Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 44

Thread: The point of fundamentals vs non-fundamentals (layers of explanations)

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The point of fundamentals vs non-fundamentals (layers of explanations)

    Can you explain, Socionically, why a person got angry, or why two people got into a conflict?

    You might say yes, but we'll get to that later.

    We can say that the reason why we get deeper into the "fundamentals" of something, is so that we can explain and predict things with greater precision and accuracy.

    For example, we might discover that if we look into the microscopic level of things, there are such thing as "cells". And if we look even deeper, then we might discover that there are such thing as "atoms", which are governed by the laws of chemistry. And if we look even further, there are such things as "particles" which are governed by the laws of physics. And so on. And maybe we can say that since laws of physics are the most fundamental, therefore physics is the most important part of the equation. This is called reductionism.

    Well, maybe not so. It is true that cells are governed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't necessarily explain how cells were made, which is presumably through evolution. And it also doesn't explain how in the larger scheme of things, like how when a bunch of cells cluster up together, it creates these things called "organs", such as the heart, which performs a completely different function than an individual cell would. It is true that the pumping of the heart and the circulation of the blood are governed by the laws of physics, such as the gravity, but it would require a completely different explanation than the laws of physics can if we were to explain what this heart does or what it even is, which is why it is rather explained by the laws of biology, and not physics.

    And if we go up even further, then we might say that there are such things as persons, organizations or emotions and concepts such as "anger" or "honor", which are psychological and sociological phenomenons that require even different explanations than the laws of biology can. It is true, that all of those things are intimately and logically connected to the laws of biology, the laws of physics, but it still require further explanations, if we were to even begin understanding what those things even mean.

    So the "layers of explanations" might look something like this:



    --

    Socionics may also have these "layers of explanations". The "functions" are the most fundamental part, like the laws of physics. The "types" are an emergent phenomenon, like psychology. And "quadras" and "ITR" are like sociology.

    But just as the laws of physics or the laws of biology are too fundamental of explanations to be able to explain why a person got angry, or why two people conflict, those Socionics explanations may also be too fundamental of explanations for us to be able to gain any new information out of it.

    Just think about why that is.
    Last edited by Singu; 04-14-2018 at 04:56 AM.

  2. #2
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    socionics doesn't set out to be a determinism, so judging it as if that were its goal and declaring it a failure is dumb

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I didn't say that it was determinism, I said that it require layers of explanations, which the Socionics does have.

  4. #4
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    what you're really doing is playing a word game where you require anything to be admitted as a viable explanation to be deterministic, so you preclude as a matter of definition at the onset socionics from meeting your concealed condition for explanation, by pointing out that people can get it wrong... this is just more of you declaring as false anything that you fail to understand because you fail to understand it. not a good strategy for learning. it sort of reminds me of trump "no one knew healthcare was so complicated"-- its like speak for yourself--you're not the arbiter of true and false for anyone but yourself, despite how you constantly set yourself up

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Again, I didn't say that it was determinism. In fact, you are agreeing with the basis my post. But you still don't understand my post, so try again.

  6. #6
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    the fact that you didn't say it but its nevertheless there is what makes it a word game

    the bottom line is you think coming up with deterministic schemes is necessary for something to be considered admissible into your dream world, mainly because you deny anything that isn't forced on you. but consider that anything that is undeniable by virtue of its force is trivial precisely because there is no choice. its everything else where meaningful explanations inhere because they entail the possibility of better/worse and not simply yes means yes and no means yes. you can say they lack meaning because you can refuse them, but that just makes you a spiteful child who apparently needs a disciplinarian, but don't apply that standard to the world itself. such a thing is pure projection

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, then I would say that human thoughts, emotions and interactions are not deterministic.

    The point is, Socionics explanations are TOO fundamental of explanations to be able to explain those things, just as laws of physics or laws of biology are too fundamental of explanations to be able to explain concepts such as emotions or human interactions.

  8. #8
    lavos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    TIM
    LIE-Ni
    Posts
    1,075
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Non socionics-related things can't be explained using socionics, but socionics-related things can be explained using socionics. A conflict ITR (note: conflict ITR, not "conflict") happened because two people had a socionical makeup that was at odds with each other (i.e. their PoLR's were each other's base functions, etc). The good thing about Socionics is that it enables the involved parties to be conscious of this, so by careful navigation, a conflict ITR can be circumvented so that it doesn't escalate into a full blown conflict. I have done this so I know it is possible.

  9. #9
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Can you explain, Socionically, why a person got angry, or why two people got into a conflict?
    Yes because this is exactly the kind of thing that socionics does explain - often conflicts result from conflicting IM elements (typically quadra values).

    We don't need to reduce human behavior to particle physics to understand it. Socionics is a fundamental theory that takes consciousness (purposeful information processing) as a fundamental ingredient - so it can directly address behavior of conscious agents. So, being "too fundamental" isn't a problem. Type behavior is emergent from IM elements but it's still quite close.

    If you do want to reduce people to particle interactions, then your criticism of course applies. Which may suggest that doing that maybe isn't such a great idea.

  10. #10
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,050
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Heisenberg's theorem for dummies: the more you focus on some particle, the more you lose track of it. Or... a bit more advanced: if you determine the velocity of a particle, you lose its position (or the other way around).
    This might sound completely rational and full of sense, at least I've always sensed this as no big trapped cat problem, but problems arise when you compare this knowledge with the classical theories of mechanics, ie. natural physics, where an object can be tracked if we know its velocity, and given the position we can track the velocity of an object if we add a series of parameters. Cool.

    What I mean is that the world we experience is a layer upon layer upon layer... over something which we hardly can explain. But as it's always looked quite banal to me to have the rules of quantum mechanics, it's nevertheless a step that "we" achieved only after much work of unveiling, layer after layer, to the core, like an onion.

    I mean that if we never had those mechanics rules, that don't explain anything but are anyway working in our big matter world of big bodies and so on, well we'd have never achieved the more fundamental layers of the onion... and who knows what's hiding next to that, because I'm quite certain that we're still far from the fundamentals and some other layers need to be taken off...

    Don't be surprised to live in a world of illusions, or better, yes, get surprised of it, and never stop wondering and be amazed by what's behind it... because it's so much more fascinating ))) But as it's fascinating, so is fascinating the world of the external layers of the onions, that allow us to experience all of this and smell and taste and participate with our bodies in this great illusion.

    What I find the most fascinating in all of this is that all these visions were already discovered and experienced by the mystics, by the Hindu religions, by some enlightened soul, millennia ago... nothing of their visions contained a scientific rationale but it was the fruit of a deeper connection between their souls and the world...

    We need the proof of science to get sure we're following all the right steps but sometimes our own visions can bring us traveling upon all sorts of dimensions.

  11. #11
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,050
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Yes because this is exactly the kind of thing that socionics does explain - often conflicts result from conflicting IM elements (typically quadra values).

    We don't need to reduce human behavior to particle physics to understand it. Socionics is a fundamental theory that takes consciousness (purposeful information processing) as a fundamental ingredient - so it can directly address behavior of conscious agents. So, being "too fundamental" isn't a problem. Type behavior is emergent from IM elements but it's still quite close.
    Again, that's my entire point, which means that you're just repeating the same things that Bertrand was saying.

    So, how do you explain that a person got angry? You might say, "It was due to his Fe". But that's too fundamental, as it is the same as saying "He got angry due to his emotions", which is obvious enough, but so fundamental that it doesn't give us any new information.
    Last edited by Singu; 04-14-2018 at 07:27 AM.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lavos View Post
    A conflict ITR (note: conflict ITR, not "conflict") happened because two people had a socionical makeup that was at odds with each other (i.e. their PoLR's were each other's base functions, etc). The good thing about Socionics is that it enables the involved parties to be conscious of this, so by careful navigation, a conflict ITR can be circumvented so that it doesn't escalate into a full blown conflict. I have done this so I know it is possible.
    How is this different than saying, "Two people conflicted with each other, because their personalities were at odds with each other"? Too fundamental. It's no different than saying, "They had a conflict because they were a liberal and a republican, and they had opposing political values". But why that is the case, is a whole lot more interesting question, and requires completely different explanations.

  14. #14
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    no one can make you understand if you don't want to. its an aspect of free will you're exercising, but it doesn't mean you get to determine what is true or not for anyone else based on what you personally choose to adhere to. there's an entire world outside your bubble that decides for itself, populated by individuals that get their own individual say--democracy. believe it or not people can agree on things without being forced, and its a beautiful world to live in. I always feel bad for beta because their psychological universe is such a tyrannical one

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No one asked you, bud. Look who's forcing answers, instead of explaining or enlightening things. You give zero enlightenments.

  16. #16
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    all your posting seems like a massive cry for help

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well since your logic is subjective, it cannot be helped. You can only self-destruct every time you post or try to make a point.

  18. #18
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Its interesting how organisms went from singular to multicellular. Functions are more of a construction of which we speak within, like math.

  19. #19
    falsehope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    ILE ENTp-Ti
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What kind of new information getting out of it you really mean? Can you write examples? It's important to write examples of what you really mean because without it it's really hard to guess what you really mean.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falsehope View Post
    What kind of new information getting out of it you really mean? Can you write examples? It's important to write examples of what you really mean because without it it's really hard to guess what you really mean.
    Well, let's suppose that there are two people that are conflicting. How would you explain that Socionically?

    Let's say that it was because one was a liberal, and another was a republican, and there were political differences in opinions.

    How would make that analogous to Socionics explanations? Perhaps they were in opposing Quadras. Perhaps they were Conflictors. They had conflicting preferred functions, such as Fi and Ti. They disagreed because they were coming from different perspectives.

    Okay, so exactly, what are we saying, what new information are we getting or what inferences are we making, what are we explaining, other than saying that "They conflicted, because they had different personalities, they had different perspectives"? That's not really interesting at all, and hardly what you would call an insight. It might seem that it's simply obvious. "They disagreed, because they were different".

    But what if you went further? There are many layers of explanations, after all. Why does the person have liberal beliefs, anyway? You could say that it is due to the structure of his brain, but this is too broad and fundamental to be meaningful. You could say that it is due to his psychology, his belief systems, because he had thoughts about these issues personally. Or perhaps it's because of the news that he watches, and the kind of people that he interacts with. Because his environment is generally liberal-leaning, and he is influenced by those views. He listens to people that he looks up to, and they hold liberal views. Or perhaps he is just making some emotional decisions. And so on and so on.

    And what about of the conflict? Do they think about actually talking with each other over their differences? Or do they choose not to, because they think each other are just idiots, and hold prejudiced views of each other? Is the political climate too stark? Maybe they don't want to make a fuss about it? Should the person thinks of controlling his mood and temper, when they're discussing? Should he escalate the conflict, or should he attempt to temper it? Do they hold that there is a such thing as a compromise or negotiating? Does the person think that he's always right, or does he welcome criticisms? And so on and so on.

    Not to mention, there are hordes of information to be potentially analyzed and explained, such as what does it mean to have emotions? Where do emotions lead? How do conflicts start? How can it be stopped? What are beliefs? What are people thinking or feeling when they're conflicting? Why do people have political beliefs, and even opposing political beliefs? And so on and so on.

    None of those things can be explained Socionically, because those concepts don't exist, and hence out of the realm of Socionics explanations.

    So really, what new information are we getting? If we say, "They are conflicting, due to the cells in their bodies", then it'd be too fundamental and obvious to be meaningful.

  21. #21
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are ways of getting new information lol

    - Use it to make predictions
    - Dig deeper with it (use knowledge to understand why conflicts happen if that wasn't initially clear, e.g. rational-irrational conflicting, or different values)
    - Apply it onto something new - theorize or test its concepts being applied in a different manner. Socionics is philosophical so you could try to superimpose it onto Enneagram, or Harry Potter houses, or an ant colony, and see if the same principles work in some way, and if not, figure out why.
    - Talk (not argue) with people about it. People come with new and different perspectives and ideas on the same topics all the time.


    The amount of information socionics has to offer in terms of content (beyond socionics schools cranking ideas out slowly) is limited to a handful of articles on the internet. Obviously it's up to you to apply and think about it in order to get anything new from it. The world is vast so, you can pretty much arrange and rearrange it infinitely like any other idea and keep getting a different perspective on it.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And the point is that Socionics is too broad and fundamental to have meaningful explanations, just as it would be inappropriate for physics or biology to talk about emotions or human relations.

    Usually the conclusion is, "PEOPLE CONFLICT, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT" or "PEOPLE GET ALONG, BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMILAR".

    How is that different than saying, for example "People conflict, because due to the laws of physics" or "It's due to the neurons in their brains that make them have emotions".

    Not I would usually call as very helpful or insightful. Concepts such as human thoughts, emotions and relations require completely different explanations and framework than what is currently being offered. They are inadequate for discussing such matters.
    Last edited by Singu; 04-14-2018 at 02:29 PM.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So this is what each "Socionics explanations" are referring to, in terms of explanations:

    Functions = Analogous to broad abstract concepts, such as emotions or logic. e.g. "This is due to his Fe" is analogous to saying, "This is due to his emotions"
    Model A = Analogous to the structure of the brain. e.g. "This is due to his Fi Hidden Agenda" is analogous to saying, "This is due to the part of his brain, such as the hippocampus or the amygdala".
    Types = Analogous to certain personalities. e.g. "This is because he is an LSE" is analogous to saying, "This is because he is an angry person in general".
    Quadras = Analogous to societal or sociological values, such as liberal or conservative. e.g. "This is because he has Alpha values" is analogous to saying, "This is due to the fact that he has liberal values".
    ITR = Analogous to compatibility between certain personalities. This is analogous to saying, "They conflicted, because he is a liberal, and she is a conservative".

    So you can "convert" virtually every Socionics discussions on this forum into normalspeak, and you'll see that it hasn't actually explained much of the very thing that it was supposed to explain, because the explanations are too fundamental to be able to be explained in the way that they were meant to be explained.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well it seems like some people still aren't getting it, so I'll tell you the problems of this argument:

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    - Use it to make predictions
    So can laws of physics. Laws of physics can, in principle, predict that people are going to conflict or not, if you could do the impossible calculation of calculating the physics of every single atoms or something. But that still doesn't explain why people conflicted, as it only predicts where each individual atoms are going to go next. And it can't even begin to explain concepts such as "conflicts" in the first place. It's the prediction of laws of physics, not conflicts between people.

    So even if Socionics in principle could predict that people are going to conflict or not, it still doesn't explain why they conflicted, which is the more important question.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    - Dig deeper with it (use knowledge to understand why conflicts happen if that wasn't initially clear, e.g. rational-irrational conflicting, or different values)
    And how is this different than saying that it is due to the differences in their personalities, or that they were liberal and conservative? Too fundamental to be meaningful. If you use non-Socionics explanations, then that's no longer Socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    - Apply it onto something new - theorize or test its concepts being applied in a different manner. Socionics is philosophical so you could try to superimpose it onto Enneagram, or Harry Potter houses, or an ant colony, and see if the same principles work in some way, and if not, figure out why.
    Again, how is this different than applying physics or biology to various things? It would be quite useless to apply physics to explain how an ant colony works, without explaining the behaviors of ants. It would be useless to explain the biology of ants, without first explaining that there are such thing as worker ants, a queen, soldier ants, etc, i.e. its "sociological" phenomenon.

  25. #25
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    all explanations are descriptions of what is already there. its like saying was math discovered or invented, well depends on who is on the receiving end. for liebnitz he didn't so much create calclulus as convey what he already saw to be there. that is what rational functions do, they verbalize perceptions in an orderly way. this is why God's first job for Adam was to name the animals. for the person who learns the rational side prior to perceiving the underlying phenonena, whether they be causal relations or what, it seems like the person invented the phenomena, because it did not exist for the learner prior to having it "explained." strong Ti types devise maps, they're not Gods. inasmuch as SLE brings "reality" (as you understand it, Se) to you, its like they're doing something that everyone else is failing to do, and is Godlike in its convincingness [1]. but your perspective on socionics is just biased. inasmuch as socionics describes an extant phenomena it is just as much a valid explanation as anything else, you simply have preferences, which you can't keep from trying to force on others, but the entire dynamic is itself explainable by socionics, lending a kind of obliviousness to your antics that is essentially tragically ironic because of how seriously you take yourself. this is "fate" in the Jungian sense. your preference for concrete measurement is essentially Se, but it is by no means the standard for what is real, since as we can see here, you are just as much controlled by the immeasurable

    the fundamental disjunction is that while rational functions don't create reality, they map it, and that is itself a creation. they create the map, having discovered the territory. if you want to deny the underlying territory, the map is a problem. this is what we see you struggling with here. socionics has a lot of Ne content and you're like the poster child for ignoring. the constant refrain is something like "no I won't look!" and "you can't make me!!", with recourse to the fact that since its not a Se thing at work, it "can't make you" across multiple levels, so you're like its not real, which fundamentally amounts to just a denial. you attack the map because its a proxy, but your issue goes deeper than that, since socionics in its Ti capacity is pretty well done. notice squark doesn't seem to think its a priori flawed as a matter of logic, whether by Te or Ti standards, it does work, it is by no means totally useless

    [1] creative rational functions have a "light bringing" quality to them in this capacity, but it is subject to the map/territory distinction, making them potential lies "lucifer" (they can mislead one as to what is really there)--you seem to acknowledge this across one level, taking note that some explanations are empty, which is very true, but have yet to reach bottom as to why that is, and instead insist on imposing a dubious hierarchical arrangement on the matter
    Last edited by Bertrand; 04-14-2018 at 08:23 PM.

  26. #26
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hmmm, maybe it's just me, but I don't use socionics that explicitly. I only type people after I've known them awhile and even then I might be undecided on a type, and even then it's only after reflecting quite a bit on the person. I tend to see conflicts for what they are. I don't think that's what socionics is really for.

    Because when typing works it gives a bit more of a reflection on the "themes" going on between people, rather than explaining why they do what they do or why they are the way they are. Maybe that's how I view socionics as a reflective theory that elucidates Jungian themes, but doesn't explain anything else. I mean often times what people believe is a reflection of various projections or assumptions about other people and things. That's pretty interesting in itself, especially when you can start to see how that effects relations between people.

    I mean, and I don't mean this to be insulting, but I can see a theme in you Singu, where you project this idea that Socionics should explain a lot more into people's thinking, behavior, and psychology. But the fact that you feel it's needed says something about your own motivations/desires/etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    If that's real, it feels kind of eerie. Like everything is almost the same, but end up really different.
    good bye

  27. #27
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,050
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    How is this different than saying, "Two people conflicted with each other, because their personalities were at odds with each other"? Too fundamental. It's no different than saying, "They had a conflict because they were a liberal and a republican, and they had opposing political values". But why that is the case, is a whole lot more interesting question, and requires completely different explanations.
    This is the difference between actual psychology and socionics. What you're saying is true but it even shows how not fundamental socionics is, because it doesn't investigate the actual causes but just labels the elements at hand to make sense of some average common behavior, this is the very opposite of fundamental.

    It's just too simple and lazy to think that every relationship can be explained or excused by the make-up of the subjects. The sort of force that applies to relationships is not the same that applies to every natural phenomenon, I mean that we're not attracted because of the laws of physics to our dual, just because they are, or because their matter magically attracts us, like all bodies fall on the ground.

    There are multiple different laws in the universe, and in matter itself, that are often at odds with each other, so I think that in a relationship-like level, trying to relate all the laws of physics attraction to socionics is as simple as it is shallow.

    You keep bringing some weird examples to explain this, let's say that you're in a relationship with your perfect socionics dual match and one day a friend tells you that your fiancè keeps seeing his ex gf and you didn't know about it, you confront your partner and he tells you "oh yes, but I didn't tell you because that means nothing!", and to you that's instead the proof that it indeed means something... so you ask him to stop, and he says ok ok, but then your usual friend tells you that he keeps doing it and you can't just handle the lies and the fact in itself... it was a perfect match, but it was not socionics related factors (but you can actually say that yes, they are, because both parties operated from their strong functions), that brought to conflict.

    This perhaps is a minor conflict, but the dynamics it sets in motion are so subtle that can potentially bring to splitting up, so what did socionics predict or say about the dual relationship?, that it'll work no matter what, and perhaps in the end the partners will deal well with this conflict, but it's no doubt that there was one in the first place, at some point, for some reason.

    Another important factor that is often overlooked in socionics about relationships is how we instead tend to mold each other based on the people we are often in contact with, this is called homeostasis in chemistry and explains how bodies exchange energy to reach a balance between the 2 natures. Now this is something we normally do all the times and it's even one of the basic paradigm for peaceful living, but it's no surprise that in an individualistc, spoiled age like our is, this sort of molding becomes a sort of fault to be corrected, because everyone gotta deal with who the hell I am (especially if I'm a prick), without making any first step in order to do some real mutual work.
    Last edited by ooo; 04-14-2018 at 08:57 PM.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    This is the difference between actual psychology and socionics.
    There is only one difference - that actual means objectively proved, while Socionics hypotheses are not still.
    When they will, then Fe girls will follow the authority of normal science and will stop say different delusions about the subject in which they do not understand and do not know even the basics. [as the last discussions have shown clearly]
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  29. #29
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    And the point is that Socionics is too broad and fundamental to have meaningful explanations, just as it would be inappropriate for physics or biology to talk about emotions or human relations.

    Usually the conclusion is, "PEOPLE CONFLICT, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT" or "PEOPLE GET ALONG, BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMILAR".

    How is that different than saying, for example "People conflict, because due to the laws of physics" or "It's due to the neurons in their brains that make them have emotions".

    Not I would usually call as very helpful or insightful. Concepts such as human thoughts, emotions and relations require completely different explanations and framework than what is currently being offered. They are inadequate for discussing such matters.
    Because Socionics identifies specific differences that actually do cause conflicts (thus explaining them). So if you can identify two people's types you will be able to predict to some extent their compatibility. And if you analyze an interaction and explain it, you may even get the people involved to realize that the other person isn't a complete idiot, they're just a different type with different values. It doesn't seem like you're trolling so I'm genuinely not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well, let's suppose that there are two people that are conflicting. How would you explain that Socionically?

    Let's say that it was because one was a liberal, and another was a republican, and there were political differences in opinions.

    How would make that analogous to Socionics explanations? Perhaps they were in opposing Quadras. Perhaps they were Conflictors. They had conflicting preferred functions, such as Fi and Ti. They disagreed because they were coming from different perspectives.

    Okay, so exactly, what are we saying, what new information are we getting or what inferences are we making, what are we explaining, other than saying that "They conflicted, because they had different personalities, they had different perspectives"? That's not really interesting at all, and hardly what you would call an insight. It might seem that it's simply obvious. "They disagreed, because they were different".

    But what if you went further? There are many layers of explanations, after all. Why does the person have liberal beliefs, anyway? You could say that it is due to the structure of his brain, but this is too broad and fundamental to be meaningful. You could say that it is due to his psychology, his belief systems, because he had thoughts about these issues personally. Or perhaps it's because of the news that he watches, and the kind of people that he interacts with. Because his environment is generally liberal-leaning, and he is influenced by those views. He listens to people that he looks up to, and they hold liberal views. Or perhaps he is just making some emotional decisions. And so on and so on.

    And what about of the conflict? Do they think about actually talking with each other over their differences? Or do they choose not to, because they think each other are just idiots, and hold prejudiced views of each other? Is the political climate too stark? Maybe they don't want to make a fuss about it? Should the person thinks of controlling his mood and temper, when they're discussing? Should he escalate the conflict, or should he attempt to temper it? Do they hold that there is a such thing as a compromise or negotiating? Does the person think that he's always right, or does he welcome criticisms? And so on and so on.

    Not to mention, there are hordes of information to be potentially analyzed and explained, such as what does it mean to have emotions? Where do emotions lead? How do conflicts start? How can it be stopped? What are beliefs? What are people thinking or feeling when they're conflicting? Why do people have political beliefs, and even opposing political beliefs? And so on and so on.

    None of those things can be explained Socionically, because those concepts don't exist, and hence out of the realm of Socionics explanations.

    So really, what new information are we getting? If we say, "They are conflicting, due to the cells in their bodies", then it'd be too fundamental and obvious to be meaningful.
    You could make this criticism of any scientific theory. "Newton says that gravity makes things fall, big deal. Why does gravity exist?" Etc. Theories have their limits, there's always a deeper level of explanation.
    Last edited by Exodus; 04-14-2018 at 09:40 PM.

  30. #30
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you need to eat more omega 3s or something for your brain Singu
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  31. #31
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post

    You could make this criticism of any scientific theory. "Newton says that gravity makes things fall, big deal. Why does gravity exist?" Etc. Theories have their limits, there's always a deeper level of explanation.
    even better is, "we understood everything just fine with Newton's theory, why should we accept these other, more complex, theories? parsimony!--its all just someone's opinion [namely, mine] anyway and I don't like all this complexity"

    its like fine, don't accept it. it doesn't reflect on the objective value of the theory though

  32. #32
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,367
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When you must use jargon to relay the point, jump ship, it's already too convoluted for you to catch your own pretense.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  33. #33
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,800
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


  34. #34

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    all explanations are descriptions of what is already there. its like saying was math discovered or invented, well depends on who is on the receiving end. for liebnitz he didn't so much create calclulus as convey what he already saw to be there.
    Well that is stupid, since you know, people can also describe or explain false things. Yes, you can derive false things out of math and logic, even though they are mathematically or logically correct (but you wouldn't know this, because your logic is subjective).

  35. #35
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ok you win

  36. #36

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    This is the difference between actual psychology and socionics. What you're saying is true but it even shows how not fundamental socionics is, because it doesn't investigate the actual causes but just labels the elements at hand to make sense of some average common behavior, this is the very opposite of fundamental.
    I think that it's more like a difference between physics vs. psychology or sociology. It is true that my behavior might have something to do with "Fe" or whatever, but that's too fundamental, as it is the same as saying that my behavior has something to do with my emotions, which is simply obvious.

    It is also true, that you can apply physics to virtually anything. You can say that my emotions or behaviors have something to do with the laws of physics, and it's true, they do, but that doesn't actually explain what emotion is as we perceive and understand it, as an emergent phenomenon.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Because Socionics identifies specific differences that actually do cause conflicts (thus explaining them). So if you can identify two people's types you will be able to predict to some extent their compatibility.
    Again, how does it explain the conflict? Because due to Fe and Te or whatever? So that's basically saying, "They conflicted due to their emotions and logic". And it boils down to, "People don't get along, because they're different"? How is this anything helpful? It's too broad and fundamental, just as it's too fundamental to say that "They conflicted due to the configuration of atoms in their brains".

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You could make this criticism of any scientific theory. "Newton says that gravity makes things fall, big deal. Why does gravity exist?" Etc.
    You are still missing the point. You wouldn't APPLY physics to explain why people conflicted. Physics cannot answer that question of why, even though, yes, if you get down to it, it's just a matter of a bunch of atoms interacting, which is a physical phenomenon. But it cannot explain the emergent phenomenon of concepts such as emotions or human interactions.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Theories have their limits, there's always a deeper level of explanation.
    THAT'S MY EXACT POINT! I am criticizing the explanation that is "too deep" to explain the current emergent phenomena. So you are still not getting my point, it seems.

  38. #38
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,050
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think that it's more like a difference between physics vs. psychology or sociology. It is true that my behavior might have something to do with "Fe" or whatever, but that's too fundamental, as it is the same as saying that my behavior has something to do with my emotions, which is simply obvious.

    It is also true, that you can apply physics to virtually anything. You can say that my emotions or behaviors have something to do with the laws of physics, and it's true, they do, but that doesn't actually explain what emotion is as we perceive and understand it, as an emergent phenomenon.
    yeah well I don't perceive it as fundamental because saying you're Fe says nothing about who you are, and the motivations that are behind your actions are not explained by this socionics compartmentalization of functions, like if you're pissed about something it's no excuse that you're Fe, because in a real psychological view I want to know what's the cause of that, and your history, and all a series of other information that can't be reduced to functions or Model A, because those are not explanations of anything

  39. #39

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do think that Fe says something about who I am, but then so does the laws of physics, and the neurons in my brain also say something about who I am. There's a grain of truth in them, but they're not very helpful in explaining that.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    I think you need to eat more omega 3s or something for your brain Singu
    Well you probably need more scientific literacy, instead of believing in things like astrology.

    Well honestly, it's pretty amazing how some people still don't get this relatively simply concept, so they just keep running in circles, banging themselves against the wall, thinking that it's explaining something, when it's not actually explaining the very questions that they're asking.

    Perhaps what they need is more time to understand. You're probably not going to get it right away.

  40. #40
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess it is possible to apply the basic idea of each function to a very fundamental stage of life, for example when organism bounce on each other and exchange information which help develop. The LUCA (first organism that become life for all bacteria and life) could had function in a way that embrace all the 8 functions of Socionics. When you later build models, make dichotomies into small groups and Quadra it becomes like atoms to molecules.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •