Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 254

Thread: Socionics Causes Pain

  1. #81
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,716
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Congrats, you just denied that there could only be one reality.
    Nope

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    No, I'm saying that only one interpretation of reality could be correct. Or at least, approximately correct.

    If you think that reality or the interpretation of it is only a matter of psychology, then that's relativism.
    I know. I was curious about your opinion though. Do you think you or anyone can interpret reality as it is?

  3. #83
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,716
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Congrats, you just denied that there could only be one reality.
    Clearly youve never heard of the saying "there are multiple ways to rome"

  4. #84
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @myresearch really lives up to his namesake.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  5. #85

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,215
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    I know. I was curious about your opinion though. Do you think you or anyone can interpret reality as it is?
    I think we can approximately describe reality. But it'll always remain an approximation.

    If there are two or more "interpretations" that both sound just as plausible, then which one should we pick? Well that can only really be decided by experimental testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    Clearly youve never heard of the saying "there are multiple ways to rome"
    Well that's just a way to rome, and not the rome itself.

  6. #86
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,716
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think we can approximately describe reality. But it'll always remain an approximation.

    If there are two or more "interpretations" that both sound just as plausible, then which one should we pick? Well that can only really be decided by experimental testing.



    Well that's just a way to rome, and not the rome itself.
    If the interpretations dont entirely contradict eachother they can be reconciled. Like socionics and enneagram. But i guess u wouldnt be able to wrap ur head around that

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think we can approximately describe reality. But it'll always remain an approximation.

    If there are two or more "interpretations" that both sound just as plausible, then which one should we pick? Well that can only really be decided by experimental testing.
    Are you familiar with Dario Nardi's work, if so what do you think about it?

  8. #88
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,672
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luminous Lynx View Post
    Absolutely. The common case I have witnessed of resistance towards Intertype Relations are people at stages in their life who are still trying to salvage failing and detrimental relations while telling themselves they can be with whomever they like. One of my closest mates has been on the rebound from a breakup he took ages to get over, with a type that was flat out shitty for him (Extinguishment Relations). I had long tried to counsel him on the nature of their issues, their types, and what to look out for in the future, but, being on the rebound, he ardently rejected IR (he's familiar with Socionics) and stubbornly told himself he could make it work with any woman he wanted.

    IR tries to free people of this entropy, this wasted energy and potential, by aligning with complimentary natures, but people insist on wasting their time and energy overexerting themselves for sub-par relations. In our "you can be whatever You want" culture, the relativistic nonsense of "all options are valid" has yet to be stamped out by the truth of discernment, and so people waste their time and potential pursuing both goals and people that are not conducive to their nature. I have seen many assert that excluding or filtering Your relations through IR is essentially unfair, which is flat out not true, and even if that were the case, so fucking what!?. IR is clear on the fact that most types can operate perfectly fine as acquaintances, but the closer You wish to be with a person, the more reconciliatory, mutually beneficial, and generally conducive to longevity Your relations will be with certain alignments - even in the absence of a formal theory this is axiomatically, unequivocally true; no one person is equally compatible with all types of people, to even suggest that would be delusional at best. You can be 'friends' with anyone, but the extent to which relations are strained or confluent is what IR maps out.

    Someone who is not mistyped and is using IR to their benefit will be rewarded with far more strength; the closer to the mark (their Quadra) they get, the more the undistilled and essential self emerges and mutually strengthens with their partner.
    You bring up good points in that ignoring IR completely can be hazardous like attempting a relation in an opposing quadra. However, neighboring quadra relationships hold some promise if other factors are positive, but those other factors must be highly compatible.

    Within quadra is ideal as other factors hold less clout and duality is the peak. However, choosing a dual that is not compatible with other factors can be just as dangerous as choosing a conflictor that is fine with other factors. Even if you are typed correctly, it is still something to be aware of.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  9. #89
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    2,657
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you can't choose who to love

  10. #90
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,255
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, OK. The point @Luminous Lynx makes that even if this type thing is very good it can help us to identify certain informational patterns that are not going to change (with exception of a traumatic and lucky hit to a head for example) and you are not going to fix it very well. There are things that repel. Now, if we think it as a sliding scale scale rather than dichotomous way it tells that extremes are harder but most of the times it is more doable than total destruction. However, would you like to be happy? Does the other party want happiness...?
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  11. #91
    Hydraulic presses do not interact ApeironStella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Emotionally stuck on V3-5
    TIM
    LII-Ne 9w1 972 sp/so
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You need something to map your experiences with people on, regardless of if that is one or two or twenty personality theories, your own personal experience+views and experiences your parents or other elders around you passed onto you, social circles in physical and now on internet space you identify with/are a part of, your friend group's beliefs, a book or twenty you read on the topic, a combination of all or some of those, and other things I can't think of on top of my head rn and differs from people to people. (Heck, even characters in fictional series can be for some, which is based on a single person/a group of people's perception of things.)

    And whatever model you use, given how people are prone to making choices that you wouldn't completely expect given what they tend towards generally, given a certain set of circumstances that made them make a different choice than usual which you likely don't have the full set of information leading to that, added to they themselves might have not realized or gave much thought to why they did so at times, it is only natural that they won't work for 100% everytime, and for everything. Added to perception biases of the authors on the topic ranging from norms of the society they live in and are used to bleeding into type description, personal experiences that might colour their perception of an identified category due to their own interpersonal problems, the simple fact that you can never fully perceive what is inside someone else's head/how they perceive and experience reality fully and those are how that person could make sense of someone else's actions, that makes sense.

    But I do believe that stuff like personality theories, like Socionics, do have a merit as it is more than one person/a small group of people who share similar values, chiming in and sharing their own experiences and perception of the world, however flawed those might be, and trying to make some sense of other humans and themselves, rather than as completely fixed "laws of the universe that never ever changes" on their own.

    So for people who do take it religiously, rather than viewing it as a model that works decently for the most part while trying to get a picture of what sort of person other side is, it would be bound to be frustrating and painful as it is with any model someone relies on to make sense of everything, especially people. But aside from that, I don't really see it as something "painful" but simple shortcuts that if they don't work with a specific person, you can always ask to learn more about their own experiences and way of thinking, and consider why it is categorized as such in the model so you can update it to give the model itself more fluidity and space for deviation, so that you can move closer towards having a more accurate picture of the situation.

    So I find it fine when viewed more casually, in a "huh, this pattern does coincide with this another one for this person, and when asked about it, they confirm it as such too, adding that to my this person related databank" rather than as constant over-reliance on it. (Which I admit I did especially a few years ago, not just with Socionics but also with MBTI and Enneagram too, at which point, yeah, it can hurt you and your relationships with others.)

    It boils down to not losing sight of a tool to mistake it as the end goal/all there is to be, I suppose.

    ...Why?
    "...Good morning, Teacher."
    Why did his eyes look so sad?



  12. #92

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Absolutely not. The categories should account for variance in some way. For example, if Model A made it clear that it defined tendencies rather than hard-and-fast rules, it would make a step in the right direction because that would account for changes in cognitive function dynamics. The categories should not aim to account for all of personality or all of cognition in the way some of the users here attempt to use Socionics. Room for more variance should exist. One error lies in the fact that Socionics models don't really clarify this - they fail to explain all of their component parts in a dynamic way. What I'm getting at in the OP is that cognitive dissonance occurs when the categories are either too inflexible or made to be catch-all explanations.
    If a person sees a chair for the first time in his/her life, they will think that all chair is identical or very similar to this one:

    jokkmokk-chair-antique-stain__0475400_pe615581_s4.jpg


    They could be confused or need an explanation when they see this chair or any other chair that doesn't resemble the first chair that they saw:

    ewin-champion-series-ergonomic-computer-gaming-office-chair-with-pillows-cpb.jpg


    Understanding and categorizing individuals despite their differences is much more harder, some data will not correlate as it is supposed to be, that's why it is natural that categories are made to be catch-all explanations. It is part of the learning. If this situation causes cognitive dissonance then we are exposed to cognitive dissonance when we learn to categorize something new. If that is the case, some level of cognitive dissonance is inevitable. According to my point of view, real cognitive dissonance occurs if a person defines/labels a chair as an apple or if a person says that chair do not exist while it exists. People type others differently, but noone is generally sure about differentiating different types as they are sure about differentiating chair from an apple. This is also natural because people are not sure about differentiating a chair from a sofa as they are sure about differentiating a chair from an apple. Can we say that a person is really suffering from cognitive dissonance if they label this chair as a sofa or vice versa? :

    blake-grey-wash-lounge-chair-with-cushion.jpg

    If that's the claim the system makes, then it should live up to its claim. Your question is too vague.
    I meant to ask do you think socionics has to be finalized if people want to focus on the implications of it? Do you think it is necessary to establish a structure that doesn't require any further explanations before focusing on its implications? If so why?

    This question is too vague.
    Don't you think that observations of socionics' implications can change the content of socionics or the interpretation of socionics' content?

    In other words, if people made observations about the implications of socionics, for example, if people observe that they are compatible with a type that they have a bad ITR according to socionics. Could this change the content of socionics or the interpretation of the content of socionics in your point of view? Do you think this kind of change is a form of rationalization? In other words, do you think we make some correlations so it would make sense while it doesn't? If you think this is a form of rationalization, how is it different than the rationalization that we made during the learning phase of other categorization systems? I am asking because it doesn't seem different to me, maybe you see something I don't see.

  13. #93

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,078
    Mentioned
    908 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    The common case of inappropriate usage is the underesteemating of nontypes factors. Socionics does not take into account anything forming human's behavior and important for relations.

    Duals do not get good relations from the start, without efforts. Duals may to have problems from types differences and nontypes factors. Duality is good for soul friendship, but not anything.

    There are limits for the usage of any knowledge.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  14. #94
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    The common case of inappropriate usage is the underesteemating of nontypes factors. Socionics does not take into account anything forming human's behavior and important for relations.

    Duals do not get good relations from the start, without efforts. Duals may to have problems from types differences and nontypes factors. Duality is good for soul friendship, but not anything.

    There are limits for the usage of any knowledge.
    Oh hey. You're being more reasonable.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  15. #95
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,174
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't care because the people who earnestly try to frame everything I do within that narrow framework and use it to invalidate me don't matter. The only time it matters is if the framework they're using happens to have a disproportionately large impact on society or social policy, and while philosophies exist that match both these criteria, Socionics is not one of them. It's a failed wizard-y attempt to operationalize the cowshit Jung wrote in an actually useful form developed by the Soviets, now only a curiosity forgotten by the world at large.

    I don't care how stupid the people without any nuance can get from these systems when they fail to compartmentalize it as an experimental curiosity to mentally play with, rather than a somehow proven lens for reality. It's better off existing and practiced out of sight by the people who actually know how to deal with it without going off the deep end. The people bound to abuse it would be thinking poorly even without bad ideas anyway, and they'd just be forced to come up with their own even worse ideas. You can't just quarantine ideas like that. Information will get out.

    Anyone who devalues this kind of mental masturbation as so worthless to practical action that it deserves to be expunged, won't get the dignity of a response from me, since they'd probably use that insane pragmatic imperative to argue against my own being anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  16. #96
    Formerly Chuck's Sneeds Feed and Seed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    271
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    People get obsessed with socionics because it feeds into their ego by giving them an explanation of why their relationships failed or succeeded, as well as making them the center of attention cause of their type. It's a lot more fun to attribute traits to whatever you define yourself as, and everything overall aids to that sense of identity.

    Then you start getting all broken down and obsessed over finding your dual, or learning your "true" type with all the other bs like subtypes and DCNH and enneagram and instinctual stacking and whatever attached. It's like a bid for security in your identity, compounded with that hope that you'll be able to predict or rationalize every last interaction with the people you meet.

    So people end up getting hooked and obsessed out of this thirst for answers and they become unable to just accept things as their are; since socionics seemingly has an explanation for everything, no matter how contradictory it may be, it becomes second nature to overanalyze. And then some people take this defeatist mindset and try to justify their interpersonal failures by pointing to the good book of the socion.

    I AM THE KING OF ALABAMA


  17. #97
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @myresearch I'll get back to your question tomorrow.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  18. #98

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,215
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Are you familiar with Dario Nardi's work, if so what do you think about it?
    I don't see much point in saying, "This area of brain lights up differently than other people's, and therefore it proves the differences between people".

    You can correlate a behavior and an area of the brain "lighting up". You can scan the brain of a person performing a musical instrument, and then you see a certain area of the brain lighting up. Next, you scan the same brain while a person is thinking up of social situations. And you say that the same area of the brain is lighting up. And you say, well maybe we could call this "Fe" or something. And perhaps for some other people, there are some individual differences and different areas of the brain are lighting up. And you say, well that proves that there are different "types".

    Sure. But that obviously does not at all predict how people are going to be acting in certain situations. You can say that this "Fe" is an all-purpose general function that produces many different behaviors, such as playing music or socializing. But how should we use that information at all to predict any kind of behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    If a person sees a chair for the first time in his/her life, they will think that all chair is identical or very similar to this one:

    jokkmokk-chair-antique-stain__0475400_pe615581_s4.jpg


    They could be confused or need an explanation when they see this chair or any other chair that doesn't resemble the first chair that they saw:

    ewin-champion-series-ergonomic-computer-gaming-office-chair-with-pillows-cpb.jpg


    Understanding and categorizing individuals despite their differences is much more harder, some data will not correlate as it is supposed to be, that's why it is natural that categories are made to be catch-all explanations. It is part of the learning. If this situation causes cognitive dissonance then we are exposed to cognitive dissonance when we learn to categorize something new. If that is the case, some level of cognitive dissonance is inevitable. According to my point of view, real cognitive dissonance occurs if a person defines/labels a chair as an apple or if a person says that chair do not exist while it exists. People type others differently, but noone is generally sure about differentiating different types as they are sure about differentiating chair from an apple. This is also natural because people are not sure about differentiating a chair from a sofa as they are sure about differentiating a chair from an apple. Can we say that a person is really suffering from cognitive dissonance if they label this chair as a sofa or vice versa? :

    blake-grey-wash-lounge-chair-with-cushion.jpg
    Let's say that I'm behaving in a way that is described as "Ne PoLR". You say that how I'm acting fits in to that description. So therefore, you'll conclude that since I'm that way, I'll always act like an "Ne PoLR" in the future as well.

    But what if I act in a way that's not predicted by the description? What if I do something completely new and unexpected that's not in the description? Then either you can a) discard it as some minor anomaly to be ignored, or b) add the new behavior to the growing list of "bank" of the description of "Ne PoLR". But then what if I do something new again, and again, and again...? And this goes on for infinity for all of my future actions. You either keep discarding it some minor anomaly, or you'll just keep adding more and more data to the bank. And not just for how I will act in the future, but how I will act in different situations.

    In short, it couldn't be said that how I'm acting actually had anything to do with this "Ne PoLR". Nor can this "Ne PoLR" be used as anything to predict my future behavior, or how I'm going to act in different situations that have not been observed before.

    --

    So the eternal question being asked by Socionics is: "Are types real? Do types exist? Is ITR real?". You can say that they "exist" insofar as they exist in present and past observations. But they don't say anything about how people are going to be acting in the future, or how people are going to be acting in different circumstances, in different situations, in different environments. And so in that sense, it can't be said that they're "real".

  19. #99
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    If a person sees a chair for the first time in his/her life, they will think that all chair is identical or very similar to this one:

    jokkmokk-chair-antique-stain__0475400_pe615581_s4.jpg


    They could be confused or need an explanation when they see this chair or any other chair that doesn't resemble the first chair that they saw:

    ewin-champion-series-ergonomic-computer-gaming-office-chair-with-pillows-cpb.jpg


    Understanding and categorizing individuals despite their differences is much more harder, some data will not correlate as it is supposed to be, that's why it is natural that categories are made to be catch-all explanations. It is part of the learning. If this situation causes cognitive dissonance then we are exposed to cognitive dissonance when we learn to categorize something new. If that is the case, some level of cognitive dissonance is inevitable. According to my point of view, real cognitive dissonance occurs if a person defines/labels a chair as an apple or if a person says that chair do not exist while it exists. People type others differently, but noone is generally sure about differentiating different types as they are sure about differentiating chair from an apple. This is also natural because people are not sure about differentiating a chair from a sofa as they are sure about differentiating a chair from an apple. Can we say that a person is really suffering from cognitive dissonance if they label this chair as a sofa or vice versa? :

    blake-grey-wash-lounge-chair-with-cushion.jpg
    Differentiating furniture is a different matter because we have direct observation of the furniture and therefore a reliable basis for determining whether a chair or a sofa fits the criteria; in contrast, when we try to type someone, we run the risk committing the psychologist's fallacy, or the fallacy of confusing one's own mental state with that of another. And the fallacy frequently occurs because we have no concrete basis for determining another's cognition - instead we have our own mental state (including projections). As it concerns Socionics, fallacies also occur because Socionists use inductive reasoning to type people, which always has a chance of missing the mark because it's only based on past experience. So cognitive dissonance is bound to happen when inaccurate assessments occur in Socionics typing.

    More saliently, furniture is a different matter because, in contrast with what's intended with personality theories, pieces of furniture always fit their criteria until they are destroyed. Throughout a chair's life-cycle, a chair will satisfy the criteria for being a chair simply because it's furniture with four legs, a seat, and a backboard. In contrast, the personality undergoes changes and sometimes satisfies criteria for different personality types. For example, according to Gulenko, as a "Ti type", I'm not supposed to have Dialectical Algorithmic cognition - and typically I don't - but not too long ago I responded to Singu in another thread with a "Dialectical Algorithmic" thought process by questioning his assumption that Carl Jung had to be special in order to have any insights into human nature. Today, I was in the shower and had another DA kind of thought: "Obsessing about Socionics ITR actually undermines the point of Socionics ITR because according to Socionics, ITR should happen naturally." So this is why it's crucial to clarify that personality profiles should reflect tendencies, rather than static psychological properties. The analogy misses the mark because in contrast with human beings, pieces of furniture are more easily defined as having static properties, so cognitive dissonance has a lower chance of occurring as it concerns chairs. And even at best, when we clarify that personality systems are based on tendencies, it begs the question - what are the root causes? What objective factors are we really talking about?


    I meant to ask do you think socionics has to be finalized if people want to focus on the implications of it? Do you think it is necessary to establish a structure that doesn't require any further explanations before focusing on its implications? If so why?
    I think for us to focus on the implications of something, it has to be based (at least mostly) on objective reality because if it's not, those implications aren't real. At best, if we explore the implications of Socionics as it is, there will be a margin of error because it's a rough estimate based on correlative data. I think that even a proof-of-concept has to establish causal reasons for why it's possible, because if it doesn't then why should I place my faith in it? I have no assurance that I can use it to effect my environment or understand the world better.

    I do think there are some underlying causes behind different psychological phenomena, such as intuition, as research has shown. So Socionics probably approximates something since items of relevant neurological research correspond with objective factors (I've posted these items elsewhere). But at that point, why put stock in Socionics when you could put stock in neuroscience and theories based on harder research that actually bothers to define explanations in objective terms?
    Don't you think that observations of socionics' implications can change the content of socionics or the interpretation of socionics' content?

    In other words, if people made observations about the implications of socionics, for example, if people observe that they are compatible with a type that they have a bad ITR according to socionics. Could this change the content of socionics or the interpretation of the content of socionics in your point of view? Do you think this kind of change is a form of rationalization? In other words, do you think we make some correlations so it would make sense while it doesn't? If you think this is a form of rationalization, how is it different than the rationalization that we made during the learning phase of other categorization systems? I am asking because it doesn't seem different to me, maybe you see something I don't see.
    I mean, it's a matter of pinning down objective causes - because if we don't pin down objective causes, we don't know if correlations behind already questionable self-assessments confirm Socionics theory. As long as we start with Socionics and work our way out to the science, we run the risk of confirmation bias. So I would do the opposite - start from the neuroscience and then work our way out to Socionics to see what matches.
    Last edited by Karatos; 01-01-2019 at 12:13 AM.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  20. #100
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post

    Anyone who devalues this kind of mental masturbation as so worthless to practical action that it deserves to be expunged, won't get the dignity of a response from me, since they'd probably use that insane pragmatic imperative to argue against my own being anyway.
    Lol.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  21. #101
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,628
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Oh hey. You're being more reasonable.
    There's hope for the lost souls.

  22. #102
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atari View Post
    There's hope for the lost souls.
    cult
    u
    l
    t
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  23. #103
    Ragdoll Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,628
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    cult
    u
    l
    t
    You didn't get what I mean.

  24. #104
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atari View Post
    You didn't get what I mean.
    Speak directly, then.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  25. #105
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mistypings cause pain.

    Practicing socionics, with currently available methods, does entail a certain amount of mistypings. It will happen to you, no matter what, at least with current methods.

    Learning and developing expertise in socionics, or really any field on the cutting edge of human understanding, necessarily involves some degree of pain. It's not for everyone.

  26. #106

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    106
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luminous Lynx View Post
    Absolutely. The common case I have witnessed of resistance towards Intertype Relations are people at stages in their life who are still trying to salvage failing and detrimental relations while telling themselves they can be with whomever they like. One of my closest mates has been on the rebound from a breakup he took ages to get over, with a type that was flat out shitty for him (Extinguishment Relations). I had long tried to counsel him on the nature of their issues, their types, and what to look out for in the future, but, being on the rebound, he ardently rejected IR (he's familiar with Socionics) and stubbornly told himself he could make it work with any woman he wanted.

    IR tries to free people of this entropy, this wasted energy and potential, by aligning with complimentary natures, but people insist on wasting their time and energy overexerting themselves for sub-par relations. In our "you can be whatever You want" culture, the relativistic nonsense of "all options are valid" has yet to be stamped out by the truth of discernment, and so people waste their time and potential pursuing both goals and people that are not conducive to their nature. I have seen many assert that excluding or filtering Your relations through IR is essentially unfair, which is flat out not true, and even if that were the case, so fucking what!?. IR is clear on the fact that most types can operate perfectly fine as acquaintances, but the closer You wish to be with a person, the more reconciliatory, mutually beneficial, and generally conducive to longevity Your relations will be with certain alignments - even in the absence of a formal theory this is axiomatically, unequivocally true; no one person is equally compatible with all types of people, to even suggest that would be delusional at best. You can be 'friends' with anyone, but the extent to which relations are strained or confluent is what IR maps out.

    Someone who is not mistyped and is using IR to their benefit will be rewarded with far more strength; the closer to the mark (their Quadra) they get, the more the undistilled and essential self emerges and mutually strengthens with their partner.
    While I agree with the thought that the whole "we can be anything, making it work with anyone we'd like to" can be harmful, I am worried when Socionics or any type of personality theory becomes a holy scripture.

    You say if someone is typed right and understands Socionics will be rewarded - yeah, maybe, but there will be certain dangers as well (trying to accomodate their own observances to fit Socionics descriptions and dynamics etc.). Therefore I could only see Socionics or any other theories as a sometimes useful tool or a path - but sooner or later I think we usually have to leave our paths to find new viewpoints and evolve. Either that, or change the framework and theory so it would have space for growth - to evolve with us.

    What you described as beneficial in your post (understanding that sometimes things just won't work out, no matter how hard to try) is a very general issue we struggle with as humans. What is different is the frame - what theory or mindset or system you use to examine this problem. Socionics is one, and there are many others. Stagnation is death, but keeping what's valuable while looking at it from another perspective or let time and experience add something more to it is even harder, I admit, being keepers and rebel at the same time.

    Then again, I've always struggled with staying on one path, so this can say something about my own struggles as well I guess.


  27. #107
    To Stand As The Oak Luminous Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Wilderness
    TIM
    EIE-Ni
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kara View Post
    While I agree with the thought that the whole "we can be anything, making it work with anyone we'd like to" can be harmful, I am worried when Socionics or any type of personality theory becomes a holy scripture.

    You say if someone is typed right and understands Socionics will be rewarded - yeah, maybe, but there will be certain dangers as well (trying to accomodate their own observances to fit Socionics descriptions and dynamics etc.). Therefore I could only see Socionics or any other theories as a sometimes useful tool or a path - but sooner or later I think we usually have to leave our paths to find new viewpoints and evolve. Either that, or change the framework and theory so it would have space for growth - to evolve with us.

    What you described as beneficial in your post (understanding that sometimes things just won't work out, no matter how hard to try) is a very general issue we struggle with as humans. What is different is the frame - what theory or mindset or system you use to examine this problem. Socionics is one, and there are many others. Stagnation is death, but keeping what's valuable while looking at it from another perspective or let time and experience add something more to it is even harder, I admit, being keepers and rebel at the same time.

    Then again, I've always struggled with staying on one path, so this can say something about my own struggles as well I guess.

    I spent nearly a decade of my short life in two long term relationships with sub-par and poor IR dynamics. I know from extensive and painful experience both the realities of their being more to human relations than the delineations of a theoretical model, as well as the fact that if You love something You must be willing to fight for it. I stubbornly tried to salvage those poor relationships for years, I adapted to them to a nearly compromising degree, I forgave things I should not, and did everything I could to avoid separation. I put in the time and effort, and I hope they continue to grow into ever healthier and more mature women, but there comes a point when one must be honest with oneself. Two people no matter how well intended or caring do not necessarily belong together.

    That does not mean that I learned nothing from these experiences, indeed they are in large part why and how I can make the kinds of posts I do to this day, but what I have stated required being asserted clearly and in no uncertain terms, as people all too often grasp at exceptions and NTR factors, wasting years of their lives pursuing things not in accordance with their nature, some even deriding the idea their nature can be accounted for or advised; prudence requires humility, and even the highly intelligent are often not as unique and original as they'd like to flatter themselves. Socionics isn't perfect, that shouldn't even be expected, and like You said, it's only one model, but to discard the consolidation of personal strength and growth that Socionics and IR provides to chase phantoms is a deeply foolish and counterintuitive way of experiencing life lessons. Now, I am of course talking about intimate relationships; friendships are relatively easily managed. That said, I would not change my past, as I would not be the man I am today, but I will steer myself carefully in the future, with newfound resolve and vigilance. Even positive type relations do not account for physical attraction and a variety of NTR dynamics, indeed the two long term relationships I spoke have had positive physical attraction and NTR dynamics, but ultimately, all those who would defy IR shall do so at their own risk.

    "We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."



    Model A: EIE-Ni2
    -
    Model G: EI

    Quadra Values: Beta
    Dyad:
    /
    Enneagram: 6w7, 2w1, 8w9
    Instinctual Variant: Sx/So


  28. #108

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,215
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's not going to be some sort of a law of the universe that would prevent you from psychologically doing certain things. Nothing is going to physically (or "psychically") stop you if you divert from the path of ITR or types. If you ever think to yourself, "Well, I'm going to get along with my Conflictor", then some Socionics God isn't going to suddenly appear and say "Nope, sorry, you can't do that".

    I'm sure that there are certain people that would make you feel genuinely uncomfortable or repulsed by. But I think that should be analyzed on case-by-case basis, and not just have every relation that would make you feel uncomfortable labeled as "Conflictor relation".

    I can see that by comparing before when I used to believe in Socionics, and now I don't really have any Socionics influences on me, I look at people completely differently. I used to think, "This person is my Conflictor, this person is from my opposing Quadra, and so this person is nothing like me". Now I can even look at the same person, and think "This person actually doesn't really think much differently from me". So since that having my own beliefs changed, changed my perspective on how I see people, it was my belief that changed how I view people, and not that the person was having an objective effect on me.

    I don't really think that it's wise, and also that it misses the whole point of having a psychology theory, to say that "I don't get along with this person, but I don't know why other than that it fits in with the previous recognized pattern".

    Quote Originally Posted by Luminous Lynx View Post
    That does not mean that I learned nothing from these experiences, indeed they are in large part why and how I can make the kinds of posts I do to this day, but what I have stated required being asserted clearly and in no uncertain terms, as people all too often grasp at exceptions and NTR factors, wasting years of their lives pursuing things not in accordance with their nature, some even deriding the idea their nature can be accounted for or advised; prudence requires humility, and even the highly intelligent are often not as unique and original as they'd like to flatter themselves. Socionics isn't perfect, that shouldn't even be expected, and like You said, it's only one model, but to discard the consolidation of personal strength and growth that Socionics and IR provides to chase phantoms is a deeply foolish and counterintuitive way of experiencing life lessons. Now, I am of course talking about intimate relationships; friendships are relatively easily managed. That said, I would not change my past, as I would not be the man I am today, but I will steer myself carefully in the future, with newfound resolve and vigilance. Even positive type relations do not account for physical attraction and a variety of NTR dynamics, indeed the two long term relationships I spoke have had positive physical attraction and NTR dynamics, but ultimately, all those who would defy IR shall do so at their own risk.
    You already know the NTR reasons for people getting along and not getting along. And Socionics doesn't explain why people get along or not get along in a deep way, other than that people apparently fit into some pre-recognized relational pattern.

    So it's just like, why? What's the whole point of having this overarching theme cover over what's actually happening, and can actually be explained to a reasonable degree? It creates unnecessary complications that can be cut off by Occam's razor. With or without Socionics, it's the same thing. The only difference is, can it be explained, or not?

  29. #109
    To Stand As The Oak Luminous Lynx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Wilderness
    TIM
    EIE-Ni
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know what You expect of people on these forums, Singu. I know that You have long decided Your stance on Socionics, and thus I know what a waste of effort it is to respond in full, so I'll simply be brief and direct.

    I'm most certainly not an arbiter of any kind. I haven't spent anywhere near enough time on this model as many on this forum have. Long ago, I was in fact in a relationship (for just shy of a year and a half) with a woman in my opposing Quadra (Delta), and it was (as IR would advise me) the most difficult, rocky, conflict-prone and non-amenable relationship I ever had. Both of us, to this day, have mutual respect for each other, and could probably be fairly good friends, but it was a very tenuous relationship for us both. Like I've already clarified, making a friendship work out isn't too much of an issue, but intimate relationships are another matter. What I know is that both the worst and best of my relations have fit comfortably inline with IR expectation, long before I even knew of Socionics. That is the simplest, honest response on the matter I can offer. What You do is Your prerogative, Singu.

    "We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."



    Model A: EIE-Ni2
    -
    Model G: EI

    Quadra Values: Beta
    Dyad:
    /
    Enneagram: 6w7, 2w1, 8w9
    Instinctual Variant: Sx/So


  30. #110
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kara View Post
    While I agree with the thought that the whole "we can be anything, making it work with anyone we'd like to" can be harmful, I am worried when Socionics or any type of personality theory becomes a holy scripture.
    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.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  31. #111

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Differentiating furniture is a different matter because we have direct observation of the furniture and therefore a reliable basis for determining whether a chair or a sofa fits the criteria; in contrast, when we try to type someone, we run the risk committing the psychologist's fallacy, or the fallacy of confusing one's own mental state with that of another. And the fallacy frequently occurs because we have no concrete basis for determining another's cognition - instead we have our own mental state (including projections). As it concerns Socionics, fallacies also occur because Socionists use inductive reasoning to type people, which always has a chance of missing the mark becauseit's only based on past experience. So cognitive dissonance is bound to happen when inaccurate assessments occur in Socionics typing.

    More saliently, furniture is a different matter because, in contrast with what's intended with personality theories, pieces of furniture always fit their criteria until they are destroyed. Throughout a chair's life-cycle, a chair will satisfy the criteria for being a chair simply because it's furniture with four legs, a seat, and a backboard.

    In contrast, the personality undergoes changes and sometimes satisfies criteria for different personality types. For example, according to Gulenko, as a "Ti type", I'm not supposed to have Dialectical Algorithmic cognition - and typically I don't - but not too long ago I responded to Singu in another thread with a "Dialectical Algorithmic" thought process by questioning his assumption that Carl Jung had to be special in order to have any insights into human nature. Today, I was in the shower and had another DA kind of thought: "Obsessing about Socionics ITR actually undermines the point of Socionics ITR because according to Socionics, ITR should happen naturally." So this is why it's crucial to clarify that personality profiles should reflect tendencies, rather than static psychological properties. The analogy misses the mark because in contrast with human beings, pieces of furniture are more easily defined as having static properties, so cognitive dissonance has a lower chance of occurring as it concerns chairs. And even at best, when we clarify that personality systems are based on tendencies, it begs the question - what are the root causes? What objective factors are we really talking about?

    This is a chair with two legs:

    Passive_behaviours_by_Benoit_Malta_dezeen_sq.jpg

    This is a chair without a seat:

    MirandaBefore.jpg


    I am aware that you set a criteria for a chair in order to prove a point. I am not taking it literally. I think this is a good definition of a chair. I gave an example about chairs to keep it simple. I gave these two examples of chair to point out that it is hard to set a strict criteria even for simple things, although, it doesn't prevent us from defining objects by using the same labels even they don't exactly fit to their given set of criteria.

    We categorize and label everything according to our past observations. Logical equation can be proved easily without any observation, such as if p is True and q is True, then p v q is True. Other than that, every experimental testing or science experiment is based on past observations. If I am wrong, please give me an example. Personality models/structures are also going to be based on past observations.


    I agree that "pieces of furniture are more easily defined as having static properties". Open systems or circuits also have a inner mechanism. We and even some machines to some degree can also understand the inner mechanism of open systems, therefore, we and some machines (to some degree) can predict the future outcomes of an open systems, you can find related articles online, I can find them if you couldn't. Once the inner mechanism is understood, the output of the system can be predicted by its given input.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Let's say that I'm behaving in a way that is described as "Ne PoLR". You say that how I'm acting fits in to that description. So therefore, you'll conclude that since I'm that way, I'll always act like an "Ne PoLR" in the future as well.

    But what if I act in a way that's not predicted by the description? What if I do something completely new and unexpected that's not in the description? Then either you can a) discard it as some minor anomaly to be ignored, or b) add the new behavior to the growing list of "bank" of the description of "Ne PoLR". But then what if I do something new again, and again, and again...? And this goes on for infinity for all of my future actions. You either keep discarding it some minor anomaly, or you'll just keep adding more and more data to the bank. And not just for how I will act in the future, but how I will act in different situations.

    In short, it couldn't be said that how I'm acting actually had anything to do with this "Ne PoLR". Nor can this "Ne PoLR" be used as anything to predict my future behavior, or how I'm going to act in different situations that have not been observed before.

    --

    So the eternal question being asked by Socionics is: "Are types real? Do types exist? Is ITR real?". You can say that they "exist" insofar as they exist in present and past observations. But they don't say anything about how people are going to be acting in the future, or how people are going to be acting in different circumstances, in different situations, in different environments. And so in that sense, it can't be said that they're "real".
    I was interested in neuroplasticity years ago, I don't remember much to give a precise example. Adult brain is substantially wired and it is possible to increase our cognitive abilities but we can change a little with lots of training during a long period of time. If we consider Ne as a cognitive ability and if an adult has acted like a Ne-polr their whole life, they can't act like a Ne-base. I wish that was possible but it isn't. If you know a solid research or article, please share, I would be really happy. Personally, I think we can develop all of our cognitive skills within some limitations, however, it will probably not change the general mechanism of our brain, again I wish that was the case. Just to clarify, I haven't considered extreme examples that could change the dynamics of the brain such as brain injury.



    I think for us to focus on the implications of something, it has to be based (at least mostly) on objective reality because if it's not, those implications aren't real. At best, if we explore the implications of Socionics as it is, there will be a margin of error because it's a rough estimate based on correlative data. I think that even a proof-of-concept has to establish causal reasons for why it's possible, because if it doesn't then why should I place my faith in it? I have no assurance that I can use it to effect my environment or understand the world better.

    I do think there are some underlying causes behind different psychological phenomena, such as intuition, as research has shown. So Socionics probably approximates something since items of relevant neurological research correspond with objective factors (I've posted these items elsewhere). But at that point, why put stock in Socionics when you could put stock in neuroscience and theories based on harder research that actually bothers to define explanations in objective terms?


    I mean, it's a matter of pinning down objective causes - because if we don't pin down objective causes, we don't know if correlations behind already questionable self-assessments confirm Socionics theory. As long as we start with Socionics and work our way out to the science, we run the risk of confirmation bias. So I would do the opposite - start from the neuroscience and then work our way out to Socionics to see what matches.
    Companies use models to predict customer's likelihood to buy certain products. They don't define the root causes that leads customers to buy certain products but they benefit from the implications of a model. Of course there will be a margin of error. We can find lots of behavioral model that uses the implications of a behavior without examining the underlying reasons of that behavior.

    Humans are much more complex and we are exposed to variety of inputs everyday in our life. It is very hard to define the static properties of a human being, it is natural considering that it is even hard to define the static properties of a chair. I think whenever we make a categorization of a large variety of numerous data, it is hard to point out why and how we can do that precisely. That's why I think objective factors that could be found about inner mechanism of human beings would be very simplistic, if it tries to cover the whole mechanism.

    I think Socionics is a good at referring to the static properties of human beings. I think it is a good tool that allows us to share opinions about static properties of human beings and its implications. I think we can benefit from socionics implications by accepting some margin of error. Personally, I wouldn't start with neuroscience and work my way up to Socionics or any personality model. Neuroscience studies would be based on specific number of individuals, timeline and limitations of technology. I don't think that an extensive research that covers the aspects of socionics could be made at this moment. I don't want to be limited by the opportunities of my time, but all of this is a matter of preference and faith.

  32. #112
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    This is a chair with two legs:

    Passive_behaviours_by_Benoit_Malta_dezeen_sq.jpg

    This is a chair without a seat:

    MirandaBefore.jpg


    I am aware that you set a criteria for a chair in order to prove a point. I am not taking it literally. I think this is a good definition of a chair. I gave an example about chairs to keep it simple. I gave these two examples of chair to point out that it is hard to set a strict criteria even for simple things, although, it doesn't prevent us from defining objects by using the same labels even they don't exactly fit to their given set of criteria.

    We categorize and label everything according to our past observations. Logical equation can be proved easily without any observation, such as if p is True and q is True, then p v q is True. Other than that, every experimental testing or science experiment is based on past observations. If I am wrong, please give me an example. Personality models/structures are also going to be based on past observations.


    I agree that "pieces of furniture are more easily defined as having static properties". Open systems or circuits also have a inner mechanism. We and even some machines to some degree can also understand the inner mechanism of open systems, therefore, we and some machines (to some degree) can predict the future outcomes of an open systems, you can find related articles online, I can find them if you couldn't. Once the inner mechanism is understood, the output of the system can be predicted by its given input.
    I agree that once the inner mechanism is understood, the output of a system can be predicted. It's not my prerogative to say otherwise; I'm a determinist and I think a disagreement on my part would largely depreciate the veracity of the scientific method in that truly scientific explanations possess predictive power. My criticism is that Socionics fails to reliably predict outputs because it doesn't precisely nail down the determining factors in its explanation for how cognition works. For example, it's not fair to strictly compare ITR it to compatibility between computer programs because we can reverse engineer computer programs or look at the source code to analyze the 1's and 0's, making an easy assessment of how two computer programs should work together in a sandbox environment. And we have an explanation for how the computer and the software work based on every nook and cranny of the computer we've accounted for, so we can reliably predict how a computer will function in a controlled setting. In contrast, Socionics is messier, and more recent additions to Socionics, such as DNCH and Gulenko's work have only cast doubt on Model A's capacity to reliably predict ITR as well as we can predict computer programs operating together. One way or another, Socionics doesn't take account of every governing mechanism of a human being, so it can't make predictions with as much certainty as hard scientific explanations. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that, for example, a complete psychopath and a person of their dual type will form a relationship of mutual understanding, since psychopaths lack empathy. Can psychopaths even be typed? Another area of scrutiny in that if some people can't even be typed because they lack certain functions, Socionics isn't universally applicable.

    Re: the chair thing - Let's be honest, those aren't really chairs.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  33. #113

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    I agree that once the inner mechanism is understood, the output of a system can be predicted. It's not my prerogative to say otherwise; I'm a determinist and I think a disagreement on my part would largely depreciate the veracity of the scientific method in that truly scientific explanations possess predictive power. My criticism is that Socionics fails to reliably predict outputs because it doesn't precisely nail down the determining factors in its explanation for how cognition works. For example, it's not fair to strictly compare ITR it to compatibility between computer programs because we can reverse engineer computer programs or look at the source code to analyze the 1's and 0's, making an easy assessment of how two computer programs should work together in a sandbox environment. And we have an explanation for how the computer and the software work based on every nook and cranny of the computer we've accounted for, so we can reliably predict how a computer will function in a controlled setting. In contrast, Socionics is messier, and more recent additions to Socionics, such as DNCH and Gulenko's work have only cast doubt on Model A's capacity to reliably predict ITR as well as we can predict computer programs operating together. One way or another, Socionics doesn't take account of every governing mechanism of a human being, so it can't make predictions with as much certainty as hard scientific explanations. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that, for example, a complete psychopath and a person of their dual type will form a relationship of mutual understanding, since psychopaths lack empathy. Can psychopaths even be typed? Another area of scrutiny in that if some people can't even be typed because they lack certain functions, Socionics isn't universally applicable.

    Re: the chair thing - Let's be honest, those aren't really chairs.
    I think recent additions doesn't cast a doubt, in my opinion, it lifts some doubt. That's why I asked what you think about observations of implications changing the content of socionics. As you can understand, I see socionics is a start point that we can develop or modify things according to our understanding of it. I don't think people who have extreme personality disorders such as psychopathy could be typed. They are operating on another dimension in my point of view. I think people's general state of mental health is very important, it can be more important than ITR.

    PS: I typed them as chairs

  34. #114
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    I think recent additions doesn't cast a doubt, in my opinion, it lifts some doubt. That's why I asked what you think about observations of implications changing the content of socionics. As you can understand, I see socionics is a start point that we can develop or modify things according to our understanding of it. I don't think people who have extreme personality disorders such as psychopathy could be typed. They are operating on another dimension in my point of view. I think people's general state of mental health is very important, it can be more important than ITR.
    Recent additions cast doubt on Model A in that if there are subtypes, then it means that what's depicted as "conscious" or "high dimensionality" in Model A are dubious at best and completely false at worse. For example, an LIE - N shouldn't have "1-D" Fi or "1-D" Ti, as Model A claims.

    Ah, so you tacitly admit that Socionics isn't universal in saying that psychopaths can't be typed.

    PS: I typed them as chairs
    Lol. Fake chair alert!
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  35. #115
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,672
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    I think recent additions doesn't cast a doubt, in my opinion, it lifts some doubt. That's why I asked what you think about observations of implications changing the content of socionics. As you can understand, I see socionics is a start point that we can develop or modify things according to our understanding of it. I don't think people who have extreme personality disorders such as psychopathy could be typed. They are operating on another dimension in my point of view. I think people's general state of mental health is very important, it can be more important than ITR.

    PS: I typed them as chairs
    I sort of agree with you on this, but not completely in that I think extreme personality disorders can warp personality type. For instance, I do think psychopaths can be typed, but the psychopathic version of that type is very different than the normal version of that type. So if you get a psychopathic SLI and a normal SLI then they will behave very differently and think very differently, but they will both be SLI. So Socionics somehow manages to fit two very different people into the same type and this is the problem with Socionics, you can fit a lot of different people into each of the 16 boxes.

    Let's just say without getting into too much detail that from personal experience I get along a lot better with the normal SLIs than the psychopathic SLIs for obvious reasons. Since it's been brought up, this is how believing Socionics blindly is dangerous because you don't want to get into a relationship with your dual if they happen to have an extreme personality disorder like psychopathy if you are not psychopathic yourself or have something that can get along with it. Since it will take someone of a compatible mindset, not necessarily the same to get along with them.

    Socionics only covers how we interact with other people and the environment around us, but it completely ignores other aspects that can affect our personality and how we interact with others like empathy, general intelligence, social intelligence, personality disorders and the list goes on really. These non-Socionoics factors also have an ITR of their own like certain personality disorders getting along better with other personality disorders. So when you are interacting with others, these non-Socionics factors should have equal if not greater value than Socionics type since Socionics type merely covers one aspect of a person's personality and how they relate to others.
    Last edited by Raver; 01-02-2019 at 05:41 AM.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  36. #116
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    But just because I said it doesn't mean I'm complaining!
    So you are uninvestedly trying to stir up shit

  37. #117
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Knowledge of Socionics can’t generally ever have that big of an impact on life, because life’s constraints get in the way

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    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.
    Last edited by sbbds; 01-02-2019 at 06:45 AM.

  38. #118
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    you can't choose who to love
    Nor can you choose your destiny, it can also be argued.

  39. #119
    of the sun Karatos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI- Se 9w8
    Posts
    1,611
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    So you are uninvestedly trying to stir up shit
    Christ. I shouldn't have to spell every little thing out just to have my viewpoint understood. It's simple - I'm not complaining about pain, I'm complaining about truth value. To wit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    I understand exactly what she means. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm complaining that Socionics doesn't reflect reality. Period.
    If I was uninvested in the truth value of Socionics, I wouldn't be making this thread or churning out textwalls.

    You are correct in saying that I'm stirring shit, though. If we don't stir shit sometimes, if dialogue and argument ceases, then we stop thinking.

    To paraphrase John Stewart Mill, if public discourse experiences a standstill, then arguments become stale, shallow husks of their former selves - everyone loses because those of every viewpoint eventually even forget their own reasons for holding their positions.
    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer

  40. #120
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Christ. I shouldn't have to spell every little thing out just to have my viewpoint understood. It's simple - I'm not complaining about pain, I'm complaining about truth value. To wit:


    If I was uninvested in the truth value of Socionics, I wouldn't be making this thread or churning out textwalls.

    You are correct in saying that I'm stirring shit, though. If we don't stir shit sometimes, if dialogue and argument ceases, then we stop thinking.

    To paraphrase John Stewart Mill, if public discourse experiences a standstill, then arguments become stale, shallow husks of their former selves - everyone loses because those of every viewpoint eventually even forget their own reasons for holding their positions.
    I’m sorry but you’re obviously casting pain in a negative light, and it generally is seen as negative anyway. That you don’t seem to want to acknlowdge this doesn’t change the reality. If you don’t want to be misconstrued, don’t be easily misconstruable.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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