Alright first of all, this causation and margin of error are separate issues.Originally Posted by Singu
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.
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.
@Singu Big bang -> particles cooling & energetic polarization -> your dumb ass emerges and somehow survives the dinosaur era, and meets me on the internet -> error in brain cell reproduction = cancer
Seriously though... it's PERSONALITY and opposing strengths complementing each other. What amount of flow charting do you need to see to have that explained? It emerges from your head, well idk about in your case...
Well at least you've acknowledged that explanatory theories can't suddenly emerge from doing more statistical analysis.
And from that, I don't even know why I'm talking to you...
Anyway, what you've been harping on so far is "Let's do more statistical analysis!! That should make it more scientific-y". Well we now know that isn't the case.
So your "hypothesis" is now "OPPOSITES ATTRACT!!!". Well, sure. But you know, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they conflict. Sometimes they annoy each other. Sometimes they lose interest. Sometimes they hate each other.
So it seems more likely that: Opposites attract, if they have something to offer to each other, that the other person is seeking and/or is lacking.
And you might say that's the basis for why F/T, S/N attract.
But people aren't 100% feeling or 100% thinking. Some people are more 50%/50%. Also it's not just limited to areas of F/T/S/N. It could be about a bunch of other stuff. It could simply be gender (biological or psychological).
Or you could also say similarities attract. People aren't necessarily attracted to things that are the complete opposite of them. There'd also have to be some similarities.
Then there are certain things that people are more or less universally attracted to. Then there are cultural and social influences... environmental influences... cognitive influences... personal values and philosophies... upbringings...
Needless to say, it's complicated. And so you're going to be needing bigger frameworks than what Socionics is offering, in order to explain them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote