Socionics Causes Pain

[sbbds]

Right, because when Socionics ITR becomes holy scripture, we wind up doing the former - trying to make it work with anyone we'd like to, disregarding NTR factors. Furthermore, doing so disregards the central elements of Socionics in that Socionics defines "cognitive values", rather than NTR compatibility factors such as cultural values, beliefs, philosophies, life-goals, logistical constraints, etc. These factors should not be confused or conflated.

Frankly I don’t think this is possible.

I think Socionics can only add more constraints through negative self-fulfilling prophecies, not take away limitations on relationships that have issues*. But even that (adding constraints) is just a light overlay.

Anyway, it’s easier to destroy than to build (negativism vs positivism)(please don’t let the double negative of “add constraints” confuse you). I.e. It’s exponentially easier to decide not to engage with someone than it is to ignore large problems and fabricate good relations. Even the former is hard to do in many cases (an example: unless your divorce was already imminent, it would still be very hard to get one upon learning about Socionics and how you and your spouse have imperfect ITR if you guys had kids). Knowledge of Socionics can’t ever have that big of an impact on life, because life’s constraints get in the way, case in point.

@Singu this also answers your question on the effect Socionics knowledge might have on people. Just my opinion however, but through experience.

*Except in the case of TWO Socionics users who are both at Godmode level, or a Godmode Socionics user with a person who has very advanced interpersonal skills, these people who would normally have bad ITR can improve their ITR

OR in the case of people who are very unaware about personal relations, such as in the case of people who have never felt positive “dual”, “activity” etc ITR play out and believe that the natural mild conflict or unease that can result from people being surface opposites is bad.

[Desert Financial]

Frankly I don’t think this is possible.

I think Socionics can only add more constraints through negative self-fulfilling prophecies, not take away limitations on relationships that have issues*. But even that (adding constraints) is just a light overlay.

This is the way I interpret Socionics. Because I look at a variety of factors, Socionics basically limits the pool of possibilities.

I'm pointing out the implications involved when a person sees Socionics as the Absolute Truth, as a fundamentalist exclusively refers to the Bible for every answer under the sun. Yes, I do see that occurring in that some users here even go so far as to throw out the DSM-5 in favor of explaining everything Socionically. I think it's clear what the logical consequence of this is - throwing out the DSM-5 broadens the pool in an unrealistic way. It makes no sense to say that I would have mutual understanding with every dual I come across, even if they suffer from BPD or something.

[sbbds]

Yes, I do see that occurring in that some users here even go so far as to throw out the DSM-5 in favor of explaining everything Socionically.

Ok. Who’s done that here?

[Desert Financial]

Ok. Who’s done that here?

thehotelambush.

To be honest, I think it may as well happen regularly because since nobody can read another's mind, it's too easy to attribute anything to Socionics. I could probably walk into someone's house here, take a big, tumbling shit on their rug, and they'd try to find a way to make it Socionical to match their preconceptions, because typically, when someone attempts to type someone, it's not about what's in front of them (it can't be, because we're not mind readers) - rather, it's about attributing behavior to preconceptions.

[sbbds]

thehotelambush.

Do you have a specific quote in mind?

I don’t want this to turn into a witch hunt, mind you. The DSM is full of issues as well, and there’s a lot that’s yet to be explained by medical science, but especially when it comes to the psychiatric field.

I just had dinner the other day with a top doctor at the top university in Japan (an SLE-leaning beta ST btw) and I deal with international high-ranking medical professionals FWIW wrt where my perspective on this comes from. Not just talking out of my ass here.

[Desert Financial]

Frankly I don’t think this is possible.

I think Socionics can only add more constraints through negative self-fulfilling prophecies, not take away limitations on relationships that have issues*. But even that (adding constraints) is just a light overlay.

Anyway, it’s easier to destroy than to build (negativism vs positivism)(please don’t let the double negative of “add constraints” confuse you). I.e. It’s exponentially easier to decide not to engage with someone than it is to ignore large problems and fabricate good relations. Even the former is hard to do in many cases (an example: unless your divorce was already imminent, it would still be very hard to get one upon learning about Socionics and how you and your spouse have imperfect ITR if you guys had kids). Knowledge of Socionics can’t ever have that big of an impact on life, because life’s constraints get in the way, case in point.

@Singu this also answers your question on the effect Socionics knowledge might have on people. Just my opinion however, but through experience.

*Except in the case of TWO Socionics users who are both at Godmode level, or a Godmode Socionics user with a person who has very advanced interpersonal skills, these people who would normally have bad ITR can improve their ITR

OR in the case of people who are very unaware about personal relations, such as in the case of people who have never felt positive “dual”, “activity” etc ITR play out and believe that the natural mild conflict or unease that can result from people being surface opposites is bad.

negativism ^

[sbbds]

negativism ^

This is not meant to be about Socionics negativism. Although Gulenko did build his theory around the same concept.

Even if this were the case, how would I be implying you were a Socionics positivist from this? Just based on me saying I think a negativist approach makes more sense? And LSIs are positivists as well so... I don’t get you. You really should take a chill pill.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jors.2012.58 Perhaps I used the wrong or a confusing term though, but my intention was only to use discourse that I knew you guys would understand. That’s an educational link for @Singu and you too if you’re interested.

[Singu]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jors.2012.58 Perhaps I used the wrong or a confusing term though, but my intention was only to use discourse that I knew you guys would understand. That’s an educational link for @Singu and you too if you’re interested.

...Did you actually read that?

Karl Popper and critical rationalism says that:

- All observations are theory-laden. Everything is a theory. You start with a theory, and not observations.
- Induction, as in making claims that things observed in the past will repeat again in the future, is logically and rationally untenable ("the problem of induction").
- There's no such thing as a "justified, true belief". You can never "prove" something to be true. All theories and knowledge are tentative and are subject to error.
- Knowledge is created by a process of conjectures and refutations. Or making "guesses" that are not based on anything (unjustified, untrue, unbelief), and then criticizing it to make it better.

[sbbds]

...Did you actually read that?

We know what Popper said already.

I read the abstract and intro so far, and skimmed the free PDF available. I thought it looked interesting and would make a nice New Year gift for you.

[Singu]

We know what Popper said already.

I read the abstract and intro so far, and skimmed the free PDF available. I thought it looked interesting and would make a nice New Year gift for you.

...I'm already familiar with Karl Popper. Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time is Popperian. If you think that's interesting, then I'd just suggest reading "Conjectures and Refutations".

[sbbds]

...I'm already familiar with Karl Popper. Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time is Popperian. If you think that's interesting, then I'd just suggest reading "Conjectures and Refutations".

The article applies his works and analyzes it in relation to engineering (‘OR’ basically, here).

Conclusions

In moving its attention from theory to practice CR has to consider the implications for both the theory (theory- for-practice) and practice (action) itself. Induction is rife within OR but this can be made logically acceptable by always containing statements about the assumed relationship between parts and the whole, and between the past and the future within the theories and proposals being considered. Decision-makers can then judge whether to accept such assumptions or not. If the theory is accepted so are the assumptions. Thus the CR concern to avoid a transcendent acceptance of induc- tion can be met. [...]

It was cited 12 times in several different journals too.