog of politeness and and stupidity. anyway I figure I have just as much a right to exist as these others do, so if it brings us into conflict then that's the way its got to be

[Skepsis]

My problem is more with overconfident typists, who think they it is only they who is most qualified to recognize the expression of a function. It is they who do not realise the ambiguity of the language and the biases inherent in the system.

The scientific field of cognitive psychology is much closer to the truth of the mind than socionics. It is at least backed by evidence and logical reasoning.

[Skepsis]

I am actually a proponent of a less dogmatic socionics and would find it far more useful to the individual, as opposed to its current sad state, which values the typists opinions, which are often quite subjective.

[at sirac son of sirac]

true, in my darker moments I think of such people as being social automatons. honestly sometimes I don't even know why I bother responding to such silly criticisms because its just like an empty force of nature. I guess on some level I assume there are third parties that might be heartened by hearing my perspective because they're likewise worn down by these kinds of people, such that maybe I can cast a ray of light into their life by objecting. Maybe thats pathetic and self important, but I still think it could be true, because I know I always get really inspired by seeing people pierce through this sort of oppressive fog of politeness and and stupidity. anyway I figure I have just as much a right to exist as these others do, so if it brings us into conflict then that's the way its got to be

I sometimes ask myself who really is the smart one. Are such people really social automatons in the sense that they are unthinking, or are they consciously going along to get along. Throughout history, people who have spoke the truth have put themselves into the position of being attacked. Typically speaking it is the 'establishment' that is attacking them, because to rise in an establishment, you have to play and agree with their rules, even although you know it's not true, and then you want to defend it, because one becomes a part of it so one is then defending oneself. Conversely, those who speak out about such situations are also inspiring to those who look out for a kindred spirit who thinks as they think, so it's going to be polarizing to some degree.

I have wondered to myself if it's really a case of, how much is someone willing to make a deal with their conscience or sacrifice their principles. Perhaps the solution is, as they say, to pick your fights, so as not to tire oneself out so to speak.

My problem is more with overconfident typists, who think they it is only they who is most qualified to recognize the expression of a function. It is they who do not realise the ambiguity of the language and the biases inherent in the system.

The scientific field of cognitive psychology is much closer to the truth of the mind than socionics. It is at least backed by evidence and logical reasoning.

Socionics doesn't explain much, psychology explains more, but, what makes psychology more impressive is that you have 'impressive' people with credentials telling you that it's true. This is the part where one decides to accept it because qualified men in suits tell you it's true, or if you are wanting to try to look at it for yourself objectively. Going with the flow and the established opinion gives a much easier journey in life.

[hatchback176]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theoretical_Minimum
I stumbled upon Leonard Susskind's way of thinking and I think it's very relevant to dealing with LSI's and the people that try to copy them. They are following the principle of least action and optimizing their reflexes only. They almost never come across as detached and neutral, they come across as short and intemperate. They aren't seeking a cognitive equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restin..._fMRI#Networks they're seeking decision speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time

[Singu]

Well anyway, I'm pretty sure Socionics can't actually predict relationships, like it claims that it can (and not in "Well I predicted my aunt Janie and uncle Joe's relationship" kind of a way). If a theory can't predict anything, then that theory is as good as worthless. You might as well just move on to another theory.

Socionics will also have to contend with the current prevailing theories, such as the Dual processing theory or the current researches and findings in cognitive science. Saying "Because Fe, because Ti, because Te" are no real explanations. The current prevailing theories have 1) good explanations 2) good to reasonable predictability and 3) have survived many tests and experiments, as well as criticisms. Can't say that Socionics has any of those criteria for a good theory.

[Bertrand]

I actually think theres real virtue in setting aside the theory and trying your best with all sorts of types and not otherwise prejudicing them. I probably don't say that enough since I tend to focus on potential problems, but I do think to the extent socionics can poison the well that is a very bad thing. sometimes when I think of a prospective romance I have to remind myself that just because I suspect they may be x or y type, that's no reason to cut yourself off from what life may offer. now if things quickly go bad there may be some kind of cost benefit analysis for both of you to do, but still that is true socionics or not

[at sirac son of sirac]

I think it's impossible for any model or psychology to predict relationships, but, it depends on how accurate you are looking for it to predict.

When debating it, it can be interesting, but, for most aspects of life, taking a step back from it, and finding the balance of what you expect it to predict, is key I think.

[hatchback176]

I will put my ability to predict relationships against Singu anytime anyplace. He talks about science and socionics in the abstract because he's only a beginner with low expertise