Socionics in the Wild

[ouronis]

Sometimes I see or hear something that appears to be talking about the same things Socionics talks about without being aware of the theory.

For example, I've recently come across this guy that thinks you basically make shit up all the time and that you shouldn't trick yourself into thinking there's an inner state/reality in people. He says "People tear up relationships on similarly thin grounds. Suppose, for example, we look inside ourselves for the love I feel I ought to be feeling for my partner. But now I'm looking for it, where is it? Is it there at all? Or maybe it's not enough or maybe it's too much. You can get to a pathological state with this line of thinking. And that comes from the misconception that there's a true inner reality within me and my reality may not be as it should be. Indeed, the whole idea of the authentic feeling is dangerous because it presupposes there's a true feeling, and some fake ones, and the true ones are really deep inside me....We should be skeptical about those [worrying about whether those] feelings [are real]."

I think collecting these intuitions is a good way to get some insight on what may be going on behind the scenes of the claims of Socionics without having to refer to proclamations passed down from experts (especially with regard to essences vs contingencies [such as word choice]).

[Adam Strange]

This is SOOO much like Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Bohr was probably ILE. Ne all over the place, and an objective reality (or feelings, in the case of your friend) doesn't exist outside the observer.

[Sol]

read the theory. type people. watch how the theory works

instead of hoping to get a use from collecting of random intuitions

[Adam Strange]

read the theory. type people. watch how the theory works

instead of hoping to get a use from collecting of random intuitions

I'd agree with this, except Bohr's interpretation seems to be correct. So "Ne all over the place" can be useful.

[Sanguine Miasma]

If Bohr was completely subjective it points towards subjective intuition which is Ni. Bohr was contrary to Einstein which seems to be quite correct understanding of their interpersonal relation.

ILI runs by quantum logic. ILE proposes that there might be energy levels but no dice. So in essence ILI is the actuary expert and everything is probability to them. When you minimize the bad odds you'll get pretty far sighted and insured view of your future.