What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

[Singu]

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.

[sbbds]

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.

[Singu]

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.

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.

[sbbds]

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?