Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 131

Thread: Thread split: is Socionics a religion?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post Thread split: is Socionics a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Augusta
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    Serious red flag, right there. She's trying to create a religion, not a genuine theory that is at heart forever tentative knowledge and never absolute.

    This is the root of all Sol-ism that is present in this community.

    No wonder that Socionics is so cult-like, because it has the tradition of trying to make it "completely proved and irrefutable". The end result is a kind of a religion or a cult that does not accept any criticisms, and therefore it cannot be improved.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    Everything written by Jung is a generalization of observations of the interaction of people and attempts to build on the basis of these observations models of the psyche. Jung himself wrote about it:

    (2) “... I must confine myself to stating the principles that I have abstracted from such separate observations. At the same time, it’s not a matter of deduction but priori, as it might seem, but of a deductive presentation of empirically acquired views. ” (p.6)

    It is a pity that other researchers of the human psyche did not go along the Jung trail, but began to circle roundabout roads. Therefore, until now, both in our country and in the West, each of the more or less large specialists uses a different typology, or even does without it. It looks no less strange, as if, after Mendeleev, chemists compiled their own tables of chemical elements.
    Both Jung and Augusta were Inductivists and Empiricists thorough and thorough, and also a kind of a Logical Positivist. And that's why Socionics is a hopelessly flawed system. We all now know that both Inductivism and Empiricism are completely and utterly wrong and flawed.

    It's kind of ironic that the criticisms against the criticism directed towards Socionics is usually something like "Empiricism" and "Logical Positivism", when Socionics is rooted in a kind of Empiricism and Logical Positivism.

  3. #3
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    We all now know that both Inductivism and Empiricism are completely and utterly wrong and flawed.
    This is purely your opinion. I hope you realize that some day. It's a pity that you spend very little time criticising your own position. Your dismissal of any viewpoint that is different than your own is honestly comical.

    Also, this is not an attack on your character, but what kind of work do you do? What is your expertise, and what kind of break through did you make to speak with an air of superiority on this subject? I'm curious because you have yet to prove that what you are saying is of any use. And please try to be objective and not attribute the achievements of science or another person to support your own views because I'm not buying any of it. Your association to science is suspect.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    This is purely your opinion. I hope you realize that some day. It's a pity that you spend very little time criticising your own position. Your dismissal of any viewpoint that is different than your own is honestly comical.

    Also, this is not an attack on your character, but what kind of work do you do? What is your expertise, and what kind of break through did you make to speak with an air of superiority on this subject? I'm curious because you have yet to prove that what you are saying is of any use. And please try to be objective and not attribute the achievements of science or another person to support your own views because I'm not buying any of it. Your association to science is suspect.
    These are all words of Jung and Augusta. Are you honestly saying that there's anything rational about "generalizing empirical observations", and then simply leaving at that, as if the only logical conclusion to that is to expect the current observation to stay the same in the future? That can't be rational, because the future is different from the past.

    You try to appeal to authority, but you do very little thinking of your own.

  5. #5
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    These are all words of Jung and Augusta. Are you honestly saying that there's anything rational about "generalizing empirical observations", and then simply leaving at that, as if the only logical conclusion to that is to expect the current observation to stay the same in the future? That can't be rational, because the future is different from the past.

    You try to appeal to authority, but you do very little thinking of your own.
    I don't care about what they said. I criticised your position on Inductivism and Empiricism. Answer the questions.

  6. #6
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,600
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    dying rofl

  7. #7
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,943
    Mentioned
    276 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Both Jung and Augusta were Inductivists and Empiricists thorough and thorough, and also a kind of a Logical Positivist. And that's why Socionics is a hopelessly flawed system. We all now know that both Inductivism and Empiricism are completely and utterly wrong and flawed.

    It's kind of ironic that the criticisms against the criticism directed towards Socionics is usually something like "Empiricism" and "Logical Positivism", when Socionics is rooted in a kind of Empiricism and Logical Positivism.
    I...I don't even know how you could possibly think this. It's just flat-out wrong. Augusta and Jung employed empirical observation but they were both very much open to non-empirical ways of thinking.

    What's more, Jung directly criticizes positivism in his writings:

    "And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge."

    Now, cease derailing the thread, troll.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    I don't care about what they said. I criticised your position on Inductivism and Empiricism. Answer the questions.
    My "position" is expecting previous observation to repeat into the future is not rational. Do I need to be a scientist or have specialized knowledge to understand this? No, and neither does anyone.

    [QUOTE=thehotelambush;1319715]I...I don't even know how you could possibly think this. It's just flat-out wrong. Augusta and Jung employed empirical observation but they were both very much open to non-empirical ways of thinking.

    What's more, Jung directly criticizes positivism in his writings:

    "And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge."]

    That's why I said it was ironic, since it's Logical Positivism in a way.

    I also remember you saying that Socionics is based on empirical observations, which is again ironic.

    Socionics is nothing more than something based on observations, and then expecting that observation to stay the same and continue into the future. It's Inductivism and Empiricism.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Now, cease derailing the thread, troll.
    Ok, cultist.
    Last edited by Singu; 01-28-2019 at 08:48 PM.

  9. #9
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    My "position" is expecting previous observation to repeat into the future is not rational.
    Really? So expecting the sun to rise tomorrow is not rational? Stop making dumb general statements that you can't defend.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    Really? So expecting the sun to rise tomorrow is not rational? Stop making dumb general statements that you can't defend.
    Are you claiming that the future is the same as the past?

  11. #11
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Are you claiming that the future is the same as the past?
    What makes the past different than the future?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    What makes the past different than the future?
    Do you not age, change your beliefs, act differently in different situations and circumstances, be influenced by the environment, etc?

    Anyway, the point isn't whether the future will either stay the same or be different, we can't really know what will happen in the future, unless we make certain assumptions about the future. But it's not really adequate to say that the future will be different because we say that it will, or the future will be the same as the past, because it has always been that way.

    But it can be explained. For instance, we might ask the question, "Why do we age?", and that can be answered biologically, like cellular degradation or something like that. We can't "inductively" extrapolate and say that the average life expectancy of a person is 60 because it has been 60 in the past, because the length is increasing over time. And we might ask, "Why do people change their beliefs?", and we might answer because they've been influenced by their environment, or they've spontaneously changed their minds cognitively, or something like that. And so on and so forth.

  13. #13
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Do you not age, change your beliefs, act differently in different situations and circumstances, be influenced by the environment, etc?

    Anyway, the point isn't whether the future will either stay the same or be different, we can't really know what will happen in the future, unless we make certain assumptions about the future. But it's not really adequate to say that the future will be different because we say that it will, or the future will be the same as the past, because it has always been that way.

    But it can be explained. For instance, we might ask the question, "Why do we age?", and that can be answered biologically, like cellular degradation or something like that. We can't "inductively" extrapolate and say that the average life expectancy of a person is 60 because it has been 60 in the past, because the length is increasing over time. And we might ask, "Why do people change their beliefs?", and we might answer because they've been influenced by their environment, or they've spontaneously changed their minds cognitively, or something like that. And so on and so forth.
    I can safely say you will never live beyond 500 years. No one has ever lived that long or anywhere close. Isn't that a rational prediction?

    Do you live your life expecting to live indefinitely?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    I can safely say you will never live beyond 500 years. No one has ever lived that long or anywhere close. Isn't that a rational prediction?

    Do you live your life expecting to live indefinitely?
    It would be rational according to the current situation. But the situation may change, there may be a medical breakthrough that would allow a person to live that long.

  15. #15
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It would be rational according to the current situation. But the situation may change, there may be a medical breakthrough that would allow a person to live that long.
    But you said earlier that expecting previous observation to repeat into the future is not rational. Did you change your mind?

  16. #16

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    But you said earlier that expecting previous observation to repeat into the future is not rational. Did you change your mind?
    If you try to derive things from the past, then the only logical conclusion that you can arrive from that is to expect things to stay the same as the past in the future.

    If you say that the future will be different from the past, then that will be a conjecture that is not based on anything from the past. It may be a continuation of the past, but the conjecture was not derived from anything from the past. It's a completely new conjecture that has never existed before.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    My "position" is expecting previous observation to repeat into the future is not rational.
    Lol, in the examples given (the sun will rise tomorrow, you will not live 500 years), it's rational. To expect the opposite is way less likely so it's irrational. You would not even be able to exist if you truly tried to get rid of inductive thinking by assuming that the world is completely unpredictably random.

  18. #18
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    If you try to derive things from the past, then the only logical conclusion that you can arrive from that is to expect things to stay the same as the past in the future.
    How is this a logical conclusion? You are not making any sense. I came up with a new prediction (you can’t live for 500 years) because I have observed people living up to 100 years or so at max. In reality I have only lived for 30 years and you still agreed that my statement is rational. There is no limit to the amount of rational statements that can be derived from that statement. That is induction in a nutshell.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    How is this a logical conclusion? You are not making any sense. I came up with a new prediction (you can’t live for 500 years) because I have observed people living up to 100 years or so at max. In reality I have only lived for 30 years and you still agreed that my statement is rational. There is no limit to the amount of rational statements that can be derived from that statement. That is induction in a nutshell.
    I say it's possible for people to live up to 500 years. No one has ever lived for 500 years, so that can't be inductively deduced from past observations. It's a completely new conjecture that doesn't exist from past observations.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Lol, in the examples given (the sun will rise tomorrow, you will not live 500 years), it's rational. To expect the opposite is way less likely so it's irrational. You would not even be able to exist if you truly tried to get rid of inductive thinking by assuming that the world is completely unpredictably random.
    Saying there could be a medical breakthrough that would allow people to live up to 500 years is something that doesn't exist from past observations. You can't predict what kind of new theories there would be, because if we could, then we would have those theories now. So those things aren't predictable even in principle.

  21. #21
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I say it's possible for people to live up to 500 years. No one has ever lived for 500 years, so that can't be inductively deduced from past observations. It's a completely new conjecture that doesn't exist from past observations.
    Which means your prediction is irrational and mine isn't. Not that I'm surprised.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    Which means your prediction is irrational and mine isn't. Not that I'm surprised.
    Every time there's a new record of someone living longer than the previous record holder, you'd be proven wrong. It's not rational at all.

  23. #23
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Every time there's a new record of someone living longer than the previous record holder, you'd be proven wrong. It's not rational at all.
    Lol, you are funny. I saw your post before you edited it btw. It says a lot about you, like how you haven't really thought about this deeply and you just come up with random shit to support your argument.

    The rate of increase in life expectancy if there is any to begin with, is so small that current humans will not experience it. You can't call that irrational.

    Honestly, this is a boring discussion that is going nowhere. Every time I try to understand your views you prove to me how I'm just overestimating your knowledge and willingness to learn or find the truth.

    I'm reading your mentor's book by the way. Karl Popper. This guy is so retarded. I have no idea how he became famous. Must be the family connections.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    Lol, you are funny. I saw your post before you edited it btw. It says a lot about you, like how you haven't really thought about this deeply and you just come up with random shit to support your argument.
    I hope you realize that the examples are identical, I just made it easier for you to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    I'm reading your mentor's book by the way. Karl Popper. This guy is so retarded. I have no idea how he became famous. Must be the family connections.
    ...

    You can only speak for yourself.

    You sound retarded as hell, and it was tiring dumbing down the argument for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

    The start of a Socionics cult.

  25. #25
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm going to pass my final judgement on his work when I'm done with the book. You are no longer needed.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "This guy is so retarded. I have no idea how he became famous. Must be the family connections."

    Lol.

    It's funny watching you constantly self-destruct.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Augustinavichiute
    The goal of our work is to try to penetrate into the models of the psyche projected by Jung, to show which positions and categories can be considered completely proved and irrefutable.
    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

    The start of a Socionics cult.

  27. #27
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    "This guy is so retarded. I have no idea how he became famous. Must be the family connections."

    Lol.

    It's funny watching you constantly self-destruct.
    I was semi serious.

    You convinced me to read his book. Take the W and chill.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Saying there could be a medical breakthrough that would allow people to live up to 500 years is something that doesn't exist from past observations. You can't predict what kind of new theories there would be, because if we could, then we would have those theories now. So those things aren't predictable even in principle.
    You don't understand that it's rational to go with the most likely option.

    You instead want to keep things open, but that's not rational, even in science.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I hope you realize that the examples are identical, I just made it easier for you to understand.



    ...

    You can only speak for yourself.

    You sound retarded as hell, and it was tiring dumbing down the argument for you.
    Please prove this claim of yours that you dumbed down the arguments. What is your most complex, not-at-all-dumbed down argument? Come show us.



    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    Lol, you are funny. I saw your post before you edited it btw. It says a lot about you, like how you haven't really thought about this deeply and you just come up with random shit to support your argument.

    The rate of increase in life expectancy if there is any to begin with, is so small that current humans will not experience it. You can't call that irrational.

    Honestly, this is a boring discussion that is going nowhere. Every time I try to understand your views you prove to me how I'm just overestimating your knowledge and willingness to learn or find the truth.

    I'm reading your mentor's book by the way. Karl Popper. This guy is so retarded. I have no idea how he became famous. Must be the family connections.
    What do you dislike about Popper's book?

    As for the bolded... yeah.

  30. #30
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,199
    Mentioned
    296 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Lol, in the examples given (the sun will rise tomorrow, you will not live 500 years), it's rational. To expect the opposite is way less likely so it's irrational. You would not even be able to exist if you truly tried to get rid of inductive thinking by assuming that the world is completely unpredictably random.
    If we don't live in a cause and effect universe, it is meaningless to talk of what is most likely to happen based on the past. Perhaps it is even meaningless when it is impossible to ultimately tell if we live in a cause and effect universe.

  31. #31
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The whole point of investigating any phenomenon at all is to find the lowest common denominator of principles for it that we can count on, to apply to other uses. Uses that can, you know, improve people's quality of lives. Among other things.
    The purpose of acknowledging the world's uncertainty only exists to bring us closer to the next best thing to certainty, so you can use the world's principles to your own betterment. Scavenging nature for infinitely comparmentalized factoids without seeking any correlation is hoarding data, not uncovering knowledge.
    Reality is not navigable when you have to treat every tiny instance of everything as its own self-contained box with its own unpredictable rules and no operable relation to the world outside of it.



    Power is the point of life, people, not this idolized form of "truth" you pursue for its own sake. Correct knowledge is a pathway to power. It's all about knowing the battlefield so you can control the battlefield.
    I know it's a cute meme to bash pragmatism and positivism, but if there's anything worse, it's this attitude of infinite skepticism that just leaves everyone mentally paralyzed and keeps society from decisively acting upon anything. Why bother with the facts if the quest for the facts is just going to cripple you anyway? Facts are only worth the outcomes they inform.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

  32. #32
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Who cares if she's trying to create a religion. There are enough people on these forums who are critical of others' opinions and openminded to where that'll never happen. Most members here are just interested in typology, not seeking redemption for their sins against their type or searching for some holy virtues. One person who is unwilling to change their opinion on types isn't enough evidence. Provide more if you can.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Every time there's a new record of someone living longer than the previous record holder, you'd be proven wrong. It's not rational at all.
    You are making the assumption, that there will always be a new record of someone living longer... wait, are you using inductive thinking.


    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    If we don't live in a cause and effect universe, it is meaningless to talk of what is most likely to happen based on the past. Perhaps it is even meaningless when it is impossible to ultimately tell if we live in a cause and effect universe.
    If.......................

    Please, drop dead, now. If you are this unsure about this, you literally can't exist in this world.

  34. #34
    Landlord of The Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,199
    Mentioned
    296 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    If.......................

    Please, drop dead, now. If you are this unsure about this, you literally can't exist in this world.
    For practical purposes, I am not unsure and I agree with you. Otherwise, you both have a point. It is wrong to say from experience that something is "completely proved and irrefutable."

  35. #35
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,658
    Mentioned
    860 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Until you reach Mafia and tax exempt status like Scientology you are just an obscure theory that most people will never hear of in their lifetime, not a religion. MBTI is different of course since it is everywhere. They just need to get that tax exemption and mafia status by bullying believers and non believers alike. Hmm, nvm they just need tax exemption.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  36. #36
    Putting the fun in funeral prowthin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    PNW
    TIM
    H-ILI-Ni 5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Until you reach Mafia and tax exempt status like Scientology you are just an obscure theory that most people will never hear of in their lifetime, not a religion. MBTI is different of course since it is everywhere. They just need to get that tax exemption and mafia status by bullying believers and non believers alike. Hmm, nvm they just need tax exemption.
    I imagine that if MBTI had a cult, they would have a fake basic group and then intuitives would be invited to secret meetings to get to the nitty gritty. They wouldn't think s*nsor scum deserve to really know the truth like perfect, angelic intuitives. They would also crusade against Socionics because it pairs them with icky s*nsors (ew) and takes too much time to read.
    Last edited by prowthin; 02-01-2019 at 06:57 PM.
    H-ILI-Ni - 5w4 4w5 9w1 sx/sp - Eternal Anglo - Agnostic - Rightist Populist - Zoomer

    Ear byž egle eorla gehwylcun,
    šonne fęstlice flęsc onginnež,
    hraw colian, hrusan ceosan
    blac to gebeddan; bleda gedreosaž,
    wynna gewitaž, wera geswicaž.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    You don't understand that it's rational to go with the most likely option.

    You instead want to keep things open, but that's not rational, even in science.
    I'm saying that you go with the best available theory that has survived all criticisms and experimental testings that has yet to have any alternative theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    You are making the assumption, that there will always be a new record of someone living longer... wait, are you using inductive thinking.
    Inductive reasoning is reasoning based on past observations.

    "People may live up to 500 years" is not based on any observations of the past, because people have never lived that long. Instead, it's based on a theory (e.g. "if it's not forbidden by the laws of nature, then it's not impossible"). And theories are not based on any past observations. Theories are based on previous theories, and if we keep going back we'll eventually arrive at "background knowledge" kind of theories that have been generated by our brain, which is again not "based on" anything. They're just assumptions that we make about the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Power is the point of life, people, not this idolized form of "truth" you pursue for its own sake. Correct knowledge is a pathway to power. It's all about knowing the battlefield so you can control the battlefield.
    This is just cute postmodernism, to say that the point of all is to have power, and it's all just a matter of people having power over this or that, and there's no such thing as objective truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I know it's a cute meme to bash pragmatism and positivism, but if there's anything worse, it's this attitude of infinite skepticism that just leaves everyone mentally paralyzed and keeps society from decisively acting upon anything. Why bother with the facts if the quest for the facts is just going to cripple you anyway? Facts are only worth the outcomes they inform.
    People often mistake Popperian epistemology, Fallibilism and Critical Rationalism as mere "skepticism" or even "nihilism". But actually, it's the complete opposite. Things can only be improved if we admit the possibility that they're wrong. So if we admit that everything is wrong and "We're all alike in our infinite ignorance" as Popper put it, then they can be continuously improved.

    It's the kind of attitude of trying to "prove" something and make it "irrefutable" as Augusta was trying to do, that is anti-knowledge, anti-growth and anti-progress. Because if something becomes irrefutable, then it is final and it can no longer be improved. And that may seem like heaven at first, but it's actually hell.
    Last edited by Singu; 02-03-2019 at 02:06 AM.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarDraft View Post
    Who cares if she's trying to create a religion. There are enough people on these forums who are critical of others' opinions and openminded to where that'll never happen. Most members here are just interested in typology, not seeking redemption for their sins against their type or searching for some holy virtues. One person who is unwilling to change their opinion on types isn't enough evidence. Provide more if you can.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Until you reach Mafia and tax exempt status like Scientology you are just an obscure theory that most people will never hear of in their lifetime, not a religion. MBTI is different of course since it is everywhere. They just need to get that tax exemption and mafia status by bullying believers and non believers alike. Hmm, nvm they just need tax exemption.
    I think it explains the sort of cult-like attitude that Socionics communities tend to have. People simply do not want to have Socionics be criticized, because they want to make it "irrefutable". And hence, not a single improvement or revision has been made in Socionics since its inception.

    People may "add" things as people like Gulenko has done, as in adding more things in order to justify its initial premise.

  39. #39
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think it explains the sort of cult-like attitude that Socionics communities tend to have. People simply do not want to have Socionics be criticized, because they want to make it "irrefutable". And hence, not a single improvement or revision has been made in Socionics since its inception.

    People may "add" things as people like Gulenko has done, as in adding more things in order to justify its initial premise.
    Meh. Socionics is inherently unfalsifiable and collective changes are difficult because people aren't in it for the science. So, the best we can do is personal modifications to our ideas, rejecting ideas that don't make sense or yield the system useless. Anything more is blatant idealism. Even if the communities aren't able to type people conclusively, it can note behavioural and cognitive traits of an individual and help them be more introspective. Honestly, that's what matters.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  40. #40

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarDraft View Post
    Meh. Socionics is inherently unfalsifiable and collective changes are difficult because people aren't in it for the science. So, the best we can do is personal modifications to our ideas, rejecting ideas that don't make sense or yield the system useless. Anything more is blatant idealism. Even if the communities aren't able to type people conclusively, it can note behavioural and cognitive traits of an individual and help them be more introspective. Honestly, that's what matters.
    Well that's just a yet another amazing evasion of criticism against Socionics.

Page 1 of 4 1234 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
  •