Socionics for rational people

[Singu]

Rationality entails a kind of interchangeability. It's not about who said what, he said, she said, they said, X said it so it must be right, etc. Anyone can make the same argument, and the argument would still remain the same. It's about the argument and not the person. It doesn't matter who says it, and who says it does not affect the argument at all. The argument goes beyond the person, it goes outside of it, from the world of subjective to the world of objective.

Rationality is "removal of the subjective". Criticism of rationality is often always an emphasis of the subjective and to further away from objectivity. E.g. an appeal to emotion or emotional arguments. Or relativism that it depends on who's looking at it. That rationality is too cold, or that rationality is not everything and subjectivity must also be considered.

You'll notice that things like postmodernism or relativism is an argument for more subjectivity and removal of rationality and objectivity. No wonder then, that postmodernism turns into a nihilist thought that nothing is either right or wrong. This is because no amount of subjective argument can be persuaded to be either right or wrong. Subjective arguments are by definition right - to the person who's making the argument. This is due to the nature of subjectivity that it is self-referential and tautological. If you're right then you're right, if you're wrong then you're wrong. No one can persuade you otherwise and nothing can prove you to be wrong.

--

So what does this have to do with Socionics? Socionics is by definition subjective, due to the way "typing" works. Typing is based on a subjective, personal experience of a person. But one can't convince others that one's own personal experience is correct or incorrect. It is simply not a rational, objective argument. One must instead make an argument that is rational and objective, by which that the argument can be made by anyone and still have the argument be left intact.

And that is what interchangeability is all about. And hence why, Socionics is an irrational system.

Of course, this is not limited to only Socionics. You'll notice that many things in this world, uttered by many people are irrational in the same way - that they tend to emphasis the subjective and attempt to remove the rational and the objective. Needless to say, those systems or thoughts often almost always fail or catastrophically crash in a tragic way. It's a thought of arbitrary dogmatism.

[woofwoofl]

[Aramas]

Rationality entails a kind of interchangeability. It's not about who said what, he said, she said, they said, X said it so it must be right, etc. Anyone can make the same argument, and the argument would still remain the same. It's about the argument and not the person. It doesn't matter who says it, and who says it does not affect the argument at all. The argument goes beyond the person, it goes outside of it, from the world of subjective to the world of objective.

Rationality is "removal of the subjective". Criticism of rationality is often always an emphasis of the subjective and to further away from objectivity. E.g. an appeal to emotion or emotional arguments. Or relativism that it depends on who's looking at it. That rationality is too cold, or that rationality is not everything and subjectivity must also be considered.

You'll notice that things like postmodernism or relativism is an argument for more subjectivity and removal of rationality and objectivity. No wonder then, that postmodernism turns into a nihilist thought that nothing is either right or wrong. This is because no amount of subjective argument can be persuaded to be either right or wrong. Subjective arguments are by definition right - to the person who's making the argument. This is due to the nature of subjectivity that it is self-referential and tautological. If you're right then you're right, if you're wrong then you're wrong. No one can persuade you otherwise and nothing can prove you to be wrong.

--

So what does this have to do with Socionics? Socionics is by definition subjective, due to the way "typing" works. Typing is based on a subjective, personal experience of a person. But one can't convince others that one's own personal experience is correct or incorrect. It is simply not a rational, objective argument. One must instead make an argument that is rational and objective, by which that the argument can be made by anyone and still have the argument be left intact.

And that is what interchangeability is all about. And hence why, Socionics is an irrational system.

Of course, this is not limited to only Socionics. You'll notice that many things in this world, uttered by many people are irrational in the same way - that they tend to emphasis the subjective and attempt to remove the rational and the objective. Needless to say, those systems or thoughts often almost always fail or catastrophically crash in a tragic way. It's a thought of arbitrary dogmatism.

Im gonna give this... Four thumbs down.

[chrys]

I always find it harder to believe a type that has too much reason going into it, than if it is just said they "appear" like a type. Because I do think that when people describe their reasons, it's behaviour based whereas VI is more looking into the soul of their personality if that is even possible. I can tell instantly whether I will get along with someone based on their eyes and smile rather than a description of their behaviour, so I'm sure this could have some relevancy to typing people too. You can tell what people are aiming to do based on their eyes and where their interest lies, these things can't be talked about rationally.


Whenever I type people's videos, I feel like I don't even listen to what they say, well I do passively but I'm more focused on how they talk and where their eyes go, and the inflections and speed of their voice.


I find it easier to believe and trust someone's typing when I can't understand why than when I do understand why. Because it's subjectively true for them and there's no way I can tell them they are wrong if they don't offer real reasoning.

I know I type very oddly though so I wouldn't expect much to come out of discussing it.

I say this all as a highly irrational type lol

[Aramas]

Typology isn't a rational thing lol. People are thick, though. They worship logic and say X should work in Y way, but it doesn't. You can be 100% rational and consistent and be 100% wrong.

It's like two dudes in a field.
-Hey, you see that bird over there?
-Over where?
-There
-Still can't see it...
-God damnit Mike, there!
-Whatever. There's no bird. That's just a pair of leaves in the wind. Quit bullshitting.
-!?! Idiot.

This is typology in a nutshell.

Along comes the logician and says, "Well, let's be logical about this.... Would there be a bird in the tree on that branch at this time? If there would, then there must be!"

Meanwhile, the determining factor is shared sensory data and its interpretation, not logic. It's patterns and clusters of patterns.

Yes, there are right and wrong answers. But you can't prove them. Sometimes, there is no bird. But all you can really do is point and hope the other person sees what you see.

People who have seen, KNOW that they have seen. People who haven't seen, KNOW that they've seen something else. This is why arguments about Socionics and life will never end. This is also why conversations about Socionics should focus on shared observations, with the knowledge that some people just never will agree with you. And you might be wrong yourself sometimes. But that's how it goes.

[chriscorey]

Attachment 13999

[Ave]

Subjectivity and rationality/objectivity can coexist in the same individual. You don't have to throw one out the window in order to have the other, unless you want to have extreme objectivity or extreme subjectivity, which isn't desirable. In fact, you need both subjectivity and objectivity to be a functional human.

The reason postmodernism is dangerous is because it eschews objectivity altogther, making the rational unknowable and thus anything a person feels is right - it just becomes about who throws the biggest tantrum. But pure rationality is not a human ideal either, in as much as humans need to learn to deal with the subjective part of themselves (emotions, imagination etc) rather than repress it.

I do agree though, that generally speaking, it's good to look at any intellectual domain and ask "are they using reason, is it rational". I also agree that socionics is way too subjective, personally, I wouldn't mind seeng more objective methods of typing people but alot of people on here don't seem to agree with me. I do agree there is too much subjectivity in typology forums since people don't seem to like substantiating their intuitive impressions through words and reason. Intuitive impressions can often be really off. Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with subjectivity per se, but in order to communicate your subjectivity you need to use rational tools, humans didn't invent language to understand the world, but to communicate their understanding. If socionics wants to be an interactive thing, there needs to be more to it than can be communicated than "this person has ESI vibes".

[Ryan]

Charlie Munger: Academic Economics — Strengths and Weaknesses, after Considering Interdisciplinary Needs

Read the text if you can't follow the recording. It will be of interest to you, I'm pretty sure. Especially the section "What’s Wrong with Economics." It's pretty interesting to think of Socionics in these terms as well.

[ouronis]

If you had a database of types with test answers and asked everybody in this database a question about their perceived truth of a certain situation every week or something you'd be able to have some data backing up your statements about types (along with type subset correlations). I think there are some of these surveys done for mbtii and big 5 already. But they tested the usual boring shit like divorce rates and smoking instead of questions like "I tend towards this behavior".

[Number 9 large]

I think socionics is a cult and should be eliminated. Who's with me?

[Singu]

Typology isn't a rational thing lol. People are thick, though. They worship logic and say X should work in Y way, but it doesn't. You can be 100% rational and consistent and be 100% wrong.

It's like two dudes in a field.
-Hey, you see that bird over there?
-Over where?
-There
-Still can't see it...
-God damnit Mike, there!
-Whatever. There's no bird. That's just a pair of leaves in the wind. Quit bullshitting.
-!?! Idiot.

This is typology in a nutshell.

Along comes the logician and says, "Well, let's be logical about this.... Would there be a bird in the tree on that branch at this time? If there would, then there must be!"

Subjectivity and rationality/objectivity can coexist in the same individual. You don't have to throw one out the window in order to have the other, unless you want to have extreme objectivity or extreme subjectivity, which isn't desirable. In fact, you need both subjectivity and objectivity to be a functional human.

Yes, well the point is that if you change the subject, then it will change the entire argument. So that can't be said to be objective. With an objective argument, it doesn't matter who is making the argument, as the argument will stay the same regardless. It doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman of a feminist or an alien or a robot or an LIE or an ILE.

So it's just a natural consequence that if you make a truly rational argument, then all subjectivity will be removed, because interchangeability will not be possible with subjectivity.

So the question is, how can you "type" someone without changing the entire argument from person to person?

[Sol]

Rationality entails a kind of interchangeability. It's not about who said what, he said, she said, they said, X said it so it must be right, etc.

the mentioned relates to T which is rational function

so the rest of the noob's revelations mb skipped

[Singu]

Under this definition, T types can't exist, ergo, Socionics can't exist.

Socionics is a self-refuting theory.

[Desert Financial]

I think socionics is a cult and should be eliminated. Who's with me?

GULENKO AKBAR!

GULENKO AKBAR!

[Dalek Caan]

Exterminate them all!

[Chthonic Daydream]

Exterminate them all!

EXTERMINATE
EXTERMINATE
EXTERMINATE

[Rebelondeck]

Socionics is based on empirical data that is acquired by means of the senses through observation of patterns and behavior. However, such observations are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences - and perhaps type. Two people when observing the same event will likely not draw the same conclusions. Even if there were agreed methods of observation and interpretation, people will likely still disagree on the nature of the data. Models are based solely on questionable high-level data without drilling down to the information processing structures that produce it. Socionics still seems to be arguing about that data and have added more boxes (subtypes) as a solution to its shortcomings - not caring to look deeper. I would label this as tunnel vision - not irrational.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Singu]

Socionics is based on empirical data that is acquired by means of the senses through observation of patterns and behavior. However, such observations are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences - and perhaps type. Two people when observing the same event will likely not draw the same conclusions. Even if there were agreed methods of observation and interpretation, people will likely still disagree on the nature of the data. Models are based solely on questionable high-level data without drilling down to the information processing structures that produce it. Socionics still seems to be arguing about that data and have added more boxes (subtypes) as a solution to its shortcomings - not caring to look deeper. I would label this as tunnel vision - not irrational.....

a.k.a. I/O

How do you arrive at a conclusion that there is a type... without first establishing what makes a type?

It's true that this is all based on observations, but the problem is whether it's justified or not in assuming that the observation will always stay the same. For example, you might observe trait X in a person, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the person will ALWAYS remain X or do X in the future. So in that sense, observations are not always useful in that regard.

So everything in Socionics will eventually revert back to observations, which in itself is a theory of a kind, created by our subconscious minds. We'll have to take this apart and analyze it further to truly make sure that whether it's rational or not.

[Rebelondeck]

How do you arrive at a conclusion that there is a type... without first establishing what makes a type?

Exactly, Socionics does seem to employ, as part of its models, conclusions that have yet to be proven - a lot of circular theory. That said, I think that the observations do point to fundamental, hard-science, information-processing structures that can better qualify the so-called information elements, but it would seem that experts are a long way from pursuing such an avenue. The artificial intelligence community will likely have to take an interest because psychology doesn't seem geared that way......

a.k.a. I/O

[Muddy]

Good to know these threads are still be being made months after OP's first set.