So you'd be OK with someone getting up close and personal with you? Have you been in many fistfights?Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
Just because you disagree with a person doesn't mean that you can't learn from them.
So you'd be OK with someone getting up close and personal with you? Have you been in many fistfights?
Just because you disagree with a person doesn't mean that you can't learn from them.
Socionics is just a system of categorization, it's nothing new. You have that in mainstream psychology like the DSM.
But what even mainstream psychology tend to ignore is finding the abstract laws and rules that must govern our mind and our psychology, and what must make them possible to come into existence. Perhaps our psychology will be revealed as if like a programming source code in a computer software. Nobody would deny that the codes in a computer program are real or something, even though they're completely based on abstract laws of logic and abstract laws of mathematics... which make something physically happen in the real world.
So Socionics doesn't have anything beyond categorizations of observations. It's actually not that interesting and it's not at all revolutionary.
Everybody settle down. Can't you see that OP is just trying to turn us against each other?
I only see one solution here: Burn the non-conformer, blood for the Blood God.
aha... really? 'cause by the bold sentences you're nothing like that.. at least on here.
Yea thats why u got 7 warnings and i got 2
I got 0, suck my D
You have a lot of self restraint letting someone burn your mom like that. I commend you on taking the high road.
“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
Socionics is no more or less 'real' than anything else.
Beautiful sky was factually correct in (what I assume to be) her assessment of my mother. My mother was smart and we related on a Te-level, but she had some personal problems unrelated to type, although it is hard for me to viscerally separate that out, since it was embedded before I had the tools to understand what was happening.You have a lot of self restraint letting someone burn your mom like that. I commend you on taking the high road.
I didn't have to exercise any restrain whatsoever, since I didn't feel offended in the slightest by her assessment.
I'm more concerned with maintaining civil discourse with freedom of expression that stops only at the other person's nose.
The thing I said about modes of criticism is important, because it has consequences for individuals and for society. If you discriminate by behavior, then that behavior can be changed, but if you discriminate by race, color, or assigned traits that can't be changed, then you create a person who will never fit into the system because they can't affect your trait assignments, and if they can't fit in, then they have no reason to be involved in that system or maintain it.
Societies which discriminate based on assigned traits rather than changeable behavior are going to exclude a lot of talented individuals, and are going to lose the race of history. Even aside from being crappy and dangerous places to live, since where does the assignment of bad traits stop? "First they came for the socialists..."
Anyone with knowledge of the history and philosophy of psychology knows that most of Socionics has been refuted by real professionals. It does not fit in with what we know about brain. I mean, do you really think guys like Piaget and Skinner didn't study things like this. Lol. They just somehow missed it. The entire subject can easily be waved away with William James's psychology fallacy. As James said, when there are two men in a room there are really six. Each man as he sees himself, each man as seen by other and each man as he really is. Socionics claims all 6 points of reference.
"And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."
It wasn't an assessment, it was a reaction. She was rebuking you but I guess you missed that.
“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
My usual stance is: nothing is real.
Unless:
you take this quantum mechanistic approach.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Something is real if it can be consistently experienced by following certain steps. What is this real of which you speak?
Just because something doesn't meet your criteria for scientific truth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
“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
Its quadratics Bitch.My usual stance is: nothing is real.
Unless:
you take this quantum mechanistic approach.
Coming to this thread, my thoughts keep going to unicorns.
Unicorns are real in the sense people think of them, give them shape as dust gathering decorations no one needs. That's why I keep coming on this forum, I wonder what shape people's unicorn take.
How can people not make basic observations like
He's emotional and She's super calm
He's diligently works at his goals for a long time; she can't keep a job and gets into new ventures all the time
He has to go out and get attention; She would rather not have attention
He is well dressed; she is unkempt
She seeks status; He doesn't care for status
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
At this point for me socionics is just one more point of synthesis. So many systems out there...I've been casually reading up on alchemy and Gnosticism these days.
Socionics is real though, real enough.
I'm the kind of guy that accepts the abstract as the same thing as non-abstract, they just lie on a spectrum, from real to not real. Much like the electro magnetic spectrum has visible light energy and non visible light energy. I've come full circle again coming out of this winter season, in the sense that I think its okay to point back to materialism and that all things eventually come back to the material, and then travel back outwards into the abstract. It makes no sense if you are a reductionist thinker, though. The clockwork unfolding of the Universe conceptualizations is a trick of our own failings as a species. Reductionism will evolve eventually as it has come up against places it cannot go. Neo-reductionism.
Its a bit of denial showing, yup. People have always been in denial about socionics and its because being categorized is trouble-some for the ego complex. I am this.... causes stress and confusion.
INTj/ISTj af
*Actual photo of my unicorn and me.
“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
I know right lmao. Dense as hell
Are you mocking me or just trying to be funny?
*Actual photo of my unicorn and me.
I wasn't mocking you.
I wasn't trying to be funny either. (actual pic comment was for fun though)
The quote in the image came to mind when I read your post so I searched the pale horse quote + unicorn and that was the result.
“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
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” Dumbledore
Okay, I'm not always sure what to make of such things, so that helps when people explains. Thanks.
How can people not make basic observations like
He's both emotional and super calm at the same time, just at different times.
It's wrong to assume that just because you observed something at a certain point, it must be true at all times.
A person can be both super emotional and super calm, depending on circumstances. Those are mere possibilities.
The fact is that the people's ability to adapt to different environments, and the fact that people have the ability to self-learn and change themselves is what makes psychology hell of a lot more complicated than merely making some simplistic categorizations of observations.
Imagine that there was a computer program that could change and rewrite itself, and it keeps adapting to changing environments. How the heck would you categorize that as?
If there was such a program, then you'd think, "This program is out of control! I can't control it!". Well that's exactly what a human being is, you can't control it because it wants to keep changing itself and it wants to be free. It wants to seek new and unknown things.
My takeaway from the OP (and most others with a similar premise) is that he/she/it doesn't know his/her/its own type, is 3 weeks old garbage juice at typing others, and therefore discredits an entire system due to his/her/its incompetence and/or lack of experience.
Has Socionics been proven “empirically?” Nope, but the existence of personality and personality traits that represent a pattern of reasoning, sentiments, socialization, and behaviors consistently demonstrated over time that strongly prompts one's assumptions, self-perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes have well been studied and verified (i.e., Big 5 Model, DSM/abnormal/clinical psychology, etc...), and that’s a good fucking start in the right direction. I mean, as far back as Galen (the Four Temperaments) and Hippocrates (Four Humours), people have been trying to stuff each other into categorical bins for thousands of years because a fair amount of us have fucking eyes capable of simple observation and brains inclined towards “neat” classifications (usually based on gender, phenotype, class, etc...) that help us navigate each other and the world more effectively. Without a doubt, personality and personality traits are real--personality types are just a logical extension of this.
Does Socionics, like many other personality typology systems, traffic in “oversimplified” categories? Yes, because humans are irritatingly complicated, too much to do anything but categorize them “big tent” style, as humans are wont to do; it's frustrating when people fall outside of these categories but that doesn’t mean that the categories are no longer useful, and particularly when we can decide upon them objectively, with as much consensus as possible. I wish folks *ahem* particularly Ti valuers *ahem* would understand that the system doesn’t have to be pitch perfect, in order for it to still work with a moderate to high amount of accuracy. Idealistically, the goal should be to make the system encompass everyone/all manner of diversity, but failing to do so does not invalidate the entire thing. Moreover, that’s why we can’t give up–it really grinds my gears when, because of complexity, some want to throw the baby out with the bath water, as opposed to become more rigorous in the quest for answers to overarching patterns and connections we know exist--forgoing this is the death of progress and innovation.
What I do know for a fact is that I'm learned af with advanced degrees [centered around human behavior] from the best institutions (read: I'm no fool) and have lived in 18 countries & traveled to 82; interacted with hundreds of mofos per year[x15]; across Finance, Medicine, Academia (humanities, social sciences, etc...), NPOs and HR departments worldwide; (read: I been around) and for the most part, Jung and works based on his work (MBTI, Socionics, etc...) closely match up with my own research and experience of people and our differences, which I have used exhaustively to "make the world better." Therefore, consider me unfazed and unbothered by the opinions of those who, at the end of the day, in all likelihood don’t possess the wherewithal to give one.
tldr: Socionics ain't real, in that it isn't empirically backed, but it ain't off the mark from systems that are empirically backed, and becoming more so, with more time and more science.
If you observe people long enough you will have that general sense.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
You still don't know what he's going to do next, how he's going to be affected by unknown environments, what kind of experiences he will have in the future, or even how he might suddenly randomly think up of a new thing.
How often do you see people changing their minds? How often do you see people saying the exact opposite of what he was just saying before?
You might say that yes, some people are very emotional, and some people are less so. But that says little about what kind of opinions that he's likely to have.
The position that socionics has roots in brain functions is silly. The concepts work much better if one considers socionics a branch of game theory, business arts and maybe linguistics.
On a side note, I find the spellchecker of the forum flagging socionics funny.
Theoretically, yes. But in actuality, Socionics is really that other person in the room who sees you through their own subjectivity and claims it's objective. It is like being in a room with a dozen people, with each of them seeing you in a different way and each claiming their perspective is the correct one.
I think members are more likely to kill each other while on the front lines of the Type Wars. Only 16 winners allowed.
Everyone join us in Etar’s Thread where we can show you how LSE search for concrete facts then tell me if Socionics isn’t real
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It would also depend on what kind of a theory he has.
If say, a person from the future with a very advanced theory of psychology viewed a person, then his view of the person will be more or less be objective.
Just as if someone with the correct theory of physics viewed an object, then he will accurately surmise how that object will behave at any given moment. But if he had the wrong theory of physics, then his knowledge will be subjective and wrong.
Currently, the theoretical status of psychology is pretty abysmal, because nobody had quite came up with a promising theory of psychology yet. We have yet to find any universal laws of psychology.
"Personality" is amorphic by nature, thus why it is possible to have many personality theories with a great degree of variance but of seemingly equal accuracy. I don't give a damn for empirical evidence when it comes to these sorts of things as it clearly lies outside the epistemological scope of the senses. Regardless of their exact factual nature Socionics, Enneagram, MBTI, etc. remain helpful rubrics for observing human nature.
Wow complicated words you must be smart
How can socionics be real when our eyes arent real
My actual laptop background
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.n...letterbox=true
It has been awhile since I had a reason to post this very catchy tune. <3
“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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
