Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Just look at him @Uncle Ave
I'm pretty sure what we're dealing with is theoritical.
Unless you're saying that Socionics is not theoretical, which I would somewhat agree.
Also @Uncle Ave , Singu is clearly not intimidated by me. So maybe it is just about you after all, hm?
No, this is an example of what I mean:
Argue your point with reason instead of saying things like this, or like this:LOL. Come on. Don’t make it impossible to be taken seriously.
I'm not gonna say what is wrong with this style of "argumentation". What about it is not wrong?Be aware that if you don’t acknowledge this, it becomes apparent that you live in a hole and are a dumbass, for talking out of your ass.
If you cannot convince people thorugh reason it seems you resort to telling people that they live in a hole, can't be taken seriously, are dumbasses etc.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
These three lines one after another in one breath LOL
I'm not gonna say what is wrong with this style of "argumentation". What about it is not wrong?So... you can’t convince me with any reasons what’s wrong with it?If you cannot convince people thorugh reason ..
You’re even worse than Singu!!!! Congraturations!
Now mind your own damn business and quit being annoying if you don’t want more. I can make more at any time for the likes of commenting like this.
This pretty much says all about the current state of Socionics. And they expect to be taken seriously...
They need to step up their game.
@Uncle Ave And I only say Singu is being a dumbass by talking out of his ass because he lives in a hole, because it’s true. Relative to me. And I know that he can take it.
By play pretending to “be the bigger person”, you only support and enable his willful ignorance. And you make yourself look pathetically, tastelessly patronizing.
I’m going to be really busy again and not around as much probably so message me on Facebook if you need me for whatever reason @ajsindri . I’m going to be marketing a robotics program I’m involved with so if there’s any connection there let me know.
I’d recommend PMimg Myst too even though she’s often busy and is keen to help, just appreciate it and don’t overload her.
Sorry still won't help you
Science is fiction
If there were ever to be an "experimental test" of Socionics, then it must show that "types" stay consistent across different times, situations and cognitive circumstances.
So for example, if there were a type that has been unquestionably typed as "LIE" by all typists, then:
A) Does the LIE act consistently over time?
B) Does the LIE act consistently across all different situations that he is put under?
C) Does the LIE act consistently, if we try to change his beliefs?
--
I think the answer is that obviously, who does actually act consistently and predictably under all those different circumstances? Especially C) is almost logically impossible, since it is the particular belief that translates into particular behavior. Someone with say, a capitalist belief is going to be acting completely differently than someone with a communist belief. And if you say that people are "born" with certain beliefs, then that can't be explained by how genes cause certain beliefs. In fact, how can something like belief in capitalism be evolutionarily guided by genes? That has been created post-birth.
@ajsindri I hate waiting so I’ll try to help with the math if it’ll speed things up a bit.
A) No
B) No
C) No
Socionics is not a behaviorist theory. There will never be a 1:1 correlation between sociotypes and behaviors. If we allow that an individual's behavioral patterns can change over the course of time, and we do, then this is trivially the case.
If you don't like socionics, why think about it so much? What is your purpose in doing this? Socionics is a highly speculative theory that isn't totally ready for mass consumption. Over time, it will either lead to some obviously useful results and gain mainstream attention, or it won't. If you are not interested in learning or contributing anything, then the best course of action is to just leave it well alone.
Good, thanks you can take care of him now. BBL
Something must stay consistent, so what does? (Otherwise there's not much point in saying anything, it might as well be random). Socionics is saying that a type, or the entire person, stays consistent over time and in different situations.
Does a physics theory for example, allow change? Yes, it allows the change of physical objects over time and space. But it is calculating that from the laws of nature and laws of physics that stay consistent and do not change over time.
Socionics obviously does not refer to any "laws of nature" or "laws of psychology". If it's saying that it does, then it's saying that the functions are timeless and stay consistent over time. The problem is that the functions are apparently capable of generating many behaviors (or cognition), even unknown ones. We have no idea what kind of behaviors they are capable of creating. That's not how you "prove" the existence of functions, because you might just as well attribute anything to functions. And if anything can be attributed to functions, then what is the point?
So the question arises: What does stay consistent in Socionics?
I'm trying to figure out why these kinds of communities try to shield itself from criticism by taking everything personally and not impersonally, which is not how you gain "mainstream attention".
^ Actually a pretty good post. I agree! Good job, @Singu .
@sbbds and start small. If you can figure out how to analyze a small group system, like temperament, then we can scale that up to all of socionics.
Everything has a theory, even if it's implicit and unexpressed. The "theory" of Socionics is expecting the current observation of types to stay consistent in the future and in different situations.
That theory will be refuted if it changes over time or in differe situations. And that must, because people change over time and will act differently in different situations.
@sbbds I met someone who is a stats major, and he gave me links to books that can teach you basic structural equation modeling and R programming!
https://drive.google.com/open?id=122...ggy0-kwd4kBqHJ
What's really required is an alternative theory to compare it to, not any more tests. It doesn't matter how rigorous and scientific the test is, if there's no alternative theory where we could choose which theory performs and survives the test better.
Even if the tests proves Socionics wrong in some ways, I doubt that most people would start abandoning Socionics en masse. That's because they could either blame the test as being flawed, or say that the basic premise of Socionics is correct, but it needs more research.
The fact is that there already are some alternatives theories in scientific psychology, which most people are either aren't aware of, or they deliberately ignore them. Or they would incorporate those theories into Socionics and start making ad-hoc modifications, and see no conflict or contradictions between them.
The reason why it's so easy to make ad-hoc modifications in Socionics, is because it has no systematic and theoretical skeletal framework. It has no mechanistic explanations as such. The more rigorous and scientific the theory is, the harder it is to make arbitrary ad-hoc modifications without ruining the entire thing. That's because each of the explanations have their own functions and have internal consistency with the other explanations, just as each of the components in a mechanical clock have their own use, and if you change 1 thing then it ruins the entire thing.
If it's so easy to modify a theory, then it's a bad theory, i.e. a bad explanation. A good theory or an explanation is hard-to-vary. You can't make arbitrary changes to how reality actually is.
Singu is a big nub
Ok. Finally I'm going to start working on this this weekend.
Always make use of the placebo effect. Blind faith and confidence that you'll succeed increases your odds beyond what's assumed to be reasonable. It's not just a new age motivational meme, it"s an actual thing that's ingrained in the scientific process. Scientists go to great lengths to get away from it because it messes up the numbers. Today we use it in an ironic way. Fuck the odds, don't let them fuck you.
Even if we fail it will be educational and fun. Anybody welcome to join me, if only to help me make fun of Singu.