What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

[jason_m]

Years ago, I was at a George Carlin show with a few friends. He was great and I laughed the whole way through the show. Then someone flashed a camera in his face. His response: "You flash that camera again and I'm going to stab you in the f**king neck." In socionics, this can only be classified as 'Se' - or at best, 'weak Fi/Fe.' Assume that this is not one instance, but an example of a regular, repeated pattern of behaviour (either way, logically, it doesn't really matter). In socionics, this is just someone 'exhibting Se' or 'weak ethical' functions', and whether the behaviour is healthy or dark is not relevant. There can even be something desirable about this, such that certain types are allowed to exhibit or pursue it. And that is one thing that bothers me about the theory. The dark triad of personality traits exists and I believe it has been proven empirically. Model A should not just sweep these traits under the rug, and simply assume that all behaviour is relative and therefore can be explained away. I also do not like that it is sometimes assumed in the theory that people who are moral in some way lack logical thinking. I find that there is ironically a basic lack of critical thinking on the part of the theory and the people who promote this assumption, as it is clearly not accurate. Anyway, I just think that there is something lacking in it, such that people shouldn't be rewarded for exhibiting dark traits such as cheating someone, or criminal behaviour, or stabbing someone in the back. Am I missing the boat here? Can someone please explain?

[jason_m]

I guess what I'm saying is:

- If a person is genuinely logical in nature, they should be acknowledged as logical in the theory.
- If a person is logical in nature, they should be acknowledged as logical for the right reasons.
- If a person is evil in nature, the theory should identify their true nature.
- If a person is not logical, they should not be identified as logical.
- And if a person is good, they should be acknowledged as good (and for the right reasons).

And so on with every trait...

[Sol]

"You flash that camera again and I'm going to stab you in the f**king neck."
In socionics, this can only be classified as 'Se'

physical violence - Se, which all types have but some show more

> and whether the behaviour is healthy or dark is not relevant

the context - other factors besides types which may influence on the behavior - is important as changes possibilities what type may be there

so the wrong is how you understand what Socionics is

[Chakram]

You just need to go back to the root of Socionics; it is a system that attempts to explain how people judge and perceive the world aka information metabolism.

It is not a set of behaviors, and there are many things more important regarding how a person actually acts than Socionics. Socionics is not all encompassing and it never will be, it is just a piece of the puzzle, if even that.

[Myst]

Years ago, I was at a George Carlin show with a few friends. He was great and I laughed the whole way through the show. Then someone flashed a camera in his face. His response: "You flash that camera again and I'm going to stab you in the f**king neck." In socionics, this can only be classified as 'Se' - or at best, 'weak Fi/Fe.' Assume that this is not one instance, but an example of a regular, repeated pattern of behaviour (either way, logically, it doesn't really matter). In socionics, this is just someone 'exhibting Se' or 'weak ethical' functions', and whether the behaviour is healthy or dark is not relevant. There can even be something desirable about this, such that certain types are allowed to exhibit or pursue it. And that is one thing that bothers me about the theory. The dark triad of personality traits exists and I believe it has been proven empirically. Model A should not just sweep these traits under the rug, and simply assume that all behaviour is relative and therefore can be explained away. I also do not like that it is sometimes assumed in the theory that people who are moral in some way lack logical thinking. I find that there is ironically a basic lack of critical thinking on the part of the theory and the people who promote this assumption, as it is clearly not accurate. Anyway, I just think that there is something lacking in it, such that people shouldn't be rewarded for exhibiting dark traits such as cheating someone, or criminal behaviour, or stabbing someone in the back. Am I missing the boat here? Can someone please explain?

Model A is just an incredibly general model of all sorts of stuff that it tries to include (too much stuff yep). The model isn't correct as it is, but there is no such thing as "rewarding the dark traits" in it. I get your issue in a sense though: yeah the model doesn't deal with basic psychological ideas like what's healthy or not healthy behaviour, sure, but you can too easily replace such basic ideas and even commonsense knowledge of people too much with bullshit reasoning that can be generated at will from the overly general model where *literally* anything can be true

Note: ofc you could try and avoid the latter issue ("anything can be true") by proper operationalising but while you may be able to do that for a psychological experiment to check if there are actually some significant enough (even if weak) correlations (unproven atm), you cannot correctly operationalise the model for use in concrete situations.

[ouronis]

Really, there should be no normative content whatsoever, so even calling all evil things weak ethical should not be done.

You are insisting normative elements should be taken into account by a theory that doesn't try to make normative claims. To me, that would only muddy the waters and worsen the current situation.

[jason_m]

I should give more background as to why I made the above post.

This thread was actually inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YT-MtAvbR8

I'm sorry, read between the lines here. What is this video (and therefore the MBTI) actually saying? It is implying that people who give to charities have a nice heart, but they don't have strong enough logic to see that what they are doing isn't rational. I.e., they are really good people at heart, but they are logically inept. And what is it implying about thinking types? It is saying that they are logically smart, but in some way actually like 'Scrooge' about money, giving to others, etc. I find this message idiotic. Even the ideas that the 'ENTP' was using as criticism against giving to charities were dumb. This seems to be the whole message about thinking and feeling in the MBTI. And then I realized if this applies to the MBTI, it probably applies to socionics as well. And if it applies to both, it is relevant to the people of this forum. Then there are therefore dark undertones to certain types and how they should act. I am sorry, I am good enough critical thinker to not buy into at least this notion of both theories. I honestly hope you would agree...

[jason_m]

Really, there should be no normative content whatsoever, so even calling all evil things weak ethical should not be done.

You are insisting normative elements should be taken into account by a theory that doesn't try to make normative claims. To me, that would only muddy the waters and worsen the current situation.

I don't buy this. Read the my latest post in the thread.

[ouronis]

I don't buy this. Read the my latest post in the thread.

I'm not sure exactly which angle to focus on to resolve your issue, but a question: is it socionics that explains away behavior as relative or its practioners? Another way to look at it might be that socionics doesn't have the power to explain it and people try to use it to fill in gaps anyway like folding dough.

But I understand your concern, at least I think. I won't defend it, I think it's the result of the interference of people's individual emotional calculus with the idea of socionics or mbti or whatever.

[Singu]

I should give more background as to why I made the above post.

This thread was actually inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YT-MtAvbR8

I'm sorry, read between the lines here. What is this video (and therefore the MBTI) actually saying? It is implying that people who give to charities have a nice heart, but they don't have strong enough logic to see that what they are doing isn't rational. I.e., they are really good people at heart, but they are logically inept. And what is it implying about thinking types? It is saying that they are logically smart, but in some way actually like 'Scrooge' about money, giving to others, etc. I find this message idiotic. Even the ideas that the 'ENTP' was using as criticism against giving to charities were dumb. This seems to be the whole message about thinking and feeling in the MBTI. And then I realized if this applies to the MBTI, it probably applies to socionics as well. And if it applies to both, it is relevant to the people of this forum. Then there are therefore dark undertones to certain types and how they should act. I am sorry, I am good enough critical thinker to not buy into at least this notion of both theories. I honestly hope you would agree...

Well the problem is observing a certain trait in people, and extrapolating to all of their personalities. You can't know 100% of their personality traits, unless you observed 100%, which is practically impossible.

The fact is that people are logical some of the time, people are feeling some of the time, but definitely not all of the time. It depends on the appropriateness of the situation, etc. It's very doubtful that someone will be emotional when he's trying to solve some logical problems, and it's very doubtful that someone will be logical when he's listening to some music.

Stereotypes of "ENTP" and "ISFJ" can exist. But it's doubtful that that's how they act all of the time. They may change their minds, they may change over time, they may learn new things that make them see things in different ways. The most important of all, it doesn't explain why they're behaving that way.

My personal view is that people don't differ in their ability to be logical and rational. But some people may have less feelings, or even are just less aware of their own feelings and the feelings of others.

[woofwoofl]

socionics interpersonal > intrapersonal, one of its best points imo

excellent interpersonal solution: DON'T FLASH THE CAMERA AT A PERSON'S FACE

[sbbds]

I guess what I'm saying is:

- If a person is genuinely logical in nature, they should be acknowledged as logical in the theory.
- If a person is logical in nature, they should be acknowledged as logical for the right reasons.
- If a person is evil in nature, the theory should identify their true nature.
- If a person is not logical, they should not be identified as logical.
- And if a person is good, they should be acknowledged as good (and for the right reasons).

And so on with every trait...

Yeah the fact that there is HuMaN QuAlItY and HuMaN DeVeLoPmEnT does really throw a wrench in the whole thing as Socionics doesn't give people a good way to parse it with itself. It just makes itself out to be like MBTI, but more confusing, with its only saving graces being more information and the self-checkable consistency of ITR.

[sbbds]

I'm not sure exactly which angle to focus on to resolve your issue, but a question: is it socionics that explains away behavior as relative or its practioners? Another way to look at it might be that socionics doesn't have the power to explain it and people try to use it to fill in gaps anyway like folding dough.

But I understand your concern, at least I think. I won't defend it, I think it's the result of the interference of people's individual emotional calculus with the idea of socionics or mbti or whatever.

I agree with this. I also personally find it to be a good thing lol. Yes a system that fills in all the gaps explicitly for "why" like @Singu always complains about would be really amazing if it could be possible, but I think it would also take out the fun of understanding people for me. It would also have to get into things like presumptions about people's childhoods and explicitly state universal human values, which would make it seem overly humanistically biased and make it be taken less seriously in the general sense. It makes sense that something like pure Kryptonite for social interactions doesn't exist, and you wouldn't want it to anyway. There's so much to explore and discover in life, love and people.

[Singu]

I agree with this. I also personally find it to be a good thing lol. Yes a system that fills in all the gaps explicitly for "why" like @Singu always complains about would be really amazing if it could be possible, but I think it would also take out the fun of understanding people for me. It would also have to get into things like presumptions about people's childhoods and explicitly state universal human values, which would make it seem overly humanistically biased and make it be taken less seriously in the general sense. It makes sense that something like pure Kryptonite for social interactions doesn't exist, and you wouldn't want it to anyway. There's so much to explore and discover in life, love and people.

It's for the simple reason that if you can't explain "why", then you have no idea if it has anything to do with it or not.

Saying that there's a "type" is another way of saying that if someone is a certain way, then there's a very high probability that the person will be acting in the same way in the future. Which may be true.

But that's just an assumption that the person will be acting in the same or similar way in the future. It does in no way explain why he's acting in that way. It's just an attempt at predicting behavior and bypassing having to explain things. And a bad attempt at that, since true prediction isn't just expecting the same past trend to continue. Somebody may suddenly change his mind, and then what? The prediction then becomes impossible.

But you can explain why he changed his mind.

[sbbds]

It's for the simple reason that if you can't explain "why", then you have no idea if it has anything to do with it or not.

Saying that there's a "type" is another way of saying that if someone is a certain way, then there's a very high probability that the person will be acting in the same way in the future. Which may be true.

But that's just an assumption that the person will be acting in the same or similar way in the future. It does in no way explain why he's acting in that way. It's just an attempt at predicting behavior and bypassing having to explain things. And a bad attempt at that, since true prediction isn't just expecting the same past trend to continue. Somebody may suddenly change his mind, and then what? The prediction becomes impossible.

But you can explain why he changed his mind.

Honestly this probably just doesn't bother me because I'm good at theoryweaving about why people are the way they are, in addition to enjoying being given the opportunity to do so. It's like a hangman game where you're given a few hints and get the joy of guessing and testing it and eventually figuring out the answer on your own. It's the blanks in the information that make it fun like a game.

You can also collect information each time you make a correct explanation for some specific individual situation, and add it back into your framework. HMM I wonder, maybe that's how everybody's been using Socionics all along. -.-

[Singu]

Honestly this probably just doesn't bother me because I'm good at theoryweaving about why people are the way they are, in addition to enjoying being given the opportunity to do so. It's like a hangman game where you're given a few hints and get the joy of guessing and testing it and eventually figuring out the answer on your own. It's the blanks in the information that make it fun like a game.

Yes you naturally come up with theories, because that's what people naturally do all the time. But Socionics is about removing and expunging all those theories and theorizing from its system.

You may think that Socionics is a theory, but if it were, then it would come up with explanations for why people are the way that they are.

[sbbds]

Yes you naturally come up with theories, because that's what people naturally do all the time. But Socionics is about removing and expunging all those theories and theorizing from its system.

You may think that Socionics is a theory, but if it were, then it would come up with explanations for why people are the way that they are.

In the colloquial sense, any statement on reality can be looked at as a kind of theory. Albeit I concede that it's not scientific on its own though, if I ever said that, not that it can't be taken and attempted to be made scientific, or have scientific thinking applied to it.

[The Reality Denialist]

So according to theory Carlin was probably LSI.

You can generate multiple other ways LSI could operate in similar situation (so called wiggle room).

If I have understood correctly you have also studied physics. If you have went into Lagrangian stuff you have probably encountered multiple pendulums and such which are chaotic (but deterministic) because even small change in initial conditions generate vastly different behaviors. This is the analogy which might generate various reactions in certain someone because I'm not aware of all initial conditions.

[Myst]

I should give more background as to why I made the above post.

This thread was actually inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YT-MtAvbR8

I'm sorry, read between the lines here. What is this video (and therefore the MBTI) actually saying? It is implying that people who give to charities have a nice heart, but they don't have strong enough logic to see that what they are doing isn't rational. I.e., they are really good people at heart, but they are logically inept. And what is it implying about thinking types? It is saying that they are logically smart, but in some way actually like 'Scrooge' about money, giving to others, etc. I find this message idiotic. Even the ideas that the 'ENTP' was using as criticism against giving to charities were dumb. This seems to be the whole message about thinking and feeling in the MBTI. And then I realized if this applies to the MBTI, it probably applies to socionics as well. And if it applies to both, it is relevant to the people of this forum. Then there are therefore dark undertones to certain types and how they should act. I am sorry, I am good enough critical thinker to not buy into at least this notion of both theories. I honestly hope you would agree...

That's not really the whole message about Thinking/Feeling, but it does conflate several factors together in these preferences and that can end up being a problem when trying to apply it to actual situations. This is true both for MBTI and Socionics.

If I were you, I would ask why you got hung up on this issue personally. Does it touch on something for you personally? Think about that IMO instead of analysing these theories. Perhaps think about it with the help of someone else, a friend, a therapist, etc.

[Myst]

Well the problem is observing a certain trait in people, and extrapolating to all of their personalities. You can't know 100% of their personality traits, unless you observed 100%, which is practically impossible.

The fact is that people are logical some of the time, people are feeling some of the time, but definitely not all of the time. It depends on the appropriateness of the situation, etc. It's very doubtful that someone will be emotional when he's trying to solve some logical problems, and it's very doubtful that someone will be logical when he's listening to some music.

Actually emotions and rationality in the prefrontal lobe can work together (see Damasio's classic work on this subject).

Metacognition theories do introduce the idea of an "affective regulatory loop" that utilises *emotion* for executive functioning.

And so on.

Stereotypes of "ENTP" and "ISFJ" can exist. But it's doubtful that that's how they act all of the time. They may change their minds, they may change over time, they may learn new things that make them see things in different ways. The most important of all, it doesn't explain why they're behaving that way.

My personal view is that people don't differ in their ability to be logical and rational. But some people may have less feelings, or even are just less aware of their own feelings and the feelings of others.

What makes you think that people are all the same in terms of "cold objective" rationality and differ in terms of feelings? That to me didn't sound all that logical

I would say the easiest way to refute this idea is think of the stereotypical male vs stereotypical female. Yes those are stereotypes and how your brain works doesn't depend all that strictly on whether you have a penis or a vagina but there are actual differences in the brains of people regarding "masculine" and "feminine" stuff. Ofc it's an individual mix of different skills/traits for everyone.

It's for the simple reason that if you can't explain "why", then you have no idea if it has anything to do with it or not.

Saying that there's a "type" is another way of saying that if someone is a certain way, then there's a very high probability that the person will be acting in the same way in the future. Which may be true.

But that's just an assumption that the person will be acting in the same or similar way in the future. It does in no way explain why he's acting in that way. It's just an attempt at predicting behavior and bypassing having to explain things. And a bad attempt at that, since true prediction isn't just expecting the same past trend to continue. Somebody may suddenly change his mind, and then what? The prediction then becomes impossible.

But you can explain why he changed his mind.

The socionics model does attempt to explain things, it's another issue altogether that the explanations are not holding up.

What @Heretic 007 said is an ok way to look at it. So no don't expect an actual explanation beyond what that can offer - though in my opinion even those explanations do not hold up well.

[jason_m]

That's not really the whole message about Thinking/Feeling, but it does conflate several factors together in these preferences and that can end up being a problem when trying to apply it to actual situations. This is true both for MBTI and Socionics.

If I were you, I would ask why you got hung up on this issue personally. Does it touch on something for you personally?

Honestly, I don't like it because, if I come to the conclusion that I'm thinking type, I have to admit that I'm some sort of miser with giving to charities, etc. If I come to the conclusion that I'm feeling type, I have to admit that I'm illogical, weak critical thinker, etc. I don't like either conclusion. But you're right - there are probably several factors that are conflated that's causing it. My theory:

1) You either like giving to charities or you don't.
2) If you give, you either give in a rational/calculated way, or you do not.

- I like giving, but I prefer to give in a way that is calculated - having certain principles of giving, limits to what I give, etc.

Those two are probably conflated and cause a problem...

I also can't come to a conclusion, because, at the back of my mind, I feel that anything is possible - "in principle, even some of the best theories can be overturned." That makes it very hard to come to a solid conclusion.

[Myst]

Honestly, I don't like it because, if I come to the conclusion that I'm thinking type, I have to admit that I'm some sort of miser with giving to charities, etc. If I come to the conclusion that I'm feeling type, I have to admit that I'm illogical, weak critical thinker, etc. I don't like either conclusion.

Hmm as far as I recall, Jung described Feeling types as being able to think and use logic just fine, otoh their Thinking is usually kind of borrowed rather than truly creating them with own Thinking. Tho' ofcourse they can create some too, it's just not their real mode of being. Also, their Thinking is subjected to adjustment to Feeling values, so, a Feeling type would not like to think about cold inhumane thoughts / it feels cold to them in a way it does not feel to a Thinking type. This does mean they are less of a truly critical thinker than a Thinking type but a Feeling type would not actually want to be as much of such a critical thinker since again, they'd find that too cold and not humane enough / the criticality would feel overdone to them. This is how the theory goes. Modern scientific studies have shown that Jung was correct as far as neuronal networks for mechanical logic will end up inhibiting the networks for the social (humane) approach and vice versa, under the right circumstances. They also show that the two approaches of rationality and emotionality intertwine in a crucially important way for much of basic functioning / executive functioning too, which way can be viewed as compatible with some of Jung's ideas again.

If we go by this theory, then I do think you'd be a Feeling type btw because you focus more on human and personal factors in evaluating this issue. As far as the theory is any good, aside from scientific results, you can definitely see distinct preferences for some people. Not necessarily an easily visible preference for all people and I wouldn't be able to tell you why - the theory could be wrong with the idea that everyone has a distinct preference, or it's hard to detect with some bc they are close to being fully balanced.

But you're right - there are probably several factors that are conflated that's causing it. My theory:

1) You either like giving to charities or you don't.
2) If you give, you either give in a rational/calculated way, or you do not.

- I like giving, but I prefer to give in a way that is calculated - having certain principles of giving, limits to what I give, etc.

Those two are probably conflated and cause a problem...

I agree, these are two different things in your list. 1) Whether someone likes to give barely depends on the Thinking/Feeling preference really. As for 2)... Well like I said Feeling types have logic too according to the theory

I also can't come to a conclusion, because, at the back of my mind, I feel that anything is possible - "in principle, even some of the best theories can be overturned." That makes it very hard to come to a solid conclusion.

That's true, they can be overturned with new data. But I do think there is a real world so some statements we make are connected with how things actually are... it can't all be randomly changed around

[Singu]

What makes you think that people are all the same in terms of "cold objective" rationality and differ in terms of feelings? That to me didn't sound all that logical

I would say the easiest way to refute this idea is think of the stereotypical male vs stereotypical female. Yes those are stereotypes and how your brain works doesn't depend all that strictly on whether you have a penis or a vagina but there are actual differences in the brains of people regarding "masculine" and "feminine" stuff. Ofc it's an individual mix of different skills/traits for everyone.

I don't think people differ in their ability to be logical and objective. Some people may have faster CPU, more RAM/HDD, but that's just the speed in which people do things. They don't differ in their ability to be able to perform fundamental, elementary operations (basically pure logic), which allow them to perform more complex operations. If people differ in their thinking, then that has more to do with software. Basically there's a computer hardware, and you can install virtually any kind of OSes and software on it. There's no limit as to what can be potentially installed, if there's no limit to memory.

I think emotions are more software than hardware.

I think there are differences between men and women, but I think that has more to do with differences between psychological masculine/feminine. For example, gay men are more similar in their psychology to straight women. There are some structural differences in the brain, but I still think that's more software than hardware.

The socionics model does attempt to explain things, it's another issue altogether that the explanations are not holding up.

Sure it "explains" things... by saying that what has been observed in the past will repeat again in the future. So you might say that a certain behavior is explained by Alpha Ti. But what that's really saying is that "Alpha Ti" behavior has been observed before, and it has been observed again now. So it's saying that the current behavior "fits" the past behavior, and this is supposed to "confirm" the past observation. Sure, but that doesn't explain anything.

[Myst]

@Singu you know I've seen you entertain logical arguments without letting feelings get in the way, but this post of yours was incredibly biased and illogical. You simply have a preconception and then you ignore all facts that go against it.

1. There is no reason or fact that would support your statement that people are equal in their hardware for doing objective logic.

I know that's not a politically correct statement and for some reason you wanna be PC here. : p

But: when it's said that someone doesn't do objective (or formal) logic as much it doesn't mean that they cannot do other approaches to solve tasks... they can.

Like, with creativity, insight, visual thinking, using whatever other abstract conceptual ideas, I don't know. All that can work. Or even a simple physical approach, experientially based approaches or trial and error or even muscle memory can work just as much.

So consider that.


2. You didn't read it where I said that the brain structures do not depend on your biological sex per se, there is a correlation but no more than that.

Gay men being feminine doesn't support or prove your argument fully about the differences - that exist on *average* - between men and women being psychological only or brain structure being software.

There actually are hardware differences in the masculine vs feminine brain. How the fuck are *structural differences* purely software to you?

Go ahead with what you even mean by software really if you see it that way. Because right now you just use it in some incredibly undefined way.

But also. Please go look up the science on all this.


3. And the other thing you didn't read: I said that the socionics explanations don't hold up. Reread. And yes, socionics does try to explain beyond "what was observed will repeat again", it just doesn't hold up. But we were through this before. You do not want to see that part of socionics. But you don't need to bc it's bogus explanations anyway.

[Singu]

3. And the other thing you didn't read: I said that the socionics explanations don't hold up. Reread. And yes, socionics does try to explain beyond "what was observed will repeat again", it just doesn't hold up. But we were through this before. You do not want to see that part of socionics. But you don't need to bc it's bogus explanations anyway.

The problem with Socionics, as always, is that it's a classification/categorization system without explanations.

You can't explain things from classifications. For example, in biology, limited taxonomy, or even a lot of taxonomies, can't explain all of biology. Only the theory of evolution can explain all of biology. The theory of evolution is an explanation, not a classification.

In the same way, you can't explain human behavior from classifications. What is the ultimate explanation that can explain all of human behavior? We have found no such explanation yet. We need a new "Darwin" moment or "Newton" moment.

Socionics attempts to explain human behavior from classifications, or "Model A". But the fact is that you can't explain anything from Model A or any of the functions.

You can only make things fit to an already existing classification, which is basically what everybody is doing with Socionics.

[Myst]

The problem with Socionics, as always, is that it's a classification/categorization system without explanations.

There are explanations too, but it's fine if you skip them - I also skip them because they are bogus for the most part.

The classifications are also bogus too yeah. Someone else from the forum called it false categories, I found that a good phrase.

What is the ultimate explanation that can explain all of human behavior? We have found no such explanation yet. We need a new "Darwin" moment or "Newton" moment.

Except it's going to take more than a Darwin or Newton moment. More complex than that.

You can only make things fit to an already existing classification, which is basically what everybody is doing with Socionics.

That is not what I was doing with Socionics, hence I ended up refuting its explanations I guess. : p


PS: Not surprised you skipped on explaining what you meant by structural differences in the brain being purely software lol

[Singu]

There are explanations too, but it's fine if you skip them - I also skip them because they are bogus for the most part.

The classifications are also bogus too yeah. Someone else from the forum called it false categories, I found that a good phrase.

How do you explain from classifications?

I mean, there are literally no explanations in Model A, functions, types, quadras, Reinin dichotomies... they're all classifications.

Except it's going to take more than a Darwin or Newton moment. More complex than that.

When people were busy classifying all the different species into taxonomies in biology, they were quite confused and overwhelmed and thought that they could never make sense out of it all. But the theory of evolution was so succinctly simple and elegant that it could actually explain and make sense out it all. It even explained things outside of biology, which makes it an even more objective and universal explanation.

PS: Not surprised you skipped on explaining what you meant by structural differences in the brain being purely software lol

There's no real such thing as fundamentally different "structural differences" in computers, as all computers are based on elementary mathematical and logical principles, or the Turing principle. And since the computer can compute anything that the physical object can possibly compute (that's the theory), the brain is no different.

So what I mean is, the brain is the hardware, and everything that's running in it is the software. Things like consciousness, emotions are all software. So it looks like nature has been the programmer of our brain, programming things into our brain via evolution.

[Finaplex]

Brain makes consciousness will be found to be false.

There actually is little direct evidence that brain creates consciousness and I know because I have been reading research on it since before you started highschool.

Where is consciousness, in the synamptic clefts? Strung along a collection of neruons?

Did you know they don't even know how anesthesia works to turn off consciousness?

God scientists are so arrogant when they claim that nature has been understood and mapped in entirety.

I find myself hating you guys.

[Myst]

@Singu


1.
"Model A is a detailed model of human information metabolism named after Aushra Augustinavichiute who has created it by incorporating Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.

The Ego block is a socially demonstrative, creative block that forms the core of the TIM and is usually associated with an individual's ego - their inner "I". This is an area of conscious competence and individualism, as well as conscious and active observation and influence on the world. A person is usually the most confident, informed, and energetically active on their Ego block functions. On this block, we rarely experience feelings of remorse, doubt, and shame; neither does this block shift responsibilities or blame onto others."

I will not copypaste further, read the rest here: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Model_A

Do not try to claim that all this is just classifications lol.

I do want to emphasise OTOH that Socionics does get classifications wrong. (So it's barely a detailed model like it claims. But still a model, just a shitty one where people can easily take it and not even use it as a model anymore, which is its own separate problem BTW.) It oversimplifies, like, when many different classifications would be necessary and justified, it tries to use only two (say, a dichotomy, or an IE pairing, etc).



2.
I dunno about how taxonomies were created in the science of biology, but I highly doubt that people felt confused and highly overwhelmed while doing it LOL. Where the fuck do you get that from? Omfg...



3.
Yes there are structural/hardware differences for computers... for a simple example: nowadays some types of computers include very sophisticated GPUs. This will result in very different functioning for certain things. Like compute certain things better.

Or embedded CPUs are also very different structurally.

Supercomputers is an even simpler example of all this.

Or go back to early computers that worked on some different principles. (Mathematically not different but in hardware very different and that did result in different capabilities.)

You do have to understand that just because some elementary mathematical operations are shared on the low level, it does not mean whatsoever that on the high level there are no fundamental differences. By the time you get to the high level, there will be a lot of other elements and components added so yes there can be many fundamental differences on the high level. Compare a RTOS to Windows if you don't want to compare Linux with Windows. A real time OS would be fundamentally different enough for your liking too if Windows vs Linux is not a good enough example.

And possibly there are differences on the low level, in hardware as well, yes. Even for the RTOS vs Windows example there are.

[Myst]

Brain makes consciousness will be found to be false.

There actually is little direct evidence that brain creates consciousness and I know because I have been reading research on it since before you started highschool.

Where is consciousness, in the synamptic clefts? Strung along a collection of neruons?

Did you know they don't even know how anesthesia works to turn off consciousness?

God scientists are so arrogant when they claim that nature has been understood and mapped in entirety.

I find myself hating you guys.

If someone claimed that nature has been understood and mapped in entirety, that was not a scientist.

Or was a completely idiotic one stating their own personal subjective opinion.

Actual science does *not* try to have this claim nope.

As for consciousness: it is not explained by science, no. But if there'll be an explanation one day (idk), then it will not be this type of simplified reductionism - science makes more complex explanations than this (luckily).

[Finaplex]

If someone claimed that nature has been understood and mapped in entirety, that was not a scientist.

Or was a completely idiotic one stating their own personal subjective opinion.

Actual science does *not* try to have this claim nope.

As for consciousness: it is not explained by science, no. But if there'll be an explanation one day (idk), then it will not be this type of simplified reductionism - science makes more complex explanations than this (luckily).

Thank God, there is hope for you still.

[Myst]

Thank God, there is hope for you still.

wat lol, idk if you tried to pigeonhole me into some category : p

[Singu]

1.
"Model A is a detailed model of human information metabolism named after Aushra Augustinavichiute who has created it by incorporating Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.

The Ego block is a socially demonstrative, creative block that forms the core of the TIM and is usually associated with an individual's ego - their inner "I". This is an area of conscious competence and individualism, as well as conscious and active observation and influence on the world. A person is usually the most confident, informed, and energetically active on their Ego block functions. On this block, we rarely experience feelings of remorse, doubt, and shame; neither does this block shift responsibilities or blame onto others."

I will not copypaste further, read the rest here: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Model_A

Do not try to claim that all this is just classifications lol.

I do want to emphasise OTOH that Socionics does get classifications wrong. (So it's barely a detailed model like it claims. But still a model, just a shitty one where people can easily take it and not even use it as a model anymore, which is its own separate problem BTW.) It oversimplifies, like, when many different classifications would be necessary and justified, it tries to use only two (say, a dichotomy, or an IE pairing, etc).

Okay, then say that the explanation is "This behavior is explained by Fi". What is this explaining?

Fi, as an Jungian function, is a classification of observations. Model A is just a particular way of organizing those classifications. It may say something like conscious or unconscious, but again, that's just a classification.

What we're really saying is, "This behavior fits into the Fi classification". Not that it's actually explaining anything. An explanation would be something outside of "Fi".

Say that those biologists were creating taxonomies. But no amount of taxonomies would have ever come up with Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was something completely outside of that. It could have potentially came from outside of biology.

[Myst]

Okay, then say that the explanation is "This behavior is explained by Fi". What is this explaining?

Fi, as an Jungian function, is a classification of observations. Model A is just a particular way of organizing those classifications. It may say something like conscious or unconscious, but again, that's just a classification.

What we're really saying is, "This behavior fits into the Fi classification". Not that it's actually explaining anything. An explanation would be something outside of "Fi".

Say that those biologists were creating taxonomies. But no amount of taxonomies would have ever come up with Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was something completely outside of that. It could have potentially came from outside of biology.

Ah now I see where you got hung up before Yeah some people just categorise like that. But the model isn't about categorising like that. And not everyone sticks with just doing these simple classifications.

If you say that x observation is because Fi for the person is unconscious, that is a logical statement within the model that you can check for whether it really holds up in the way the model claims it will - and other statements can also be deduced from it within the model and then those other statements can be checked too to see if they lead to good predictions. All those do count as explanations that can be correct or incorrect.

That's how I worked through Socionics really and dropped its model in the end a while ago. By now I not only dropped the original model (which I did 1-2 years ago, I can't remember when) but I took the valid ideas and I use them in other understandings now. I originally tried to keep those parts of the model in a new model using ideas from Socionics, but I moved past that model too.... and so I don't even use IEs or whatever anymore.

Anyhow, if your issue is how most people who are NOT scientists think then well, sure keep bitching about it. But it won't lead anywhere. Basically. Don't expect everyone to do scientific research.

It sounds like your issue is that, rather than Socionics itself. Maybe accept that it's just how human beings work by default?

[Singu]

A phylogenetic tree is basically a diagram of relationships, something that comes from observation and making categories. Iow, from taxonomy patterns developed and were noticed which then became an explanation and theory later. And this is how things typically progress or have progressed in Biology. It's how things have progressed in Astronomy, Physics etc and so on as well. Humans are good at noticing patterns, and organizing those patterns into a system gives you a basis from which to work. Why does the sun rise northeast in the summer and southeast in the winter? You start asking why, and that's where theories are developed.

That sounds more like phenetics, which is a classification of organisms based on observable similarities. Which is also pretty much what Socionics is.

A phylogenetic tree is not necessarily based on observations, since it requires an interpretation of what the DNA means. Which is a theory, not an observation.

So yeah, a category isn't an explanation, and if your categories are wrong, your explanations are likely wrong as well. Imagine if frogs were lumped in with fish because they both can swim, and otters and diving ducks . . . the categories themselves would be so wrong that you couldn't make heads or tails of anything. Darwin's theory developed from taxonomy, not outside of it. It isn't something separate, but rather a natural evolution itself: patterns --> theory behind the patterns. You can't start with a theory, or idea to explain patterns if you don't know what the patterns are.

I think you have the cart before the horse. We make categories because we have explanations of some kind (which may only exist in our heads) in order to categorize them in a certain way. We may rely on observable similarities, or we may rely on non-observables, such as interpretations of what the DNA means. And those require theories to do so.

The point is that you couldn't possibly have come up with Darwin's theory of evolution by just categorizing similarities. No amount of categorizing would have come up with that. It required a completely new way of thinking that things gradually evolved into something different, as in, there are similarities, even though there are no immediate similarities between them. You'd have to take a guess and imagine how things were in the way back before time. This required a bold guess to make that giant leap.

It couldn't have been done with an observation, but it could be done with a theory. This is why Darwin made a guess, and not just recognize some patterns or categorize a bunch of organisms.

[Singu]

Ah now I see where you got hung up before Yeah some people just categorise like that. But the model isn't about categorising like that. And not everyone sticks with just doing these simple classifications.

I don't think people categorize, Socionics does. People seek explanations.

People ask, "Why does he do this, why does she do that, what does that behavior/action mean?", etc.

The Socionics "explanation" is, "It's because of Fi" or "That's Fi-related behavior". But what they're really saying is, "That behavior fits in with Fi classification". They expect an explanation, and what they get instead is a classification.

Am I saying that classification is wrong? No, what I'm saying is that people are seeking explanations, and not just classifications.

[Myst]

That sounds more like phenetics, which is a classification of organisms based on observable similarities. Which is also pretty much what Socionics is.

I think Socionics's model goes beyond that... the problem is it's far outdated nowadays. While socionists in Russia or wherever just never moved on & never tried to use the theory in the scientific way.

And that's why I said I think your problem is more that.

Like, why do you get hung up on it even. Something about how it's being used is what seems to bother you.

And I will give it to you - the model is too easily interpreted in a way that makes scientific investigation of it impossible.

It actually is possible though. But I see no point to doing so, since I believe science moved way past Socionics by now in recent years especially.

And even though yeah psychology research could do with more of a focus on individual differences and both interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics between those, theories in applied psychology areas do deal with this somewhat, just not in a "neat" way like Socionics attempted to do it. Which is understandable, i.e. that it's not in a neat way, because it is actually very hard to do it that way since we lack some of the understanding for that still.

Socionics tried to provide some of that but it eventually doesn't hold up.

A phylogenetic tree is not necessarily based on observations, since it requires an interpretation of what the DNA means. Which is a theory, not an observation.

But the theories on DNA also had to come from observation. ... : P

Maybe not as direct as just see things in front of you with your two eyes right away but it's still observation, not just something out of thin air.

I think you have the cart before the horse. We make categories because we have explanations of some kind (which may only exist in our heads) in order to categorize them in a certain way.

Happen to agree with this

The point is that you couldn't possibly have come up with Darwin's theory of evolution by just categorizing similarities. No amount of categorizing would have come up with that.

Who the fuck tries to do just that for a theory?

It required a completely new way of thinking that things gradually evolved into something different, as in, there are similarities, even though there are no immediate similarities between them. You'd have to take a guess and imagine how things were in the way back before time. This required a bold guess to make that giant leap.

Well okay bold guesses....often don't survive scientific scrutiny. Sometimes it helps science move forward sure, but science is not really bold guessing lol.

And I don't think it was just imagination anyway lol in the case of creating evolution theory

It couldn't have been done with an observation, but it could be done with a theory. This is why Darwin made a guess, and not just recognize some patterns or categorize a bunch of organisms.

Uh... while I said that yeah, I happen to agree that categories are determined by the explanation or system, for me it works like, while working out the system, I do notice categories and patterns and whatever. It is hard to say which is the chicken and which is the egg in creating the explanation. In coming to the insight to create it. You could say it's creation of hypotheses from the noticing of patterns that suggest categories etc. But when the explanation is created it definitely determines the categories in a strict way.

It's like in maths too... you can find the solution to the problem in any way you want to, the important thing is that you are able to prove it concretely too.

[Myst]

I don't think people categorize, Socionics does. People seek explanations.

People ask, "Why does he do this, why does she do that, what does that behavior/action mean?", etc.

The Socionics "explanation" is, "It's because of Fi" or "That's Fi-related behavior". But what they're really saying is, "That behavior fits in with Fi classification". They expect an explanation, and what they get instead is a classification.

Am I saying that classification is wrong? No, what I'm saying is that people are seeking explanations, and not just classifications.

But you quoted from the people, not from the Socionics model.

These quotes: "It's because of Fi" or "That's Fi-related behavior".

So you are criticising the people, not the model.

[Singu]

@Singu, before responding, you really should have read the link I posted. . . that way you wouldn't be saying "You couldn't possibly. . . " because you'd actually have a little knowledge of the history of taxonomy in Biology and Darwin's place within (and not outside) of it. Read and inform yourself rather than making assumptions. And if you'd read the link, you'd also know that it most definitely wasn't "a new way of thinking."

Well we're kind of talking about two different things.

You're right that the concept of evolution is nothing new, and I'm not saying that it was. What I'm saying is that it brought a completely new logic to the classification system.

The reason why I'm saying that you couldn't have possibly come up with the Darwinian theory of evolution by just classifying things, is because it's an answer to a completely different question. It's not an answer to the question of, "How should we classify species?", but it's rather, "How did those species get there? And why is there so much diversity in nature? And what's the link between those old fossilized species, and the species that exist now?", etc.

It's simply a completely different question as well as an explanation, and hence you couldn't possibly have come up with it just by classifying things. You don't need to bother with those "why's" if all you're going to be doing is to classify things.

And ironically, if you never came up with the correct explanation, then it's likely that you'd have made the classification in the wrong way. Only by coming up with the "correct" explanation of evolution by natural selection, that you can come up with new knowledge, such as gene theory and DNA theory, which further improves the classification system.

[Myst]

Yeah I mean Singu it was really fucking weird and ridiculous when you said the people creating taxonomies in biology mustve felt overwhelmed and confused .... or that science is just about bold guesses.

What's the closest you ever actually got to science in reality, Singu? Did you ever deal with actual science? (I have, yeah.)

And why am I surprised that you didn't respond to it when I exposed you to the fact that it's people who you quoted from doing the classifications, and not the Socionics model itself.

Or any of the last 2 posts from me in this thread : p