Duality, Conflict, and Pain

[Bertrand]

you could say the same thing about model A (and analytic psychology in general) to begin with, which is precisely what singu does. it sounds like he's just worked out that premise a bit further than you

also i appreciate you not responding to me because you talk like a simultaneously smug yet ignorant asshole and I find it super annoying

[domr]

you could say the same thing about model A (and analytic psychology in general) to begin with, which is precisely what singu does. it sounds like he's just worked out that premise a bit further than you

also i appreciate you not responding to me because you talk like an asshole and I find it super annoying

That's exactly what I did.

Which is why I stripped Socionics to the bare bones. Everything that I said was self-evidence, i.e unprovable, exists because it adds a lot of depth to the model, e.g. valued functions create Quadras.

if you are gonna make up stuff without any way to prove it then it has to be really strong. Making up stuff as a deus ex explicandum is the entire reason socionics got bloated to begin with.

[Bertrand]

yeah yeah you launder it through these other notions ("hypothesis" v "observation" is a distinction without a difference when its really all just essentially "too speculative" to found knowledge, because of how you go on to set the requirements constituting knowledge) but its essentially the same claim, you guys are two peas in a pod the only difference being domr thinks he can remake socionics to fix what singu says we're better off just tossing. i really think the only difference is Singu probably went through that exact phase already. anyway both of you have a weird relationship to time and how you think and its that relationship that creates all this weird from my point of view behavior. all the Fe on top is just like an amplifier calling attention to the underlying weirdness

[Singu]

you could say the same thing about model A (and analytic psychology in general) to begin with, which is precisely what singu does. it sounds like he's just worked out that premise a bit further than you

Er no, that's exactly what I'm not doing. I've been saying that Socionics is an inductivist system, which means that it just collects more and more observations. It hardly has any hypotheses.

But yes, Bertrand does say a lot of nonsense.

[domr]

Er no, that's exactly what I'm not doing. I've been saying that Socionics is an inductivist system, which means that it just collects more and more observations. It hardly has any hypotheses.

But yes, Bertrand does say a lot of nonsense.

Try deducing Model A and see how many definitions you need and why you need them.

domr thinks he can remake socionics to fix what singu says we're better off just tossing.

The genesis of this theory is that people need to gather information and make decisions. There are two ways to gather info, using biological sensors or making it up and people can make decisions in 2 different ways, logic and ethics. This is very intuitive, very logical, and powerful. Why toss this out? It's brilliantly simple.

[Singu]

Try deducing Model A and see how many definitions you need and why you need them.

Well let's say that one of the hypothesis is "There are 16 types of people in the world". Is this true? So we'll ask the question, "Are there 16 types of people in this world"? This question is nonsensical, because the answer is obviously, yes, there are 16 types of people in this world. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there are only 16, there could be 17, 18, 19 or 5 million types of people.

So that's the weakness of an inductivist system.

[domr]

Well let's say that one of the hypothesis is "There are 16 types of people in the world". Is this true? So we'll ask the question, "Are there 16 types of people in this world"? This question is nonsensical, because the answer is obviously, yes, there are 16 types of people in this world. But it doesn't necessarily mean that there are only 16, there could be 17, 18, 19 or 5 million types of people.

So that's the weakness of an inductivist system.

Do you have experience in statistics?

1. The entire point of a model is to see the forest instead of the trees. If you want to see all the types then you can already do that by looking at the reality BUT YOU LOSE INSIGHTS with that approach. A model trades defintion for insights, trades some of the trees for the forest.

2. You want the fewest possible groups in a model. Less groups means easier generalizations. I would say 16 types is the sweet spot in this theory. 4 Quadras or Clubs loses too much information. 32 (sub)types, demonstrative vs creative, adds information but it's far lower than the amount of info gained when we went from 4-16.

factor_analysis_job_applicants_scree_plot.png

Iris_dendrogram.png

3. This model won't tell you everything about the psyche and it doesn't need too. That's why so many people stack Socionics with Enneagram because both models show different aspects to personality.

[Singu]

Do you have experience in statistics?

1. The entire point of a model is to see the forest instead of the trees. If you want to see all the types then you can already do that by looking at the reality BUT YOU LOSE INSIGHTS with that approach. A model trades defintion for insights, trades some of the trees for the forest.

A model is about interpreting or explaining reality. Statistics, just like Socionics, is just data to be analyzed.

So asking "how many types of people are there in the world?" is pretty absurd, because that depends on how we would define a type as, and why. So the question that we're really asking is, "how can we understand people? And would separating people into types help us get closer to our goal of understanding people?". How we would define a type would depend entirely on our goal of understanding people.

2. You want the fewest possible groups in a model. Less groups means easier generalizations. I would say 16 types is the sweet spot in this theory. 4 Quadras or Clubs loses too much information. 32 (sub)types, demonstrative vs creative, adds information but it's far lower than the amount of info gained when we went from 4-16.

Well you wouldn't want something so general and broad that it fits into everything, which means that it fits into nothing. You'd want something with a rationale behind it, and why that group is appropriate for explaining what you're supposed to be explaining. Why should this number 16 be the best number for being able to understand people? It really depends.

[domr]

A model is about interpreting or explaining reality. Statistics, just like Socionics, is just data to be analyzed.

So asking "how many types of people are there in the world?" is pretty absurd, because that depends on how we would define a type as, and why. So the question that we're really asking is, "how can we understand people? And would separating people into types help us get closer to our goal of understanding people?". How we would define a type would depend entirely on our goal of understanding people.



Well you wouldn't want something so general and broad that it fits into everything, which means that it fits into nothing. You'd want something with a rationale behind it, and why that group is appropriate for explaining what you're supposed to be explaining. Why should this number 16 be the best number for being able to understand people? It really depends.

You are just as bad as Bertrand.

With Bertrand it's dumbass NeTi coming up with random bullshit assumptions to solve logical problems.
With you it's dumbass TiNe coming up with random excuses to not solve logical problems.