Demanding a logical argument is not Ti seeking. Any reasonable person working within an axiomatic system like socionics would demand a logical argument since that's the only way we can discern good ideas from bad ones. Are all mathematicians Ti seeking?
I can be impatient in some circumstances. In general, I'm not. In this case, I'd argue I'm not since K4m has had months to respond to my comments (with respect to the ESE typing) and he has only done so a few times, all of which (I think) I've already addressed. I've also considered S ego in the past - ISTx in particular. It doesn't fit very well. With respect to my other criticisms of his work, he has had a number of weeks, I think. He doesn't have to respond, obviously, but I believe I've shown reasonable holes in his argument (like on the P Diddy one) and so to justify his typing, he must provide more reasoning that outshines my criticisms or dismiss my comments. I don't believe he has technically done either.You seem impatient > S ego.
FeSi
Are you just providing possibilities as to why he thinks I'm ESE? I'm not completely sure what you mean by this passage. Also, I'm not worried about his typing of me anymore. I've actually considered it so as to not fool myself and it just doesn't make sense. I want him to address my comments on his methods - I want him to provide a methodology.Or maybe he had a different view of the situation, I'm just speculating a "why" based on very few comments, the ones directed a k4m and not most of what you wrote. This doesn't reflect what I think.
Depends on the circumstance. To claim authority within a field (as K4m has done multiple times within both socionics and enneagram), one must provide reasonable justification for why they should be taken seriously. Academics do this with their academic credentials to begin with and later on with their institution affiliations, awards, paper citations, notable talks, etc. K4m does this by citing his 2500+ examples, which I will admit is impressive. However, within an axiomatic system, my question becomes how does he know all these people are correctly typed? He could just be using a completely ridiculous method yet be consistent with it, meaning that he has a lot of examples over many years of typing but none of them reflect model A or the aspects of socionics that are held canon. If this were the case, he could invent his own system if he likes, but then he can't call it socionics unless he doesn't assume socionics primarily means model A.In hope you stop asking. No one owns you anything, not even a logical argument.
I believe he has the moral duty to provide us an explanation given that he also has a significant ability to influence newer people. We need a reason to trust him since he's making all these claims, and he hasn't provided one. The bottom line is that he needs to explain why his methods are correct. If you can link me to a page where he does this comprehensively (or I guess it doesn't have to be comprehensive, but then he's just shooting himself in the foot), then I'll stop asking.
That all being said, if we're getting really pedantic about it, you're correct in that he doesn't owe me anything. I just think it's the right thing to do and absolutely necessary if he wants to go around spouting he's the 800 pound gorilla. Intellectual honesty and integrity is of utmost importance. The aggressive comments are just bait since he claims to be 8w7, who usually like battles. Eventually, I'll stop asking since it would be pointless to continue. But now that he's officially addressed someone, I believe it's possible for him to do another.
EDIT: I'll add that, in an ideal world, we would be able to independently verify each of his typings every time he does one. This isn't feasible since socionics isn't a peer reviewed science or something. Trust is therefore important.



Reply With Quote