This is what happens when u get LSI vs LSI arguments
This is what happens when u get LSI vs LSI arguments
Has zero to do with type.Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Yea 0
"Operationalisation" is just a way to downplay the role of explanations in social sciences, by focusing on statistics and measurements. That's why social sciences typically aren't considered as "real" science, as they lack explanations and focus on things like statistics.
The argument is that Socionics lacks explanations, which is something that Myst has been denying for some reason, lol. She can't possibly argue that Socionics has any testable explanations, and that's why she's so pissed.
ITR is just a statistical trend, it's not an explanation by any means. Operationalizing ITR doesn't solve any problems by magically coming up with explanations.
If you understand the opponent-process theory there are explanations. However, if you use these kinds of theories pomos will call you a Nazi so chickens like Myst usually get forced out of learning them to be good STEMbots and stay in the Academy. Basic phenomenology (intentionality) and avoiding Cartesian dualism would make psychology a natural science. Look at how linguistics has completely failed to be a science for comparison. Chomsky thinks making language into a mathematical program is "natural" when that's a Platonic anti-language, and everyone else thinks history is science somehow. To do social sciences you have to be able to survive being called a Nazi by actual Nazis.
A lot of people are understandably confused, because in "social" sciences like psychology, they tend to focus on statistics. So they think that in order to legitimize Socionics, it too, needs to be "statistical"!
But what they don't realize is that the reason why "social" sciences aren't considered to be "real" science, is because it simply lacks (causal) explanations. So all they end up is having "correlation does not imply causation" over and over again. And they think that by making statistics and measurements more rigorous and narrow, they will somehow magically come up with explanations. But they won't though, because only explanatory theories can come up with causality.
on and on and on
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
@Singu, if it were that simple, the nature of scientific research would be different. Read your Kant and your Goethe and your Schelling. It's not even possible to blindly agree with all the Romantics on their theories, but you can't argue about these kinds of matters without knowing the first thing about phenomenology even if it's not fashionable and people prefer Cartesian dualism and paranoia.
Does a dog bark because it is happy, or because you think it is happy? That is the real distinction. If you show it a biscuit, it wags its tail and salivates. But to a chimpanzee, what use is the biscuit? For a human...you reinforce behavior you see as positive and give others your own opinions. So how can you say anyone truly has their own sense of Self? See what I mean? Exactly my point!
This is a kind of a joke post, but the point is that the question is seeking either a biological explanation, or a psychological explanation.
We can fairly easily answer why a dog salivates in a biological way. But if we want to know why a dog is "happy" or why a dog salivates in a psychological way... then it needs the psychological theory of dogs (if it even has one...). I'm sure most dog-lovers would disagree, but I'm sure no one would come up with one because dogs don't likely have psychology, at least on the level of our own.
It's the same with humans. How do we know that one is "happy", or whether he's just putting on an external mask, but he really is unhappy on the inside? We may be able to associate a dog wagging its tail as an external behavioral marker for "happiness", and that may work because dogs are simpler, but it's not so for humans. We may associate smiling as "happiness", but he may simply be forcing a smile and is really a depressed person.
Why can we easily answer why someone would salivate in a biological way, but we can't even answer whether someone is happy or not?
The answer is that we already have a biological theory of why someone would salivate, while we have no psychological theory of why someone would be happy, or even know what happiness is. So somebody needs to come up with a theory explaining what happiness is. And if you don't think that's possible, then the reason why people salivate were quite mysterious before there were theories about it.
Last edited by Singu; 09-15-2019 at 12:06 AM.
@Santa Claus
First few hits on google for the very simple keywords "detect happiness". Suppose some version can work for dogs too.
Real-Time EEG-Based Happiness Detection System https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759272/
Detecting Happiness Using Hyperspectral Imaging Technology https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2019/1965789/
Well this is problematic, because it's just an observational association of "happiness" and "something happening in the brain". But there's no explanation whatsoever of why would someone be happy, or even an explanation of what happiness even is.
This is just an example of the constant downplaying of the role of explanations, where everything is just turned into correlational statistics, but ignoring causal explanations.
We don't know what happiness fundamentally is... because there's no theory of what happiness fundamentally is. And no amount of "brain scanning" can come up with that. Somebody has to come up with a theory that can explain what happiness is.
I feel inspired enough to pull a theory of happiness out of my butthole right now.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
right, lol. That's about the best summary of the nonsense that's been going on here.
As for the claim on psychology not ever figuring anything about happiness, that's plain bullshit, a 5-min google will disprove it, as there's loads of theories on happiness, if anyone here is interested in psychology further.
Ironically, that's been my old criticism of Socionics. Which was based on the Logical Positivist (which is now wrong and defunct) view of science:right, lol. That's about the best summary of the nonsense that's been going on here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
This is a very good description of the (correct) "scientific method":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_methodScientific research involves using the scientific method, which seeks to objectively explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience – fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena. This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation.
Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causal relationships (to avoid the correlation fallacy).
When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. If the hypothesis survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory, a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena.
How do you think we come up with "explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis"? That's right... "out of your butthole". Baboooshka is making the same old Logical Positivist mistake that scientific theories and hypotheses must be something that is "verified". Nothing is ever actually verified.
It is:
1. Explanatory
2. Reproducible
3. Survives experimental testing
You can't come up with anything other than correlation between "something happening in the brain" and "happiness". And we don't even know what happiness fundamentally is.
If you have to tell yourself you're not real to make life bearable, something is severely wrong with you.
Okay Singu I broke down for a sec here and clicked the "View post" thingy. After your previous awesome snippet, the one that someone else quoted in, I just got to feel I gotta speak for a sec. My rhetorical question. Why is experimental testing even necessary if nothing can ever be verified
So this is the kind of nonsense that's just a bit too extreme lol
I personally see it as, we won't reach perfect Absolute Truth, we can only try getting closer, but it isn't true nothing can ever be verified.
I promise I will not click "View post" again to get your posts to show.
(not)
The purpose of an experimental testing is that it will be one of the most devastating criticisms to a theory (and may completely refute it), but it will not prove or verify anything.
As Logical Positivists would say, any statement that is not verifiable by either observation or logical proof is meaningless. This seems like a sensible proposition. Except that it's not. The very statement "statement that is not verifiable by observation or logical proof..." is itself not verifiable by observation or logical proofs! So the very whole thing becomes self-refuting and explodes itself. It actually took a while for very intelligent people to realize this very simple fact (and even refuse to admit it). And so now Logical Positivism or verificationism has fallen out of favor. Now we prefer falsificationism. We don't want "positive" proofs, we want "negative" refutations. There's nothing that says something is True and Verified once and for all.
If we need to verify every statements and hypotheses and theories, then we can never put forth any theories for an experimental testing in the first place. That, is more "extreme" more than anything. We need time and patience for hypotheses and theories to grow so that they can become something that is testable.
--
Another purpose of an experimental testing is that it will be to choose between two or more competing theories that is explaining the same phenomena. If there's only one theory, then even if it "fails", then we have nowhere else to look for, anyway. We also don't even know what it is that failed, without having an alternative theory that can explain what exactly it is that failed.
An example is that Newtonian physics was the dominant theory of physics at the time. There were no credible alternatives.
The problem with Newton's theory was that there was a small deviation in the observation of Mercury. Every year, it was about one ten-thousandth of a degree away from where Newton’s theory said it should be.
So Newton's calculation was off by about 0.000001%. Of course, this could be dismissed as something that is a negligible margin of error. Or we could even blame the instrument of the measurement for making the wrong measurement, or the experiment itself. We still don't know which is false: the theory, or the instrument.
Or we could look for the cause for the deviation, which Einstein did. He came up with a completely new kind of explanation which completely refuted Newton's explanation. He said that there was no such thing as a "force" of gravity that magically pulled objects together, but rather it was "pushed down" by the curvature of space caused by massive objects.
I mean this is funny, since Newton's theory works so well for everything else. So how would Einstein even know, coming up with his theories right "out of his ass" (thought experiments and calculations), that Newton's theory is wrong?
So people took notice of Einstein's new theory, and eventually his superfan Arthur Eddington devised an experiment which will ultimately prove Newton's theory false and prefer Einstein's theory. In the famous 1919 solar eclipse experiment, Einstein's theory said that light would be deflected slightly due to the curvature of space bending even light. Newton's theory mentions no such bending of light. So Einstein's theory predicted that we would observe light in a slightly different position than the Newton's theory would predict. And which it did appear in a slightly different position.
The fact is that Einstein's theory explained more, and then some, than the Newton's theory. It explained things that Newton's theory couldn't explain. Without Einstein's theory, this deviation would only be an unexplained mystery or a marginally small error to be ignored. But only a new alternative theory or an explanation could find the cause for such an error, not an experiment.
Of course, there's nothing that says Einstein's theory is true once and for all. There could be a new theory that would ultimately prove Einstein's theory wrong. Even Quantum physics is in direct contradiction with the Einsteinian physics.
And nobody knows WHY massive objects bend space-time, only that they do.
That's the hilarious part.
Get singu on the problem, he is obsessed with explanations.
LOL, just monkeys with super tech thinking we've figured out all there is to know.
Oh right it's the kind of "why" that depressed people obsessively ruminate about
The same ungrounded, unfocused aimless "why why why" here (by Singu)
Maybe there is a reason why he got stuck on it like this.
Anyway yeah I don't want to pick on him any further. (But stays on ignore bc there was too much nastiness that I'm not interested in sry) Just kinda tried to understand what he's hung up on
I applaud his search for why at the same time as I am teasing it.
I'm also curious about whys.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well you probably should. People are so afraid of coming up with theories... because "theories" have become a dirty word, especially in countries like the United States (interestingly, "theories" aren't considered to be such dirty words in some other countries). "That's just a theory" "It's all just speculation" have become something of an insult, when that's actually the entire point of science. You even see that in Socionics, because Socionics is just mimicking the popular culture.
But the entire point is that you come up with a theory, you test it and see if it's wrong or not. But of course people don't really want to be wrong. So they look for certainty, like "BUT I HAVE PROOF!!" "THIS IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!! THIS PROVES IT CORRECT!!!".
But there's no such thing as certainty.
It's not philosophy, because "happiness" after all is a physical process that can be explained as having causal power in a physical way. Consciousness and happiness are fundamentally nothing but neurons in the brain behaving in a certain way, which does seem like magic and mind-blowing to us now. But maybe in the future, once we do figure out how it's done... then it would be common knowledge, and maybe we'd be creating consciousness like it's nothing... and that is strange.
The problem of "AI" is nothing new, back in as early as 1950, Alan Turing, the father of modern computers, envisioned that in the future we'd have programmable AIs with consciousness and thoughts and emotions that is indistinguishable from humans (which is why he came up with the (in)famous "Turing test").
Or even earlier in 1837, Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace, created the blueprint for "Analytical Engine", which is basically a fully programmable computer that is capable of doing any kind of computations that the modern computers can do. This was never actually built at the time due to the lack of their management skills, but it was rebuilt 200 years later, and it works. They too, envisioned that the Analytical Engine would eventually be capable of playing chess, do algebra, converse, etc, - it was all just a matter of knowing how to program it.
I mean of course, how to think about science or how science ought to be done is philosophy, and that is just as important as science itself. It does seem like we'd need change in philosophy to answer questions like "What is happiness? What is consciousness?" etc.
But you probably don't like this idea because you're religious... and I'm not religious.
Uh huh... so you accuse me of not reading what you provided, and yet you didn't read what I said.
It's because what I clearly said is that what emotions or happiness are, are not a matter of philosophy.
If I say that they are a matter of philosophy, then I'd have to evoke the supernatural and say that they can't be physically explained. And I clearly detailed the reasons why emotions and consciousness can be physically explained, which you didn't bother to read.
But it's fine, you're just trying to defend Socionics. LOL. And I've already detailed why Socionics can't possibly be defended, if you're a rational person. At best it's a classification system, and I think that has to be admitted instead of saying "Well it's not supposed to be science... it's not supposed to be philosophy... it's not supposed to be...". Well I'll tell you what it's "supposed to be". It's a fucking classification system. Is that bad? Not necessarily, but it's clearly limited in what it can do and can't do. It can't predict relationships, it can't explain any human thoughts and behaviors.
If you want to take it further, then you're going to have to come up with explanations for it. Saying "It's not supposed to have explanations..." don't help anything.
Last edited by Singu; 09-16-2019 at 03:52 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
