Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 138

Thread: What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

  1. #81

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    And unless you apologise for the original personal attacks, I won't withdraw mine either or bother giving more of my time or effort to your posts with you continually misunderstanding what I talk about whenever I mention anything about the scientific method. Anything whatsoever.
    lol, I've never once insulted you, while you've insulted how many times? 10 times? Anyway I don't care for them and I don't need apologies, but I'm just going to take them as excuses for not being able to come up with valid explanations.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    lol, I've never once insulted you, while you've insulted how many times? 10 times? Anyway I don't care for them and I don't need apologies, but I'm just going to take them as excuses for not being able to come up with valid explanations.
    Okay you must seriously be trolling

  3. #83
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,868
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The theory is this: smoke -> carcinogen -> damages cell -> damages DNA strands -> error in cell-reproduction -> uncontrollable cell-reproduction = cancer
    @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...

  4. #84

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    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.

  5. #85
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,027
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another insight: 'conceited Ti' vs. 'my Ti': Let's see it for what it really is: Think 'pompous, arrogant, Ti-flat' vs. the 'compensatory kind' - 'Fi', if you wish... Right? Get it?

  6. #86

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well this has pretty much been what the conversation looks like...:


    sbbds: Let's do some MORE statistical analysis, because that makes it look all scientific-y with all the neat graphs and numbers and stuff.

    "But then you'll only come up with correlation and not causation. You'll need to come up with explanatory theories to come up with causation."

    sbbds: Okay, then I have a theory: "OPPOSITES ATTRACT!!". Neat, right?

    "But that doesn't explain when opposites repel each other... And that happens, right?"

    sbbds: Yeah well, we can ignore that as a small margin of error, because reason.

    "But that's not how science and experiments wo..."

    sbbds: WOW stop being so NEGATIVE and CRITICAL!! If you don't like it, then just LEAVE!! You just HATE Socionics because you're so anti-Socionics!!! YOU'RE TERRIBLY BIASED!!! TREASON!!!

    "...This is just plain idiocy..."

    sbbds: Now, where were we? Oh that's right, back to some MORE finding correlation and not causation...

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    What it comes off like in reality

    Myst, sbdds, everyone else trying to reason with Singu: *explains basic science 101 bit*
    Singu: "but, but, but, I don't understand this because you don't explain anything properly"
    Myst, sbdds, everyone else trying to reason with Singu: *explains basic science 101 bit again*
    Singu: "but, but, but, I don't understand this because you don't explain anything and you are all wrong"
    Myst, sbdds, everyone else trying to reason with Singu: *explains basic science 101 bit again*
    Singu: "but, but, but, I don't understand this because you don't explain anything and you are all wrong and you all suck"
    Myst: "please stop insulting or I won't have patience again with explaining to you"
    Singu: "you're the one insulting me all the time and you suck because you don't ever want to explain anything to my hopeless brain!!"
    Myst: *bye troll*

    Also, yeah not feeding the troll further. : P But I had to add this to the above post. : P

  8. #88

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No actually, it was more like this...:

    Myst
    : Operationalization! Operationalization! Operationalization! Because operationalization is neat and that's what makes it science!
    sbbds: No, statistics! Statistics is what makes it science!

    Me: Well actually, statistics isn't what makes it science, because correlation does not imply causation. And science is about causation.
    Me: As for operationalization, well in order to measure something, first you'll need a theory that can explain how that measurement works, what values it should reveal with what accuracy. So just like with statistics, we can't use operationalization to bypass having to come up with theories (for example, we'll need a "theory of typing").
    Me: Now, so why don't we actually try coming up with some theories that expla...

    Myst, sbbds: Shut up! You're an idiot! Idiot! Look, I can't come up with theories, it's too hard!

    Me: ...Lunacy... lunacy I tell you...

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol

  10. #90
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,565
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    jason

    Probably the key is not to go deeper within yourself. wink wink. Only by comparison of external entities can you calibrate your perception and judgement. The curve might by wonky n-dimensional nightmare with large margin of error but that how it should roughly work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  11. #91
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,027
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think there is also some error in the theory: classically, it is supposed to be Fe: objective ethics e.g., 'the church' or what the 'community' believes, vs. subjective ethics Fi: *my* personal ethical views, regardless of what society believes. Something like this has been conflated with 'has some ethics' vs. 'doesn't', which I think is obviously wrong. WRT looking inside: I do it in *all* ways - emotionally, logically, and intuitively. That could be what's wrong with my self-typing...

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I think there is also some error in the theory: classically, it is supposed to be Fe: objective ethics e.g., 'the church' or what the 'community' believes, vs. subjective ethics Fi: *my* personal ethical views, regardless of what society believes. Something like this has been conflated with 'has some ethics' vs. 'doesn't', which I think is obviously wrong. WRT looking inside: I do it in *all* ways - emotionally, logically, and intuitively. That could be what's wrong with my self-typing...
    Emotions are internal things though anyway, whether you want to call them "objective" or "subjective", tbh all emotion is subjective, in the sense it's not factual stuff and in the sense it relates to the personal self or subjective parts of people in some way.

    Even Socionics acknowledges that, Fe is defined as stuff about internal processes, objective or not. "Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods." (From wikisocion)

    PS: I think you referred to MBTI with part of definitions and the beliefs you quoted. Tho' I do say you're better off with frameworks that you can improve on more than Socionics's fixed little model where you can only reiterate the same limited stuff forever even with new models
    Last edited by Myst; 09-04-2019 at 03:27 PM.

  13. #93

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem with Socionics is that it's either/or. It can't explain when people can do both, when people can be both subjective and objective, both thinking and feeling, both get along and conflict, depending on situations and circumstances.

    And why it doesn't do that is because Socionics doesn't explain observations. It's not about explaining why things are the way they are. It's about classifying certain observations in a certain way.

    If we want to explain how people can both get along and conflict at the same time, how can be both subjective and objective at the same time, etc, then we'll need completely different models than what Socionics is offering.

    For example, how are people able to be both subjective and objective? The Socionics' answer is that people are separated into either "subjective-thinkers" or "objective-thinkers", and there's little overlap or in-between.

    The problem with this approach is that yes, at a certain point in observation, there's going to be a "subjective-thinker" that confirms this view. But it can't explain when at other times, the exact same person is an "objective-thinker". Again, it's about classifying, not explaining.

    My view is that the ability to be subjective and objective arises from people's ability to think in virtually any kind of ways. It's just that being "objective" is simply one of the possibilities of infinite possible ways of thinking. This arises from the fact that infinite variations of information can be created from rearranging more basic, fundamental, elementary logic.

    The explanatory model creates a completely different model than the classification model.

  14. #94

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eh the problem with Socionics is it promises magic lol and while the framework could be right in pointing out some tendencies (unproven so far though, right), i.e. that there really is "something", it is too easily used in a non-falsifiable way.

    And while promising magic, it's been put together in a way that it tries to touch on a lot of stuff about the unconscious so it ends up playing the role of poor man's psychoanalysis too, which can be downright dangerous in some cases. It tries to play this role even more than MBTI, trying to touch on more unconscious stuff like that. Along with non-falsifiability too easily allowing for the "randomness" that's used in psychoanalysis too.

    That's it in a nutshell.

  15. #95
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I think there is also some error in the theory: classically, it is supposed to be Fe: objective ethics e.g., 'the church' or what the 'community' believes, vs. subjective ethics Fi: *my* personal ethical views, regardless of what society believes. Something like this has been conflated with 'has some ethics' vs. 'doesn't', which I think is obviously wrong. WRT looking inside: I do it in *all* ways - emotionally, logically, and intuitively. That could be what's wrong with my self-typing...
    I don’t take objective ethics to mean rules laid down by an external authority, but rather observable and manifest information about human behavior. If it’s just rules created by someone else, you don’t need to have any perceptual abilities at all, just a good memory and a willingness to be an enforcer.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  16. #96

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    I don’t take objective ethics to mean rules laid down by an external authority, but rather observable and manifest information about human behavior. If it’s just rules created by someone else, you don’t need to have any perceptual abilities at all, just a good memory and a willingness to be an enforcer.
    Observable and manifest like expressions and body language and word usage?

    Quote from wikisocion "EIEs often hold strong views about governance and social custom, though their beliefs stem from the interests of their close emotional relationships."

  17. #97

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    Aw... now I can see your weak point, Singu.

    It's not Socionics problem if theories aren't describing that dilemmas and anomalies. Socionics already have good boundaries to limit themselves about how to explain behavior that is common in some types but not in others. So even if you eager to really want socionics describes when people do both [insert any two opposites keywords here], I believe they will just accept your request but do nothing, as an ethics of theory boundaries due to scientific reason.
    Well as I've said, the problem is that it's not explaining observations.

    The common defense against this is "Well people are just misusing Socionics. The model is not supposed to do that, so it's working as intended".

    If you argue that, then it just becomes a way to silence any criticisms against any theory. You can say that a totally useless theory is "useful in its uselessness". You end up with justifying a bunch of bogus theories.

    So yes, the criteria of criticism is that it's not explaining observations. You might say that you don't need to explain things. But then that opens a whole new set of problems, such as that you don't know whether the correlation has anything to do with what it's being correlated with or not.

    Needless to say, it can't explain when for instance, two best friends were getting along, and now they're suddenly conflicting. And if you can't explain that, then the model must be wrong and inadequate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    I might illustrate this as, if there were two identical dogs came to me to arguing my statement about "Both of you are identical", and they showed the difference into me by do barking, and that one dog barks at a high frequency and another one barks at a low frequency, then I would better say "Both of you are dogs. You are identical each other, because both of you almost impossible to naturally speak like human."


    So, is it a problem to classified both dogs as identical?
    Identifying dogs in such a way is not a problem, because we can perfectly well explain dogs' behavior in that way. There has not been an observation that contradicts our common view of dogs. Our "model of dogs" is that they don't talk, because well, they don't have vocal cords or brains like humans or something like that. So that model works perfectly fine.

    And anyway, this is still a classification model. We're saying "Let's classify dogs that bark at high frequency and low frequency accordingly, and perhaps make some correlations". But explanatory model says, "Well why do dogs bark at high/low frequency?". Then we might come up with models that say it's due to their vocal cords, it's a show of dominance, it has to do with level of testosterone, etc
    Last edited by Singu; 09-04-2019 at 09:06 PM.

  18. #98
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Observable and manifest like expressions and body language and word usage?

    Quote from wikisocion "EIEs often hold strong views about governance and social custom, though their beliefs stem from the interests of their close emotional relationships."
    Observable like, yes, expression in the moment, but also observation of patterns of human behavior. The problem with “governance and social custom” is that those are highly variant depending on culture and subculture.

    Behaviors will fall somewhere on a continuum in terms of fitting any given situation. What is customary is not always most effective. If you understand what would be customary, you can choose not to do the customary thing based on what is needed, by yourself and by others.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  19. #99

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    Aw... now I can see your weak point, Singu.
    Heh it's true there's some weak points there.


    It's not Socionics problem if theories aren't describing that dilemmas and anomalies. Socionics already have good boundaries to limit themselves about how to explain behavior that is common in some types but not in others. So even if you eager to really want socionics describes when people do both [insert any two opposites keywords here], I believe they will just accept your request but do nothing, as an ethics of theory boundaries due to scientific reason.
    I might illustrate this as, if there were two identical dogs came to me to arguing my statement about "Both of you are identical", and they showed the difference into me by do barking, and that one dog barks at a high frequency and another one barks at a low frequency, then I would better say "Both of you are dogs. You are identical each other, because both of you almost impossible to naturally speak like human."

    So, is it a problem to classified both dogs as identical?
    Sure Socionics or any other model is not supposed to explain *everything*. Some of the issues Singu raised are moot because Socionics does introduce explanations for when x will happen and when x will not happen and why.

    However I would disagree that the Socionics model has enough proper boundaries. It's a major problem with the model.

    Sure it's in part "just" because socionists and actual researchers overall can't have the tools with the necessary understanding yet to investigate some of the claims in its explanations. We have some tools, but not enough for all that. Not enough for much of it beyond proving that there is "something" to investigate further - but socionists did not try to prove even this properly. And proving that there is a tendency that requires further investigation to check if the explanation offered by the model is actually any good (or falsify it), that's the point of all the stats, it's not just fancy numbers for their own sake. It's how the scientific way of more refined thinking works.

    Then beyond just the idea of experiments finding tendencies for ITR for example, I did also find some claims about cognition that I thought can be checked by EEG or brain imaging experiments, and this would not simply be investigating tendencies but directly looking at how explanations hold up in experiments. I specifically considered experiment designs for EEG but I didn't go ahead with running any experiments because I figured out more on how those Socionics explanations I wanted to investigate likely do not hold up anyway.

    So that is the other part, problems with the model itself.


    I feel I already raised this issues some years ago, and I decided to not take it further. Singu, how you approach this theory isn't wrong or prohibited, but you just introducing a way of classifying that really not what Socionics approached into. Socionics aren't using Socio-traits, but Socio-types. I am bad to explain this (please for forumites whom having STEM background, help me ...) but types are having more discrete point of view to describe people behavior, rather than traits which having more continuous point of view. So, based on how Socionics theory do classification for people's types, you will not find the "fuzzy logic" explanation that will make type description's details become useless.
    Wonder if in this debate, there was a glass of mineral water in front of me. Then I said to you "I want to drink mineral water first. My throat feels dry after too much talk." But then you took a microphone and said in audience "He drinks clear soda" and all audiences believe to you, because you are being typed as objective in Socionics, while I am subjective. Now all people look at me as a liar. I have chance to prove that I am right by shaking my glass to prove that it isn't bubbly like soda, but because my throat is really dry, I prefer to drink it and not shake my glass in front of you all.

    In this illustration of the truth of mineral water vs the majority beliefs of clear soda, if you are using traits-based approach, you are right, because most of audience believe in what you said. But if you are using type-based approach, I am right, because I am the one whom drink it and it taste pure as mineral waters. Socionics using type-based approach, to make sure that person have rights to understand themselves better and judge, assess, and examine themselves about what they are fit into. As a risk, Socionics will have difficulty to reach consensus of definition to make a "whole understanding" about how a type behave in social, and it will really make scientific approach difficult to see what is common, in randomness of people's behavior in same types. But as a benefit, duality concept are still unbeatable and still being a main concern, even the typing systems itself already evolved many times beyond different socionists.
    Yeah the thing is I did investigate for myself if it explains all that well my own stuff internally or the mental facts for cognitive stuff that only I can observe for myself. Liked the idea of conscious vs not conscious processes, for example, but I ended up deciding that it was not consistent enough to have the explanations hold up in reality enough. For my own mental facts either, let alone other people's stuff that's even less easily observable without the tools available - we have some tools and some understanding sure, but not enough for all of it, again.

    And, for the example with the mineral water vs clear soda, I would definitely want to show it's mineral water because it would be beneficial beyond just having my own little personal interest but no, since I figured it's not mineral water most likely.

    You asked about the difference between types in Socionics vs just a plain traits based approach like Big 5 I guess. Yeah the difference is there is an explanatory model for the cognition of types. I would say types are discrete because of that, not because of having a binary dichotomous view instead of continuous dimensions for traits.

  20. #100

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    Observable like, yes, expression in the moment, but also observation of patterns of human behavior. The problem with “governance and social custom” is that those are highly variant depending on culture and subculture.

    Behaviors will fall somewhere on a continuum in terms of fitting any given situation. What is customary is not always most effective. If you understand what would be customary, you can choose not to do the customary thing based on what is needed, by yourself and by others.
    Gotcha, so you personally don't relate to that wikisocion statement much then, I take it.

  21. #101

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Regardless of who posted this one, I want to comment in general (not addressing anyone in particular nah):

    "Needless to say, it can't explain when for instance, two best friends were getting along, and now they're suddenly conflicting. And if you can't explain that, then the model must be wrong and inadequate."

    The Socionics model doesn't make the claim that duals do not conflict on issues. It makes more refined claims than that. So this on its own wouldn't have to be a problem. Otoh I do think that its model is inadequate to explain much of interpersonal dynamics, even if you add it to other frameworks to explain. And, for the stuff it does point out that I do think does exist as real phenomena in reality, I found better frameworks than Socionics.

    There are psychology models/frameworks about opposites in personalities/in the psyches of people that have nothing to do with Jung let alone Socionics, and can better explain stuff Jung and Socionics tried to cover. There are further psychology models/frameworks about interpersonal dynamics in general, that also add better explanations for some of the stuff.

    Mind you, Jung was more intellectually honest than socionists nowadays, and he knew the limitations of his models and admitted to them just fine. Also, he had bigger frameworks to give better context than what Socionics tried to stuff everything into. He had good insights that have been dealt with better in the many decades since then - the guy was still a genius to note some stuff/ideas many decades earlier than others.

  22. #102

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Sure Socionics or any other model is not supposed to explain *everything*. Some of the issues Singu raised are moot because Socionics does introduce explanations for when x will happen and when x will not happen and why.
    There obviously aren't any explanations for even the most basic things, such as why do the exact same people both get along, and conflict at different times?

    Any psychological model is supposed to explain human behavior, human cognition, etc. It's supposed to explain whatever that it claims to explain. What exactly does Socionics explain, I don't know. It doesn't really explain anything, because it's a classification model and not a explanatory model. And people say "Well it's not supposed to explain... so that's a problem with people's expectations and not the model". Technically, that is correct. But a model that doesn't explain anything is just a correlational model. And some people may actually finally say, "Well Socionics is not supposed to be anything relating to the real world... it's supposed to be some fun model that we play around with, as fiction". At that point, I have no idea what to say, lol. At this point, people are simply invested in shielding Socionics (or some other theory) from any criticisms.

    And there already are proposed explanations for things that Socionics can't explain.

  23. #103

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    There obviously aren't any explanations for even the most basic things, such as why do the exact same people both get along, and conflict at different times?
    Not gonna get into this again with you, and you know why. You better remember what I said about that lol.


    Any psychological model is supposed to explain human behavior, human cognition, etc. It's supposed to explain whatever that it claims to explain. What exactly does Socionics explain, I don't know.
    Good thing you admit you don't know. : P Bc you never read about the model I suppose.



    And people say "Well it's not supposed to explain... so that's a problem with people's expectations and not the model".
    If someone thinks a model is not supposed to attempt to explain anything............ no comment.



    And some people may actually finally say, "Well Socionics is not supposed to be anything relating to the real world... it's supposed to be some fun model that we play around with, as fiction". At that point, I have no idea what to say, lol. At this point, people are simply invested in shielding Socionics (or some other theory) from any criticisms.
    No, some people just play with it like they play with astrology. That's completely fine and more intellectually honest than what some "official socionists" do lol


    And there already are proposed explanations for things that Socionics can't explain.
    Exactly what I've been saying.

    It attempts to explain, but other frameworks are better at it.

  24. #104

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Regardless of who posted this one, I want to comment in general (not addressing anyone in particular nah):

    "Needless to say, it can't explain when for instance, two best friends were getting along, and now they're suddenly conflicting. And if you can't explain that, then the model must be wrong and inadequate."

    The Socionics model doesn't make the claim that duals do not conflict on issues. It makes more refined claims than that. So this on its own wouldn't have to be a problem. Otoh I do think that its model is inadequate to explain much of interpersonal dynamics, even if you add it to other frameworks to explain. And, for the stuff it does point out that I do think does exist as real phenomena in reality, I found better frameworks than Socionics.
    Well you know Myst, you say that Socionics is wrong and you've found a better framework in science, but you don't actually know why Socionics is wrong and science is right.

    I don't simply take it in faith that whatever science says must be correct. Of course, a scientific theory could be wrong. I think that the current state of scientific psychology is pretty dismal or not very inspiring. But I simply take it as a problem if a theory can't adequately explain anything.

    It's a simple fact that a mere classification model can't explain things. Does it explain anything if you classify dogs that bark at high/low frequency? Well, no, it doesn't explain anything. All it can say is that some dogs fit as high frequency barkers, and some dogs as low frequency barkers. And you might find that interesting or enlightening. But it doesn't explain things.

    It's like saying, "Why do some dogs bark at low frequencies? Because it's a low frequency barking type." At this point, you'll need a non-classification based, explanatory model to explain it.

  25. #105

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well you know Myst, you say that Socionics is wrong and you've found a better framework in science, but you don't actually know why Socionics is wrong and science is right.
    lol you asshole. For making bullshit claims about me just bc you feel like it.

    Not that I expect anything better from you. I already know that you read incredibly selectively (making yourself sound ridiculous with it). So there's that.


    I don't simply take it in faith that whatever science says must be correct. Of course, a scientific theory could be wrong. I think that the current state of scientific psychology is pretty dismal or not very inspiring. But I simply take it as a problem if a theory can't adequately explain anything.
    It's inspiring to me with research in recent years. We are not gonna agree here lol...


    It's a simple fact that a mere classification model can't explain things. Does it explain anything if you classify dogs that bark at high/low frequency? Well, no, it doesn't explain anything. All it can say is that some dogs fit as high frequency barkers, and some dogs as low frequency barkers. And you might find that interesting or enlightening. But it doesn't explain things.
    *yawn*

  26. #106
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,743
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Gotcha, so you personally don't relate to that wikisocion statement much then, I take it.
    If I have to give an explanation for why some or other behavior is right or wrong, I think I am most likely to discuss it in general principles. I might refer to a convention, but that doesn’t mean I assume it is effective or good.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  27. #107

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    lol you asshole. For making bullshit claims about me just bc you feel like it.

    Not that I expect anything better from you. I already know that you read incredibly selectively (making yourself sound ridiculous with it). So there's that.
    Sounds like projection.

    sbbds thinks that causality could be found from statistics. You think that operationalization, or accurately defining and measuring things would be enough.

    They both play important parts, but neither comes up with theories that can explain causality (i.e. explanations are causality).

    In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation

    In science, we can say that we're trying to figure out how physical objects can cause a physical effect. We can say that causality is established if there's a link between A and B. You can only know that link from a theory, as causality is not directly observable.

    In Socionics, if you say that "Behavior X is caused by Fi", then that's not causality, it's correlation (i.e. observed association). To establish causality, there must be an explanatory theory that connects the link between Behavior X and Fi. We don't know how that link is connected, because there has yet to be such a theory.

    At best, what it's really saying is that "Behavior X is probably related to Fi". But reality doesn't work in term of "probably"s - it either is or isn't. What's the point of having the chance that it's 99.999% correct, if it's wrong? Statistics and probabilities are connected, and neither can establish causality.

    It's simply not possible to establish causality under the Socionics model. The only way to come up with causality is by coming up with explanatory theories.

  28. #108

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Sounds like projection.

    sbbds thinks that causality could be found from statistics. You think that operationalization, or accurately defining and measuring things would be enough.
    Look, idiot. I never said that it is "enough". Good luck finding any statement to that effect from me.

    This is why I do not discuss with you anymore, this is why I can't take you seriously anymore. Because you put things into my mouth that I never said and never thought.

    So there.

    And correlation vs causation was scientific method 101 class at university for me quite a few years ago. Too basic. Scientific thinking is the most refined way of thinking that is about way way way more than this basic science 101 class. Thank-you.

  29. #109

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Look, idiot. I never said that it is "enough". Good luck finding any statement to that effect from me.

    This is why I do not discuss with you anymore, this is why I can't take you seriously anymore. Because you put things into my mouth that I never said and never thought.

    And correlation vs causation was scientific method 101 class at university for me quite a few years ago. Too basic. Scientific thinking is the most refined way of thinking that is about way way way more than this basic science 101 class. Thank-you.
    Don't BS Myst, this is exactly what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    (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.....
    This is a fucking statistical method, because ITR is statistical. So much for understanding correlation vs causation from "scientific method 101" class. Where are the causal explanations in this? There is none, and this is why I said there are no explanations in Socionics.

    Simply put: There is no causal link that connects between why Person A and Person B (of similar shared traits and characteristics, according to operationalized criteria) should get along or conflict.

    So it would pretty much be a pretty shitty "test" if you ask me, because the actual reason could be anything else not related to similar shared traits and characteristics. Again correlation does not imply causation.

    Yeah, and this pretty much says that operationalization and statistical method is "enough". Don't BS lol. However I don't really blame you, since "social" sciences like psychology tend to rely on things like statistics and operationalization to avoid having to come up with causal explanations, as all "natural" sciences do, so that's probably why you're confused.

    Either you're very forgetful or very intellectually dishonest. Very disappointing Myst.
    Last edited by Singu; 09-10-2019 at 12:11 AM.

  30. #110
    MegaDoodoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So how does this help me become a better person and form better relationships???

  31. #111

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Don't BS Myst, this is exactly what you said:



    This is a fucking statistical method, because ITR is statistical. So much for understanding correlation vs causation from "scientific method 101" class. Where are the causal explanations in this? There is none, and this is why I said there are no explanations in Socionics.

    Simply put: There is no causal link that connects between why Person A and Person B (of similar shared traits and characteristics, according to operationalized criteria) should get along or conflict.

    So it would pretty much be a pretty shitty "test" if you ask me, because the actual reason could be anything else not related to similar shared traits and characteristics. Again correlation does not imply causation.

    Yeah, and this pretty much says that operationalization and statistical method is "enough". Don't BS lol. However I don't really blame you, since "social" sciences like psychology tend to rely on things like statistics and operationalization to avoid having to come up with causal explanations, as all "natural" sciences do, so that's probably why you're confused.

    Either you're very forgetful or very intellectually dishonest. Very disappointing Myst.
    I did my masters thesis in cognitive neuroscience.

    So much for social science.

    Even in the more "soft" areas of psychology research, they use operationalisation to be able to investigate explanations, not simply to bullshit like your ridiculous assumption goes - yes there is actual investigation with critical thinking in such research, they are just less neatly reductionist about tangible material than in hard science.

    (There is no such investigation with proper scientific and critical way of thinking with Socionist schools, which is a big problem and is why Socionics is stuck on the same level as decades ago.)

    And of course, you were not able to show where I said it's "enough". Since I did not say that. Your quote from me does not say that. It talks about operationalisation *to be able to* investigate the causal explanation.

    Overall, as for your style... and your continually ignoring and severely distorting and bullshitting about what others tell you, no one has this bad a reading comprehension, this is why I said you must be a troll.

    Along with how you did not give a shit about the basic decency to apologise.

    You are on my ignore list from now. Just like you probably are already on the ignore list of many others. Good-bye.
    Last edited by Myst; 09-10-2019 at 10:48 AM.

  32. #112

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaDoodoo View Post
    So how does this help me become a better person and form better relationships???
    It doesn't. Mental health services, therapy, etc. help do that.

  33. #113
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,930
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is what happens when u get LSI vs LSI arguments

  34. #114

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    This is what happens when u get LSI vs LSI arguments
    Has zero to do with type.

  35. #115
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,930
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Has zero to do with type.
    Yea 0

  36. #116

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "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.

  37. #117

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  38. #118
    De rerum natura coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    E1
    Posts
    1,274
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    "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.

  39. #119

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,694
    Mentioned
    504 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    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.
    Thanks but no one forced me to stop using Socionics. I did it all by myself.

    I'm not planning to do a career at academy, either btw but thanks, that was flattering that you thought I would be doing that. I have been considering doing a PhD but not to stay at academy, I would like to do applied science instead.

    I haven't decided on the PhD yet though bc I'm now busy with other things for different goals. When I achieved that next year is when I will decide on the PhD. Btw that PhD would be in a neuroscience area, and not social science.

  40. #120

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,446
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    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.
    So you're an Intuitionist, while Chomsky is a rationalist and anti-empiricist.

    Socionics is a kind of a mix between intuitionism and empiricism.

    Anyway, the stereotype that people have about psychology is that one camp says "Psychology can't be scientific, because it's subjective", and another says "Let's make it objective by turning it into statistics and analyze external stimulis and shit".

    Actually, they're both wrong, because what we're really seeking is explanations.

    So we might seek explanations to questions like, "Why are we the way that we are?".

    Obviously, there can be multiple levels of explanations to that question, down to the very atomic level, and up to the very top sociological level of explanations (e.g. atom < neuron < brain < body < cognitive psychology < sociology, etc).

    But if you have the correct explanation, then the explanation will be consistent across all fields. Arguably, the explanation that will have the most amount of constraints to all the other levels of explanations will be the sociological explanation, because without society, we can't exist, as we don't grow in a vacuum. The reason why a North Korean and an American do things will have different sociological explanations. And this sociological explanation can explain why an atom is behaving in a certain way in that very person's brain. But figuring out the physics of the atoms can't explain why a person is behaving in a sociological way. There has to be a sociological explanation for that.

Page 3 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
  •