Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 141

Thread: What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

  1. #41

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    @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.

  2. #42
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,966
    Mentioned
    240 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    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.
    Well, that's the thing. You don't just categorize things for the sake of it - that'd be like mindlessly stacking pennies or something. There'd be no point. Instead, it can be one way of how you start to come to an understanding of things. In other words, if you look at Darwin's journals there are a number of phylogenetic trees he drew out, trying to classify the animals he came across, and by seeing relationships between different animals an idea forms. . .

    You have a romanticized view of science, and you're missing the context. The "Eureka!" only comes after a lot of deliberation on an idea, noticing things, observing, and sometimes sorting things out into categories in order to get a better picture of how they all fit. Taxonomy was necessary for Darwin's theory, a building block in the process. The theory couldn't have come about without it.

    I guess it's similar to how novelists must feel when people come up to them with these romantic notions of what it means to be a writer assuming inspiration falls from the sky without any kind of deliberation on their part. . .

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  4. #44

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Well, that's the thing. You don't just categorize things for the sake of it - that'd be like mindlessly stacking pennies or something. There'd be no point. Instead, it can be one way of how you start to come to an understanding of things. In other words, if you look at Darwin's journals there are a number of phylogenetic trees he drew out, trying to classify the animals he came across, and by seeing relationships between different animals an idea forms. . .
    Yes... I'm not saying that it's never necessarily or that it's pointless. But obviously just classifying things is not the point. And if Socionics ever does is to just classify things, then that'd be just missing the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    You have a romanticized view of science, and you're missing the context. The "Eureka!" only comes after a lot of deliberation on an idea, noticing things, observing, and sometimes sorting things out into categories in order to get a better picture of how they all fit. Taxonomy was necessary for Darwin's theory, a building block in the process. The theory couldn't have come about without it.
    Science is about (finding) problems, and solving that problem. If all you're ever going to do is to just gather data and hoping to come up with something, then you're probably not going to come up with much.

    Not saying that I can do it either, but you probably shouldn't discourage anyone from coming up with explanations.

    You might also say that science is mostly about drudgery and boring menial work, but maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe science should be fun.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    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.
    Well I'm criticizing the classification model.

    And if Socionics claims to "predict" human behavior via ITR, then well, obviously you can't predict people by just classifying things. You're just expecting people to be overall consistent and predictable all the time, which is not true.

    You obviously can't also claim to be able to classify an entire population and entire modes of cognition into just 16 types and 8 functions.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well I'm criticizing the classification model.

    And if Socionics claims to "predict" human behavior via ITR, then well, obviously you can't predict people by just classifying things. You're just expecting people to be overall consistent and predictable all the time, which is not true.

    You obviously can't also claim to be able to classify an entire population and entire modes of cognition into just 16 types and 8 functions.
    The model is not simply a "classification model" is my point... The examples you quoted are NOT the model. They are people's very simplified interpretations of the model or something. But not the model itself.

    You can classify the entire population and cognition in various ways. That's not the problem. The problem is that the way it's done in the model is no good yeah. The only thing I am arguing with you about here is that it does have explanations and these can be checked in a scientific way (and yes I do think it would disprove the model pretty goddamn fast lol) while you think it's just categories...

  7. #47
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You might also say that science is mostly about drudgery and boring menial work, but maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe science should be fun.
    I actually have this new IEI coworker who I do educational science displays with. He's sort of like you, also he is hot. I think if you found a job like this it would purify your filthy soul.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    You can classify the entire population and cognition in various ways. That's not the problem. The problem is that the way it's done in the model is no good yeah. The only thing I am arguing with you about here is that it does have explanations and these can be checked in a scientific way (and yes I do think it would disprove the model pretty goddamn fast lol) while you think it's just categories...
    Okay, then show me where the explanations are, and show me how it can be tested in a scientific way.

    When people think of making Socionics "objective" or "scientific", they just think, "Oh, we should just find a way to make typing objective!". But that's not the point.

    That's like saying we should make taxonomies in biology objective. But if we were to do that, we'd need to analyze the DNA and things like that. And in order to do that, we'd need an explanation of the Darwinian theory of evolution. We'd need to understand that all organisms have a common ancestor, and that things gradually evolved over time, and each species diverged at some point by the pressures of the environment.

    And Socionics... doesn't have that kind of theory or an explanation that makes classification possible or "objective".

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Okay, then show me where the explanations are
    Please reread my earlier post for reference to the explanations. This one: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1351032


    and show me how it can be tested in a scientific way.
    For example: after operationalising the definitions, have some people typed (according to operationalised criteria) and check interactions between people (again according to operationalised criteria) to see if there is any difference in the interactions between different types according to Socionics ITR predictions. We would not expect it to predict precisely, as many other factors will always be at play too, but we would expect to see significant enough differences. And so you can say if they are there or they are not there.....

    Have these people typed independent of the above checking so there is no bias influencing anything.

    I was originally also interested in conducting EEG or brain imaging experiments according to predictions of Socionics regarding cognition (this part isn't about ITR). I did devise some experiment design for EEG, I didn't try to do that though. And now I'm no longer interested in the original form... I am still very interested in doing the experiment in another form, i.e. a similar idea, without using any Socionics related model whatsoever, either the original Socionics one or mine or *anything* related whatsoever. I am past that.



    When people think of making Socionics "objective" or "scientific", they just think, "Oh, we should just find a way to make typing objective!". But that's not the point.
    Well Singu darling you are talking to someone who has done actual scientific experiments



    That's like saying we should make taxonomies in biology objective. But if we were to do that, we'd need to analyze the DNA and things like that. And in order to do that, we'd need an explanation of the Darwinian theory of evolution. We'd need to understand that all organisms have a common ancestor, and that things gradually evolved over time, and each species diverged at some point by the pressures of the environment.

    And Socionics... doesn't have that kind of theory or an explanation that makes classification possible or "objective".
    Again, see my earlier post I linked to above.

    By the way, evolution theory is way past the Darwinian version now.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Please reread my earlier post for reference to the explanations. This one: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1351032
    Ok... and what is it explaining?

    The entire point of "typologies" and "personality theories"... is that it's about classification of people...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    For example: after operationalising the definitions, have some people typed (according to operationalised criteria) and check interactions between people (again according to operationalised criteria) to see if there is any difference in the interactions between different types according to Socionics ITR predictions. We would not expect it to predict precisely, as many other factors will always be at play too, but we would expect to see significant enough differences. And so you can say if they are there or they are not there.....
    Then that's just correlation, not causation. There's no way of knowing whether the interaction has to do with "types" or not.

    I mean look, the Socionics ITR is basically just statistics, and making it more statistically rigorous isn't going to be the answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Have these people typed independent of the above checking so there is no bias influencing anything.
    How do you know what's the "correct" way to type, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Well Singu darling you are talking to someone who has done actual scientific experiments
    Well no offense but you're not very good at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    By the way, evolution theory is way past the Darwinian version now.
    Yes I am aware of that.

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Ok... and what is it explaining?

    The entire point of "typologies" and "personality theories"... is that it's about classification of people...!
    Not my problem if you can't read



    Then that's just correlation, not causation. There's no way of knowing whether the interaction has to do with "types" or not.

    I mean look, the Socionics ITR is basically just statistics, and making it more statistically rigorous isn't going to be the answer.
    Read up on how scientific experiments are done and why



    How do you know what's the "correct" way to type, or not?
    Read up on what operationalising means in science and in scientific experiments


    Well no offense but you're not very good at it.
    No offense but you are an idiot.

    If you think you can judge this better than actual scientists I've worked with lol.


    Yes I am aware of that.
    Now you are that I let you know about it....


    And with that, I'm done, I lost my last shred of respect and goodwill for you lol. I can't even find the arguing entertaining anymore, you are too below my level for that

  12. #52
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, I'm not aware if any socionists have used operationalized definitions with the data they collected, or if they have they haven't released any of it into mainstream socionics. This is the main reason socionics is not scientific yet, by far.


    You could of course create some definitions, collect data, and then tweak the definitions of the types after you find the statistically meaningful traits based on the results, which is how Big 5 traits were gleaned more or less, although with less extensive descriptions as what Socionics has for the 16 types. But they aren't that ambitious over there I guess heheh.

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    That sortof has been done with Oldham's/Millon's personality sytems, which are based on all the research that was checked and evaluated by professionals creating the versions of DSM/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

    Funnily enough they got almost 16 personality types - and I think someone (unofficially) tried to extend them to 16 from the original 14 then 15 types after Millon added a 15th type.

    And again, funnily enough, Oldham's and Millon's descriptions and analyses of these types do often coincide with Socionics types. Not always though. But quite often it's funny how similar it ends up in aspects.

    This despite them never working by the ideas from Jung or MBTI or whatever. Their approach is the most scientific currently since it builds on all that research and observation by researches and by practicing therapists etc too.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wow Myst, kinda disappointed that you've already given up the fight without you having to explain anything. Not that I really care.

    Anyway, you say that Socionics is wrong, but you can't really explain why it's wrong. You just think that "science" will somehow prove it wrong and that the authorities of "science" will bring down the judgement. Ironically this is the kind of thing that make people accuse it of being "scientism".

    I already know why it's wrong. You're not going to make Socionics "more scientific" by making it more statistical.

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Wow Myst, kinda disappointed that you've already given up the fight without you having to explain anything. Not that I really care.

    Anyway, you say that Socionics is wrong, but you can't really explain why it's wrong. You just think that "science" will somehow prove it wrong and that the authorities of "science" will bring down the judgement. Ironically this is the kind of thing that make people accuse it of being "scientism".

    I already know why it's wrong. You're not going to make Socionics "more scientific" by making it more statistical.
    No, Singu, I just do not debate with an idiot.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    No, Singu, I just do not debate with an idiot.
    Yeah sure, that's what a scientist does. Make ad hominem insults but never explain anything lol.

    I mean look, "operationalizing" doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Operationalization is as good what it's linking to. You might say that VI, self-reports and questionnaires are operationalizations. Or you could somehow make them measurable.

    But you still don't know how typing works, or exactly why should Fe and Ti be complimentary and not conflicting and so on. Those things are not explained, because it's lacking in theories that can explain their causal mechanisms.
    Last edited by Singu; 08-29-2019 at 04:03 PM.

  17. #57

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yeah sure, that's what a scientist does. Make ad hominem insults but never explain anything lol.

    I mean look, "operationalizing" doesn't solve the fundamental problem. Operationalization is as good what it's linking to. You might say that VI, self-reports and questionnaires are operationalizations. Or you could somehow make them measurable.

    But you still don't know how typing works, or exactly why should Fe and Ti be complimentary and not conflicting and so on. Those things are not explained, because it's lacking in theories that can explain their causal mechanisms.
    We went through all this 1000 times and I dislike your dishonesty in presenting it as if I had never tried to explain all this.

    And I could've and would've said way more about all of it if we hadn't got stuck at that phase.

  18. #58

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,802
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess it's similar to how novelists must feel when people come up to them with these romantic notions of what it means to be a writer assuming inspiration falls from the sky without any kind of deliberation on their part. . .


    As a writer, inspiration actually does just seem to come out of the blue once in a while for me. But actually writing something that people enjoy or are interested in (or hell even if they openly mock and insult it, there's no such thing as bad publicity and they are just indirectly helping me sell my books), I am kind of in this zen balancing act of using my own unique perception combined with an empathetic understanding of how other people think. And yes, of course, it does take work and effort. Cognitive empathy isn't really my strong suit, I'm much better with affective empathy. But I seem to receive more objectively positive results when I combine my two-dimensional Ti with cognitive empathy. (but I still have my own unique narcissistic perception and highly natural or 'magical' affective empathy, otherwise there would be no hook to my stories)

  19. #59

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,802
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    You obviously can't also claim to be able to classify an entire population and entire modes of cognition into just 16 types and 8 functions.
    I think you can. People really aren't as unique or special or original as they narcissistically think of themselves. You are just a basic bitch cookie cutter type. You do have unique differences, but the macro patterns are what other people are going to notice more objectively, not the micro differences.

    To be apt at socionics, you have to always be thinking about socionics while at the same time thinking of how certain traits &
    idiosyncrasies are not socionically related. Of even if they are in a way, there is so much other evidence that will color the complexity of who a person is. It doesn't mean socionics isn't real, it just means that socionics is connected onto a much larger universe. I think four dimensional Ti types (or maybe just LII?) often get into this trap or mental prison where they think , this specific quality HAS to neatly fit with this quadra or that person is not this quadra etc- its like their strong Ti way of trying to make sense of everything. But then a SEE or IEE is good at pointing out how that person is being unfairly misunderstood or prejudged based on their socionic type.

  20. #60

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    We went through all this 1000 times and I dislike your dishonesty in presenting it as if I had never tried to explain all this.

    And I could've and would've said way more about all of it if we hadn't got stuck at that phase.
    lol, the only dishonesty is you giving insults all the time and never having explained anything...

    Let's say that you've found a fool-proof way of "operationalizing" all of this, and now there's a way to 100% accurately type people.

    Let's say that we test it out. How would this be scientifically invalidated, in your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    I think you can. People really aren't as unique or special or original as they narcissistically think of themselves. You are just a basic bitch cookie cutter type. You do have unique differences, but the macro patterns are what other people are going to notice more objectively, not the micro differences.

    Well technically, you can categorize anything in any kind of arbitrary ways. The keyword being arbitrary, which means it won't likely be true to reality. And if it's not true to reality, then it can't be predicted as it is claimed on ITR and things like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    To be apt at socionics, you have to always be thinking about socionics while at the same time thinking of how certain traits & idiosyncrasies are not socionically related. Of even if they are in a way, there is so much other evidence that will color the complexity of who a person is. It doesn't mean socionics isn't real, it just means that socionics is connected onto a much larger universe.

    I don't understand how people can say that "Yes this area is Socionically related, but this area isn't" (is anything ever found to be Socionically related, after all?).

    If something can't be explained Socionically... then it will be explained by some other framework that has nothing to do with Socionics. Which is to say that the Socionics framework is likely wrong. Or it is irrelevant, anyhow, since it can't explain anything with it.

    Yes, Feeling, Thinking, Intuition, Sensing are all "real", since they're descriptions of persons via another person. But what likely gets it wrong is that they only exist in lop-sided ways in a person. So just because you have feelings, don't mean that thinking don't exist. Or just because you're thinking, doesn't mean that you're automatically logical and objective all the time (look at all the irrational, illogical, non-factual so-called "T types" on this forum...).

    I mean yeah, those tendencies can exist, but they're not the rule. And what makes it something a "rule" and something isn't? Well they'd have to be found via theories.

  21. #61
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu "But you still don't know how typing works, or exactly why should Fe and Ti be complimentary and not conflicting and so on. Those things are not explained, because it's lacking in theories that can explain their causal mechanisms."

    Oppositely-charged elements attract. There's a simple link to physical science. The rest of the theory links to it as well. I'm sure you could find a bunch of other ways socionics is linked to contemporary psychological science later on after you manage to find 16 distinct operationally defined types that correspond to the 16 types.

  22. #62

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Oppositely-charged elements attract. There's a simple link to physical science. The rest of the theory links to it as well. I'm sure you could find a bunch of other ways socionics is linked to contemporary psychological science later on after you manage to find 16 distinct operationally defined types that correspond to the 16 types.
    Then that can't explain when there are times Fe and Ti don't get along well. So you'd have to bring in ad-hoc modifications, like "That has to do with other, non-Socionics factors".

    Fe/Ti simply can't be the cause for why people get along or don't get along. It has to be explained in some other ways that have nothing to do with Socionics, if we were to be more consistent.

  23. #63
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Then that can't explain when there are times Fe and Ti don't get along well. So you'd have to bring in ad-hoc modifications, like "That has to do with other, non-Socionics factors".

    Fe/Ti simply can't be the cause for why people get along or don't get along. It has to be explained in some other ways that have nothing to do with Socionics, if we were to be more consistent.
    What's wrong with modifications? People are obviously more complex than bunches of protons and electrons, but if a system can reduce things to being pretty close to that, then that's already amazing. You can just find definitions of Fe and Ti that can make statistically significant results for being able to get along, and you're good.

  24. #64

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    What's wrong with modifications? People are obviously more complex than bunches of protons and electrons, but if a system can reduce things to being pretty close to that, then that's already amazing. You can just find definitions of Fe and Ti that can make statistically significant results for being able to get along, and you're good.
    We're still explaining it in non-Socionics ways, anyhow, so that makes Socionics kinda irrelevant.

  25. #65
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    We're still explaining it in non-Socionics ways, anyhow, so that makes Socionics kinda irrelevant.
    What are you talking about? Dual elements attracting is the entire basis of Socionics. You've realized and have mentioned on your own already that theories or hypotheses need to make sense in terms of other discoveries and knowledge in various scientific fields in order to be regarded as scientific. So do you not think it needs to have any link now, anymore? : )

  26. #66

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    What are you talking about? Dual elements attracting is the entire basis of Socionics. You've realized and have mentioned on your own already that theories or hypotheses need to make sense in terms of other discoveries and knowledge in various scientific fields in order to be regarded as scientific. So do you not think it needs to have any link now, anymore? : )
    It's not scientific yet, but there are already simple enough non-Socionics explanations for why people get along or don't get along. We might say "Because they hate each other" or "Because of their upbringing" or something like that. And you can make it as arbitrarily detailed as you'd like from there. And yes, you can eventually make that "scientific" by coming up with various theories. My hunch is that it has something to do with social identities. The reason why people can like or hate each other, is because they have certain identities. And so the answer to that is to come up with the Theory of Social Identities or something like that.

    If you're going by Socionics, then you'd have to come up with ad-hoc modifications. And you say, well why is that so bad? The reason is because those additional modifications need to be further explained. You might say, "Well, it's because of Hidden Agenda..." or "It's because they're mistyped...". Ok, then how do those Hidden Agendas work? How are they mistyped? You'd need to be able to explain how exactly is it that people can be mistyped, and in what ways. And if you can't even get those basics right, then how can you even expect that Socionics "works"?

  27. #67
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your theory just sucks @Singu .

    There's no need to get into that since that's all subjective stuff anyway. You don't need tons of complex modifications, or any really. You just need to have the main rules that work consistently within some margin of error, and then connect those to existing knowledge. That's pretty much enough, if anyone can collect enough data and crunch the numbers right to figure out some objective repeatable trends that coincide with the socionics type descriptions and their respective ITR. Much of science relies on falling within some margin of error and not much is 100% consistent anyway.

  28. #68

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    There's no need to get into that since that's all subjective stuff anyway. You don't need tons of complex modifications, or any really. You just need to have the main rules that work consistently within some margin of error, and then connect those to existing knowledge. That's pretty much enough, if anyone can collect enough data and crunch the numbers right to figure out some objective repeatable trends that coincide with the socionics type descriptions and their respective ITR. Much of science relies on falling within some margin of error and not much is 100% consistent anyway.
    Yeah, except that's not how science works, actually. If there are margins of error, then those errors need to be explained.

    Say there is the Law of Conservation (or thermodynamics). No law or theory ever can violate this law. So far, it has been 100% consistent. If there's something that violates this law, then we're in deep trouble.

    Science isn't just a bunch of statistics, you don't just collect a bunch of data and make a summarization of that. Yes a lot of people confuse that as "science", but it actually isn't. Yeah, and you're probably not going to believe it anyways, but whatever.

  29. #69
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yeah, except that's not how science works, actually. If there are margins of error, then those errors need to be explained.

    Say there is the Law of Conservation (or thermodynamics). No law or theory ever can violate this law. So far, it has been 100% consistent. If there's something that violates this law, then we're in deep trouble.

    Science isn't just a bunch of statistics, you don't just collect a bunch of data and make a summarization of that. Yes a lot of people confuse that as "science", but it actually isn't. Yeah, and you're probably not going to believe it anyways, but whatever.
    Lol you choose one of the few consistent ones as if it proves any point. Exactly why I said "not much". Especially not in complex sciences involving higher biological processes and human behavior. But try taking the margin of error out of testing for depression, or DNA replication. There's a simple explanation for socionics: life and people are complex. More complex than anything in hard science. For this level of analysis, if any system can account for a statistically significant amount of interactions, then that's fair enough.

    Statistics is a required 100 or 200 level course if you study science lol. It is for psychology as well, btw. It's not everything, but it's a fundamentally important part of it.

  30. #70

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Lol you choose one of the few consistent ones as if it proves any point. Exactly why I said "not much". Especially not in complex sciences involving higher biological processes and human behavior. But try taking the margin of error out of testing for depression, or DNA replication. There's a simple explanation for socionics: life and people are complex. More complex than anything in hard science. For this level of analysis, if any system can account for a statistically significant amount of interactions, then that's fair enough.

    Statistics is a required 100 or 200 level course if you study science lol. It is for psychology as well, btw. It's not everything, but it's a fundamentally important part of it.
    I'm sure we'd both agree that science is about criticisms, or the so-called "peer-review". So how are you going to answer, if they say "Well that's just correlation, not causation"? We simply don't know if the correlation actually has anything to do with it, or not.

    Smoking and alcoholism are correlated, but they're not caused by one another. Smoking and lung cancer are caused, because we have theories that can explain the causal mechanisms. We don't know whether "Fi" and certain behaviors are correlated or caused, because there is no such theory explaining its causal mechanisms.

    Statistics are by definition, correlation. If you want causation, then you'd have to come up with explanatory theories.

  31. #71
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I'm sure we'd both agree that science is about criticisms, or the so-called "peer-review". So how are you going to answer, if they say "Well that's just correlation, not causation"? We simply don't know if the correlation actually has anything to do with it, or not.

    Statistics are by definition, correlation. If you want causation, then you'd have to come up with explanatory theories.
    1) The explanatory theory is Model A and the theory of dual elements attracting, related to physics and mathematics.

    2) It's not theories alone that account for causation, but experimentation. With repeated, peer-reviewed results yes. And lo and behold, we have the operationalised types and repeatable methods ready for them at this point!

    And I will eat my turds before I agree with you on anything like this here.

  32. #72
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Look Singu, in North America we learn about how causation is 'identified' even in highschool. You need to run controlled experiments to isolate the independent variable. Hope you have a good explanation/theory for why you can't remember this or for the low info Ni shithole you came out from, yet are foaming out of the mouth/anus trying to argue with people in science-involving fields anyway.

  33. #73

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    1) The explanatory theory is Model A and the theory of dual elements attracting, related to physics and mathematics.

    2) It's not theories alone that account for causation, but experimentation. With repeated, peer-reviewed results yes. And lo and behold, we have the operationalised types and repeatable methods ready for them at this point!

    And I will eat my turds before I agree with you on anything like this here.
    ...

    1) I've already told you that that can't explain when duals don't get along. Lo and behold, this "hypothesis" is invalidated by an experiment.

    Of course, you can attempt to "save" this by saying "Oh, they must be mistyped... blah blah blah". But then you'd have to explain how exactly is it that they're mistyped!

    2) You first have an explanatory theory, then you test the causation via an experiment. Not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Look Singu, in North America we learn about how causation is 'identified' even in highschool. You need to run controlled experiments to isolate the independent variable. Hope you have a good explanation/theory for why you can't remember this or for the low info Ni shithole you came out from, yet are foaming out of the mouth/anus trying to argue with people in science-involving fields anyway.
    Because you don't get it, that's why. At least some people like Rebelondeck seems to get it.

  34. #74
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2) I didn't say it was the other way around lol. And you left out the crucial part of there needing to be an experiment.

    1) Bitch look 2 posts up. See the explanation of complex information and margin of error. It is relevant in this field.

    Now shut up. I feel soul pain engaging with someone making a fool out of themselves, and by extension I feel like I'm drilling nails into my head making a fool out of myself talking to you @Singu . What a human embarassment.

  35. #75

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    1) Bitch look 2 posts up. See the explanation of complex information and margin of error. It is relevant in this field.
    Yeah, and there's also going to be a margin of error in correlation between smoking and alcoholism, lol. If you keep ignoring this error without coming up with an explanation for why that is the case, then you'd just keep following some pointless correlation that has nothing to do with each other.

  36. #76
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yeah, and there's also going to be a margin of error in correlation between smoking and alcoholism, lol. If you keep ignoring this error without coming up with an explanation for why that is the case, then you'd just keep following some pointless correlation that has nothing to do with each other.
    Alright first of all, this causation and margin of error are separate issues.

    Second, you would perform controlled experiments after or while testing for ITR correlations, ideally. You need to realize that statistical significance in controlled experiments themselves are relevant for determining causation.

  37. #77
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,993
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    At least some people like Rebelondeck seems to get it.
    If he "gets it", and socionics is so empty and mindless, then why is he spending so much time dicking around on here like you are?

  38. #78

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,474
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Alright first of all, this causation and margin of error are separate issues.

    Second, you would perform controlled experiments after or while testing for ITR correlations, ideally. You need to realize that statistical significance in controlled experiments themselves are relevant for determining causation.
    ...You're not going to magically come up with causation by doing more statistical analysis and "experiments".

    How do you think we know that smoking causes lung cancer? Because we have a THEORY on smoking causing cancer.

    The theory is this: smoke -> carcinogen -> damages cell -> damages DNA strands -> error in cell-reproduction -> uncontrollable cell-reproduction = cancer

    That's the theory. We didn't "derive" that from statistical analysis or from the results of "experiments". It was a theory that somebody came up with. Yes, it's possible that somebody was inspired to come up with that theory from gathering a lot of data or doing statistical analysis, but it's still a theory that didn't magically get made from statistics. It was created from AN ACT OF CREATIVITY.

    Some people think that they can just un-creatively come up with theories by just following the textbook procedures of statistical analysis, but it's not going to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    If he "gets it", and socionics is so empty and mindless, then why is he spending so much time dicking around on here like you are?
    He "gets it" that Socionics is an explanation-less classification system. I believe he's coming up with some THEORY that attempts to explain the classification. That's what I've been telling people, if they want to make Socionics "scientific". You're not going to make it "scientific" by making it statistical. You're going to have to come up with THEORIES.

  39. #79

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post


    I think you can. People really aren't as unique or special or original as they narcissistically think of themselves. You are just a basic bitch cookie cutter type. You do have unique differences, but the macro patterns are what other people are going to notice more objectively, not the micro differences.

    To be apt at socionics, you have to always be thinking about socionics while at the same time thinking of how certain traits &
    idiosyncrasies are not socionically related. Of even if they are in a way, there is so much other evidence that will color the complexity of who a person is. It doesn't mean socionics isn't real, it just means that socionics is connected onto a much larger universe. I think four dimensional Ti types (or maybe just LII?) often get into this trap or mental prison where they think , this specific quality HAS to neatly fit with this quadra or that person is not this quadra etc- its like their strong Ti way of trying to make sense of everything. But then a SEE or IEE is good at pointing out how that person is being unfairly misunderstood or prejudged based on their socionic type.
    I don't know BandD, but I don't think it depends on how a person's rational side works, as to whether someone's that invested into Socionics that they make it a mental prison.

    It's more to do with some people wanting to strongly believe in Socionics's magic (about duality or whatever) I suppose, and then these people just overemphasise Socionics explanations where they themselves used to have other explanations in place previously (before getting into Socionics).

    I mean yeah everyone has at least a little extra investment in Socionics while dealing with it but for some people it does become a mental prison yeah

  40. #80

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    lol, the only dishonesty is you giving insults all the time and never having explained anything...
    This isn't worth my time

    Think about how you come off here unless you're deliberately trolling

    And unless you apologise for the personal attacks that totally didn't belong to the er, discussion, I won't withdraw mine either or bother giving more of my time or effort or patience to your posts with you continually misunderstanding what I talk about whenever I mention anything about the scientific method. Anything whatsoever.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 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
  •