Duality, Conflict, and Pain

[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.

[Sol]

You are just as bad as Bertrand.

[Singu]

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.

Erm, I'm pretty sure the problem is "how can we understand people?". You're just trying to solve a logical problem for the sake of solving logical problems.