Results 1 to 40 of 209

Thread: DCNH rant, my own useful perspective

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    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
    the logical reasoning is you can organize any phenomenon into a quaternary split and DarkAngelFireWolf69 did it with group roles. yes he made it up (the scheme not the underlying phenomena). that doesn't invalidate it and obviously people are talking about something they've observed so there's something there. if x people quantify a thing and you don't, its hard to say a thing doesnt exist, because it clearly exists for x people. that in of itself is "evidence of DCNH existing." at best you could say it exists in the form of a lie, but the burden would be on you to prove that, you can't just declare "no evidence--next" with any authority, at best its a personal statement about how you think DarkAngelFireWolf69 and everyone else has failed to demonstrate the truth of their claims, but that tells us more about you than them when its all just declarations in the air both ways, because its a difference on the level of perception
    There's so much wrong with this statement, and it's basically the entire problem with Socionics.

    It is true that they're based on observations, and it is true that we can call it a fact that these people exist. But we can't say that there is a "law" of DCNH existing, nor can we say that there is a "law" of only 16 types of people ever existing, which is something that Socionics and DarkAngelFireWolf69 claims. That's the entire confusion that people have over Socionics. They confuse local, parochial occurrences with regularities and lawlike generalizations.
    Last edited by Singu; 05-08-2018 at 11:12 AM.

Posting Permissions

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