
Originally Posted by
Singu
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.