Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: MBTI/Socionics and Mistakes about "Logic"

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

    Default MBTI/Socionics and Mistakes about "Logic"

    I own a book called 'Being Logical' by C.Q. McInerny. Most of the book I feel I could have written, so much so, that it is questionable whether I even needed to buy it! But there are several things that I realize that I'm not being logical about. However, there are also several notions in the book that I feel pertain to the MBTI/socionics that are being called 'logical' (i.e., 'thinking') that are the exact opposite. To be objective, I will list both my mistakes and the mistakes I feel the theory is making.

    My mistakes:

    - Naive Optimism:

    "A naive optimist, after spending an hour with a young woman whom he has just met for the first time, is convinced that she has a) the beauty of Helen of Troy, b) the intelligence of Madame Curie, and c) the artistic prowess of Emily Dickinson."

    This is a fallacy because it might set up for future disappointment in dealing with the woman.

    I can be guilty of this. I always look at the glass as 'half-full.' Sometimes it damages me.

    - Open-Mindedness:

    "A healthy open-mindedness does not mean that one is indiscriminately open to everything. To be noncommittal in a situation that demands commitment is no virtue. To be tolerant of everything is to value nothing."

    As intuitive type, I am often too open-minded, and I therefore believe in things like UFOs or ghosts that other people don't even consider. This is probably not rational at all, as it sets the bar "too low" about what is true.

    - Emotion and Argument:

    "The more intense our emotional state, the more difficult it is to think clearly and behave temperately. A person in the throes of violent anger is seldom a paragon of rationality."

    This is one that both I am making and so is the MBTI/socionics. People such as 'Judge Judy' are classified as having really strong logic, when there is nothing to them to me but an intense state of rage. I can sometimes be really angry on the inside. *However*, I try to never let it affect my thinking or my dealings with people. Nonetheless, I am still guilty of it, so it deserves mention.

    - Common Sense

    "It is 'common' sense in that is shared by all animals who Aristotle defined as rational."

    Again, I am willing to believe in UFOs, etc. Therefore, I lack this quality as well.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Socionics/the MBTI's Mistakes:

    - Skepticism

    "Skepticism as a permanent attitude, a philosophical point of view, is deadly. It subverts the reasoning process before it even gets started, transforming it into a process of misreasoning."

    When it comes to truth, skeptics often set the bar 'too-high.' I.e,, they are too conservative as to what counts as knowledge. Proper reasoning sets the bar at just the right height so true beliefs are accepted and the false ones rejected. In the MBTI/socionics, there is a tendency to reward skepticism as "logical thinking" and optimism as the opposite. While I can be too optimistic as well, *both* qualities are examples of erroneous reasoning.

    - Cynicism

    The same principle applies to cynicism as skepticism. Cynicism is only a more extreme form of skepticism, and the MBTI/socionics seems to reward it as 'logical reasoning' again. For example, the "Critic" personality type is often prized for their reasoning, but if you read carefully, they sometimes range from skeptics to outright cynics on this factor.

    - Emotion and Argument

    Already discussed in my section.

    - The Reason for Reasoning

    "Reasoning can be employed for an unspecifiable number of purposes, both good and bad. Some of histories most notorious criminals have been possessed of finely tuned logical minds. To use reasoning for any other purpose is to misuse it."

    You see in a number of cases, people who are deemed" logical" in socionics who use reasoning to pick at other people or target other people. They are not using it for the right purpose at all.

    - Argumentation is not Quarreling

    "Argument is rational discourse. It is not to be confused with quarreling. The object of an argument is to get at the truth. The object of quarreling is to get at other people. There are any number of folk who, though happy to quarrel with you, are either unable or unwilling to argue with you. Do not waste time and energy trying to argue with people who will not or cannot argue."

    This again is the opposite of what it sometimes says in the literature. E.g., how certain types like to "argue" and "won't back down until you prove them wrong." Or how some types are "Lawyer" types who will argue any point, just for fun. This is confusing the art of developing sound/valid arguments with quarreling.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, I feel that I am somewhat guilty of these fallacies - and, to an extent, and so are these theories. Nonetheless, I thought I would point out the flaws with the thinking/feeling dimension, as a way educating people about critical thinking. The level of critical thinking on this forum is actually quite high. Therefore, if anyone has any challenges to my qualms with my arguments, please voice them.
    Last edited by jason_m; 08-17-2019 at 10:05 AM.

  2. #2
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,107
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "A healthy open-mindedness does not mean that one is indiscriminately open to everything. To be noncommittal in a situation that demands commitment is no virtue. To be tolerant of everything is to value nothing."

    This is a good point and a common fallacy that Ne valuers tend to fall into. Similar for the optimism one (also Ne).

    "Skepticism as a permanent attitude, a philosophical point of view, is deadly. It subverts the reasoning process before it even gets started, transforming it into a process of misreasoning."

    This is getting at something true but I'm not sure it quite captures the fallacy of Ni. The issue comes more when Ni paralyzes you from taking action or accepting a normal level of risk-taking.

    "Reasoning can be employed for an unspecifiable number of purposes, both good and bad. Some of histories most notorious criminals have been possessed of finely tuned logical minds. To use reasoning for any other purpose is to misuse it."

    Also a good point for the fallacy of logic. Another one is that "just because something is true, does not mean it should be said."

    There is potential here to create a general theory of how TIM leads people to have certain fallacies/blind spots about life.

    But I'm not sure why you see the socionics community as skeptical. People readily accept hypotheses like Reinin dichotomies, cognitive styles, etc. that have no basis whatsoever except that people wrote lengthy articles about them. If anything the community is too open-minded, not too skeptical. And MBTI even more so.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,739
    Mentioned
    965 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    "In the MBTI/socionics, there is a tendency to reward skepticism as "logical thinking" and optimism as the opposite."

    skepticism mb to all kinds of information
    people mb more skeptical where they are strong as sure in own abbility to check that and are harder to be fooled - better see weak points and hence need more to be sure. also mb to nonvalued regions
    the least skeptical people are to superid region

    while high optimism I'd relate to N region, not T/F. as it's about future and much irrational state. emotions are secondary to expectations there
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  4. #4
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    But I'm not sure why you see the socionics community as skeptical. People readily accept hypotheses like Reinin dichotomies, cognitive styles, etc. that have no basis whatsoever except that people wrote lengthy articles about them. If anything the community is too open-minded, not too skeptical. And MBTI even more so.
    Why do you think they have no basis? They have basis as socionics has basis.

  5. #5
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,107
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Why do you think they have no basis? They have basis as socionics has basis.
    Because they contradict what I've observed, and also in certain cases contradict the basic theory of socionics / Model A.

    Do you think every socionic hypothesis out there has the same level of validity?

  6. #6
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Because they contradict what I've observed, and also in certain cases contradict the basic theory of socionics / Model A.
    Which cases contradict Model A in your opinion? I don't see any contradiction.

    Do you think every socionic hypothesis out there has the same level of validity?
    No.

  7. #7
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,107
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Which cases contradict Model A in your opinion? I don't see any contradiction.
    The description of Carefree types doesn't make sense for LSIs, who have Ni mobilizing:

    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...and_farsighted

    “You cannot prepare for everything.”

    if it's between that and “It is best to prepare in advance.” then LSIs are definitely the latter. They have valued and bold Ni so they care a lot about preparing in advance and avoiding bad outcomes.

    The bigger issue though, is that the classical descriptions of the Reinin dichotomies mostly don't have any connection to the base theory. They're an independent hypothesis which adds nothing in terms of explanatory power.

    https://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/...-are-dead.html

  8. #8
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    The description of Carefree types doesn't make sense for LSIs, who have Ni mobilizing:

    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...and_farsighted

    “You cannot prepare for everything.”

    if it's between that and “It is best to prepare in advance.” then LSIs are definitely the latter. They have valued and bold Ni so they care a lot about preparing in advance and avoiding bad outcomes.

    The bigger issue though, is that the classical descriptions of the Reinin dichotomies mostly don't have any connection to the base theory. They're an independent hypothesis which adds nothing in terms of explanatory power.

    https://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/...-are-dead.html
    This seems to, yet again, make the obvious mistake of confusing ONE obviously poor interpretation of the Reinin dichotomies with the Reinin dichotomies as a whole. I agree that the study from which those Reinin dichotomy descriptions were derived isn't a reliable source; you don't have to persuade me of that. However, that is actually not relevant to the point. To leap from rejecting one particular study to rejecting the Reinin dichotomies as a whole takes vastly more justification than that. I'm not even saying that I accept all Reinin dichotomies, but I have used some used in ways which appear valuable to me.

    Do you actually disagree with me, and you really think your rejection of that study is a substantial rejection of the Reinin dichotomies as a whole? If so, I am genuinely extremely curious as to what your reasoning is, because this seems like such an obviously insubstantial argument to me that I am genuinely perplexed that you do not notice it. It is NOT persuasive, to someone with an active mind, to treat non-trivial logical leaps as trivial: in mathematics this is often called handwaving. Handwaving is fine if you're teaching something and you only want to focus on certain things, but it is NOT fine in the proof of an assertion, whether mathematical or about some substantial topic in real life. The leap I am not understanding is the rejection of one particular study to the rejection of the Reinin dichotomies as a whole

  9. #9
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    The description of Carefree types doesn't make sense for LSIs, who have Ni mobilizing:

    http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...and_farsighted

    “You cannot prepare for everything.”

    if it's between that and “It is best to prepare in advance.” then LSIs are definitely the latter. They have valued and bold Ni so they care a lot about preparing in advance and avoiding bad outcomes.

    The bigger issue though, is that the classical descriptions of the Reinin dichotomies mostly don't have any connection to the base theory. They're an independent hypothesis which adds nothing in terms of explanatory power.

    https://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/...-are-dead.html
    It has a connection. Farsighted types have 4D/1D evaluatory Ni/Se and situational Ne/Si, carefree types have 4D/1D Ne/Si and situational Ni/Se. Farsighted types that value Ni/Se show the signs of this dichotomy more distinctively and more often than types that don't value Ni/Se. However, all farsighted types will have much firm approach when it comes to Ni since all of them have evaluatory Ni/Se.

    LSIs would say that it is best to prepare advance since they value it as you said. They are also willingly to get help about planning since they have Ni mobilizing, they don't have strong opinions about their plans(Ni). Besides that, LSIs try to predict the most possible outcomes and make a step by step plan according to them and/or they use the information given at moment for that circumstance if they haven't made a plan for it. LSIs plan for the most possible outcome, however, they don't plan for most of the outcomes like XIIs since they have 2D Ni and unvalued 1D Ne. XII is more suited to make a more general plan that could suit most outcomes. Of course this doesn't prevent XIIs to verbalize that you can't plan everything.

  10. #10
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,107
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    This seems to, yet again, make the obvious mistake of confusing ONE obviously poor interpretation of the Reinin dichotomies with the Reinin dichotomies as a whole. I agree that the study from which those Reinin dichotomy descriptions were derived isn't a reliable source; you don't have to persuade me of that. However, that is actually not relevant to the point. To leap from rejecting one particular study to rejecting the Reinin dichotomies as a whole takes vastly more justification than that. I'm not even saying that I accept all Reinin dichotomies, but I have used some used in ways which appear valuable to me.

    Do you actually disagree with me, and you really think your rejection of that study is a substantial rejection of the Reinin dichotomies as a whole? If so, I am genuinely extremely curious as to what your reasoning is, because this seems like such an obviously insubstantial argument to me that I am genuinely perplexed that you do not notice it. It is NOT persuasive, to someone with an active mind, to treat non-trivial logical leaps as trivial: in mathematics this is often called handwaving. Handwaving is fine if you're teaching something and you only want to focus on certain things, but it is NOT fine in the proof of an assertion, whether mathematical or about some substantial topic in real life. The leap I am not understanding is the rejection of one particular study to the rejection of the Reinin dichotomies as a whole
    I am not rejecting the Reinin dichotomies as a whole. I believe they could potentially be defined in a way that is helpful, at least at an abstract level. I simply have not found any definitions that are helpful and unquestionably accurate as of yet (and I have spent a lot of time trying to formulate my own definitions for them, which should count for something). Which definitions do you consider valuable, then?

  11. #11
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,107
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Farsighted types have 4D/1D evaluatory Ni/Se and situational Ne/Si, carefree types have 4D/1D Ne/Si and situational Ni/Se.
    Yes, that's how it would potentially be linked to Model A. The trouble is that the evaluatory/situational dichotomy is equally problematic to define. (Again, I'm talking about the existing definitions in case @Varlawend gets confused.)

    The functional dichotomies that have a clear meaning are strong/weak, valued/unvalued, and in a somewhat more nebulous way, bold/cautious. I would very much like it if we had clear definitions for the other ones, but unfortunately it seems like a dead end.

    However, all farsighted types will have much firm approach when it comes to Ni since all of them have evaluatory Ni/Se.

    LSIs would say that it is best to prepare advance since they value it as you said. They are also willingly to get help about planning since they have Ni mobilizing, they don't have strong opinions about their plans(Ni).
    I don't really agree with that. The mobilizing function often has very strong opinions; this is one of its characteristics. Certainly more than the demonstrative function.

    Besides that, LSIs try to predict the most possible outcomes and make a step by step plan according to them and/or they use the information given at moment for that circumstance if they haven't made a plan for it. LSIs plan for the most possible outcome, however, they don't plan for most of the outcomes like XIIs since they have 2D Ni and unvalued 1D Ne. XII is more suited to make a more general plan that could suit most outcomes. Of course this doesn't prevent XIIs to verbalize that you can't plan everything.
    ok, but that's just about strength. There's no need to invoke carefree/farsighted.

  12. #12
    myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Yes, that's how it would potentially be linked to Model A. The trouble is that the evaluatory/situational dichotomy is equally problematic to define. (Again, I'm talking about the existing definitions in case @Varlawend gets confused.)
    I think that you find description/representation of dichotomy as problematic, correct me if I am wrong. However, if you don't think that model A contradicts with itself, carefree/farsighted dichotomy doesn't contradict with model A since they are formed by dichotomy determined by model A.

    The functional dichotomies that have a clear meaning are strong/weak, valued/unvalued, and in a somewhat more nebulous way, bold/cautious. I would very much like it if we had clear definitions for the other ones, but unfortunately it seems like a dead end.
    I think descriptions or definitions only give a general picture. All model A descriptions seems equally valid and clear to me. Strong/weak, valued/unvalued are easiest to comprehend since they rely on the distinctive or basic parts of the model structure.


    I don't really agree with that. The mobilizing function often has very strong opinions; this is one of its characteristics. Certainly more than the demonstrative function.
    Why do you think that? Could you elaborate?


    ok, but that's just about strength. There's no need to invoke carefree/farsighted.
    I think strength also changes the function's properties. All people who share same IE with same strength show similar kinds of process or judgement patterns.

  13. #13
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,107
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    I think that you find description/representation of dichotomy as problematic, correct me if I am wrong. However, if you don't think that model A contradicts with itself, carefree/farsighted dichotomy doesn't contradict with model A since they are formed by dichotomy determined by model A.
    Yes, again, it's the description (and the name, which is a kind of abbreviated description). A category cannot contradict anything because it doesn't make claims.

    I think descriptions or definitions only give a general picture. All model A descriptions seems equally valid and clear to me.
    How can that possibly be? If one person says that evaluatory functions are stubborn and another person says they are flexible, then their descriptions directly contradict one another.

    Why do you think that? Could you elaborate?
    It depends mainly on a long history of typing people according to a coherent understanding of the aforementioned parts of Model A. If we agreed on some typings I could point out how it works in some particular cases. At a theoretical level I would say it's actually the "inert" functions which are stubborn. We strongly reject the 4th function (which is cautious and unvalued), in favor of the 6th function (which is bold and valued). This leads to a kind of stubbornness of judgment.

  14. #14
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am not rejecting the Reinin dichotomies as a whole. I believe they could potentially be defined in a way that is helpful, at least at an abstract level. I simply have not found any definitions that are helpful and unquestionably accurate as of yet (and I have spent a lot of time trying to formulate my own definitions for them, which should count for something). Which definitions do you consider valuable, then?
    Thank you, this is very good to hear. This kind of scrupulousness means a lot to me and predisposes me to trust, although I know you sometimes find it tedious. Unfortunately, I am a bit busy right now, but I can get back to you about this in the next week or so. I will say though, that unquestionably accurate seems like an unrealistic standard which applies to nothing in Socionics, and virtually nothing in existence. By Reinin dichotomies, I assume that you mean that which isn't Quadras, Strengths and Introversion/Extroversion, since you regard those to be foundational in particular? I have seen valuable definitions for Rational/Irrational, Static/Dynamic, and Process/Result at a concrete level, especially with regard to information elements which are additionally useful for typing. Positivist/Negativist, Asking/Declaring and Aristocratic/Democratic may be useful as well, Positivist/Negativist even useful at a concrete level, but they both remain too abstract for me at this point to use reliably in my typing process. They do nonetheless help me understand the functions, types and the Socion at large. I suspect that Asking/Declaring and Aristocratic/Democratic in particular may remain abstract and are more useful collectively than individually, but we'll see.

    I do also think that the other functional dichotomies, such as Evaluative/Situational, could be useful, but I have yet to delve deeply into them. In Model G, the name for that dichotomy is automatic vs conscious, and for some functional positions this makes sense to me. I can explain that as well, just not right now.

    I also agree with you that the mobilizing/launcher functions is quite stubborn and inflexible: so much so that one of its main tasks is to work on its inflexibility to adapt to the conditions of life.
    @jason_m this is an excellent topic by the way, I don't mean to distract from it. I agree with most of what has been said with regard to the main topic, but my opinion as to the problems in the typology community is not too much open-mindedness or too much skepticism, but rather passive-mindedness and skewed skepticism. I'll weigh in on all of this soon enough.

  15. #15
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,107
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    By Reinin dichotomies, I assume that you mean that which isn't Quadras, Strengths and Introversion/Extroversion, since you regard those to be foundational in particular?
    Yes, anything other than those.

    Rational/Irrational and Static/Dynamic are arguably visible in a blurry, post hoc way, but I wouldn't use them for typing. For the rest it mostly isn't even clear to me what they should mean in practice.

  16. #16
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had this bookmarked to respond to, so I guess I will talk briefly about which Reinin dichotomies I find valuable, especially in light of the recent article by thehotelambush on the topic. I'll first try to weigh in on the main topic of the thread.

    Open-mindedness itself isn't necessarily a fallacy, because open-mindedness doesn't inherently mean believing in something. The problem with believing in something without evidence is not that your mind is open; it is that your mind is passive. If you are researching UFOs and ghosts and you find evidence to support them, and you entertain these hypotheses with logical arguments, there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about that. Common sense, often, is in the wrong, and it would actually be illogical and unreasonable to dismiss something just because it is unusual. But if you just believe in something and are not open to reconsidering, even if there is evidence to the contrary, or it is damaging your life in some way despite there not being much evidence and you are weighed down by fruitless uncertainty, etc., then it becomes unreasonable. One must maintain an active mind to avoid these pitfalls. Basically, the problem is passive-mindedness: the refusal to actively examine conclusions which conflict with prejudices (and everyone has prejudices), and the refusal to continually reexamine assumptions in light of experience. To determine whether your belief in UFOs or ghosts is illogical, we'd have to examine why you believe it.

    Judge Judy's show is entertainment, so she is probably putting on a bit of a performance. However, it might be true that her anger, which is obviously present, gets in the way of her better judgment sometimes, but she does seem to apply logic effectively as well. Overall, I agree that it is best to reach a state of calm when entering into a real intellectual discussion that you want to actually get somewhere in. If you are seething in anger, it will bias your judgment. Unleashing anger like that on productive tasks or some form of art can be a good diversion for it.

    Common sense is okay as a general term for being able to get around in life, but it doesn't have much place in rigorous examinations. Our "common sense" is defied by science, probability theory, statistics, etc., all the time, and these disciplines are exceedingly logical and reasonable. People do not naturally have the objectivity to think in terms of data and reason, and they often have to put in much effort to do this, even logical types. Common sense is fine up to a point, but it will have to be put aside in favor of real, substantive arguments when getting to the bottom of something. General expectations are frequently, but not even close to always, true. Being willing to believe in UFOs may or may not lack common sense, but what matters in the UFO discussion is evidence and argument, because it is so easy to be biased or frightened or have your mind shut down when talking about such fantastical and unusual topics. I'm not suggesting that I support a belief in UFOs, but my point is just on how the discussion would be suitably conducted.

    Skepticism and open-mindedness I think are both generally good qualities. I respect people who have high standards of rational/experiential scrutiny for what they are willing to accept, and I am willing to have patience for th
    is.
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
    - Aristotle

    The problems with skepticism can happen when it is applied in a way that is not even-handed (you are very skeptical of others but not yourself), and when it becomes cynicism.

    "Every man carries Two Bags about with him, one in front and one behind, and both are packed full of faults. The Bag in front contains his neighbours' faults, the one behind his own. Because of this it is that men do not see their own faults, but always see those of others."
    - Aesop's Fables

    It is just easier for us to ruthlessly criticize the faults of other people, than it is to do the same for our own. On the one hand, we are adapted to our own faults, so they might not be as obviously faults. On the other, looking at the real weakest points in our beliefs is a daunting prospect, and people consistently have a hard time with this. We are stubborn creatures. We have to make extra effort to question our own assumptions, to be fair to others and to prevent ourselves from being misled by our own bias.

    Cynicism is also a problem because it is a kind of giving up. We just refuse to even examine things, due to bad experiences, or intellectual laziness, or a lazy (and maybe spiteful) pessimistic assumption that things just won't work out. There are indeed my ILI's who become this way, but hardly just them.

    Open-mindedness at its best is mental dexterity (active minded), and at its worst is gullibility (passive minded). Skepticism at its best is scrupulousness (active minded), and at its wor
    st is cynicism (passive minded).

    "[There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.
    What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear."
    -Ayn Rand

    Ayn Rand makes a lot of good points in the above, about the importance of keeping an active mind. But even in her commitment to having an active mind, I and many others would say that she failed:


    "The cultic flaw in Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is not its use of reason, emphasis on individuality, view that humans ought to be motivated by rational self-interest, or conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is its belief that absolute knowledge and final Truth are attainable through reason, and therefore that there are absolutes of right and wrong knowledge and of moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered by (the Objectivists' version of) reason to be True, the discussion is at an end. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed, it can be corrected, but if you don't correct your reasoning (i.e., learn to accept the principle), you are flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final solution for such unreformed heretics.
    One of those closest to Rand was Nathaniel Branden, a young philosophy student who joined the Collective in the early days, before Atlas Shrugged was published. In his autobiographical memoirs, entitled Judgment Day, he recalled, "There were implicit premises in our world to which everyone in our circle subscribed, and which we transmitted to our students at NBI." Incredibly, and here is where a philosophical movement mutated into a cult of personality, their creed became, in Nathaniel Branden's words:
    • Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
    • Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.
    • Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man's life on earth.
    • Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and /or her work, the measure of one's virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes regarding her and/or it.
    • No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
    • No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.
    • Since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her "intellectual heir," and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself.
    • But it is best not to say most of these things explicitly (excepting, perhaps, the first two items). One must always maintain that one arrives at one's beliefs solely by reason. (1989, pp. 255-256)"
    - Michael Shermer
    All of these people, Ayn Rand, Michael Shermer, etc., say they have a commitment to reason and critical thinking, but they still make grave, passive-minded mistakes that have led to seriously bad decisions and circumstances. I've seen cultism and fundamentalism happen in so many ways in my life, and I have even been involved in it myself. The active mind of a real seeker is the only antidote, and that requires constant cultivation. The discoveries, the real deep discussions you can have, and the greater alignment with truth make it worthwhile.

    -Naive-optimism indeed seem to relate to Ne in Socionics, so rosy with optimism that skeptics are not listened to.
    -Excessive open-mindedness can come from the excessively agreeable sides of Fi, Si and Ni. I also think that those functions can be used in less agreeable ways as well.
    -Overly angry and impassioned arguing can come from functions like Te, Se, and Fe, who are either pushing some overvalued goal over dispassionate reasoning, or discharging accumulated emotion and aggression.
    -Common sense at its best seems to relate to keeping functions like Te and Se firmly in mind, functions that are no-nonsense, realistic and containing some bite and practical consequence. But common sense isn't always the best answer; sometimes we need to do things that might not be obviously effective, easily/commonly understood, etc. Some truths require more eclectic, quirky or detail-oriented minds to apprehend at first.
    -Skepticism and cynicism can relate to a number of functions, but Ni leads can have that problem due to their suppression of Ne in favor of Ni (leading to premature devaluation of risk and new optimistic possibilities), introverted rational functions like Ti and Fi can rigid or even bureaucratic in their standards (especially Ti), and Te can be highly suspicious of those who do not share its overvalued or sense of effective action, leading to overly competitive and pressuring behavior. Se also needs to see the feasibility of something in a manifest way because of its deeply felt sense for weakness in anything.

    Will get the Reinin's in just a bit.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 09-07-2019 at 11:39 AM.

  17. #17
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,862
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still think you're an IEE who's obsessed with his polr @jason_m .

    Being an ethical type doesn't mean your logic has to suck and vice versa. Only the shittiest people believe this. Just chill the fuck out lol.

  18. #18
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It depends mainly on a long history of typing people according to a coherent understanding of the aforementioned parts of Model A. If we agreed on some typings I could point out how it works in some particular cases.
    First off, I have to say that I enjoyed this little summary. People arguing from different paradigms in typology and Socionics are often arguing over an abyss of long inferential distances, webs of dependencies between beliefs, etc., that can make conversation difficult. I wish this gap could be bridged more easily, and I like trying to do it. For me it is fun to go through the various assumptions and see how everything lines up. That said, this does in fact apply to a great many typology paradigms, including those that involve Reinin dichotomies or especially Cognitive Styles. So it is more accurate to say that this is the basis for such things, inasmuch as they work (cognitive styles seem to work within their paradigm, Reinin dichotomies have more mixed results), rather than "long articles having been written about them". Long articles have been written about many things in Socionics: the point isn't that long articles have been written, but what they are pointing to, and this often requires more effort to understand than just reading an article. It could involve research and the entertaining of alternative paradigms that haven't been previously considered, or data collection, or experiments, or something else.

    Now, before I get into saying what Reinin dichotomies I find valuable, I should probably respond to this: https://wholesocionics.blogspot.com/...chotomies.html

    "What are the Reinin dichotomies" seems unobjectionable to me.

    "Where's the beef?" I agree that the Reinin dichotomies aren't obviously meaningful, based on the operation used to produce them. The structure and scale of operation of the different Reinin dichotomies also needs to freshly examined and not merely assumed. One difference I see with the Socionics dichotomies that can be used to produce Reinin dichotomies, as compared to something like "Men who eat ice cream, and women who don't", is that they are part of a highly abstract and general orientation system meant to build up the properties of humans and reality from very fundamental principles, as compared to somewhat random attributes. E.g. In coordinate geometry, Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 3 in the usual two-dimensional coordinate plane, do actually have a lot in common (even though one is positive in both coordinates, and one is negative in both coordinates), so that operation does sometimes work in a meaningful way. However, I agree that it has to be examined critically and not just assumed, because that operation can go far afield from reality indeed, and it frequently does. At the end of the day, we have to type with what we can see works, and see what other empirical patterns might tumble out of that, and then find their meaning within the potential frameworks.

    Gulenko doesn't seem to me to be behind the names of these dichotomies, and his interpretations are only sometimes influential. Mironov's study is where the unfortunate degree of influence is, and I agree with the majority of your criticisms of it (probably Gulenko does to). Gulenko is quite critical of the modern use of Reinin dichotomies, including: their names, their semantic content, and their sometimes problematic derivation which you have complained about as well with your ice cream example. So your claim that "It seems Gulenko's names are the ones that largely stuck, and have influenced how the dichotomies tend to be interpreted now" seems unfounded. He has openly criticized the names of Process/Result, Asking/Declaring, Merry/Serious, Judicious/Decisive, warns about the pitfalls of the names of Positivist/Negativist and Aristocratic/Democratic, and doesn't use the "lesser signs" at all.

    As for Reinin's attitude towards the Reinin dichotomies, it is true that he skeptical of their semantic content. However, he has another important opinion from his 2011 interview:
    What do you consider harmful and unacceptable for socionics?1) Intolerance in discussions between different areas.
    Therefore, while it is true that Reinin would not recommend "believing in the Reinin dichotomies", and neither would I, he would also most likely reject flippant intolerance in discussing them.

    They remain controversial in the Eastern community: Dmitri Lytov did a survey and asked socionists to rate different concepts in socionics based on reliability, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. While IM elements, Model A, and quadra values all scored over 4, Reinin dichotomies scored a shabby average of 2.87, with the most common response being 2.
    I read this survey by Lytov. It was very interesting, and your report on it is mostly accurate. However, what you say about Quadra values seems to be contradicted by the actual survey, and I find that suspicious given that your own views on Socionics promote "Quadra values" far more than is generally agreed upon. It is important that we do not twist things in the direction of our favored ideology. In "reliability of diagnostic criteria", Quadra values scored a shabby "more unreliable than reliable", alongside the Reinin dichotomies. The survey also says:

    On the top three with a minus (i.e., as insufficiently reliable methods), the participants rated Reinin’s signs and quadratic values, and the assessment of quadratic values ​​was very consistent, while according to Reinin’s signs there were positive and sharply negative opinions.
    To me, that sounds like quadra values were rejected even more consistently than Reinin dichotomies (i.e. it is not even controversial to say that Quadra values are unreliable, whereas it is more controversial to say the same for Reinin dichotomies). In the areas where a rating from 1-5 was called for, Quadra values weren't listed, but we can assume it would be right around what Reinin dichotomies are. So Quadra values most assuredly did not score "over a 4". As for myself, I'd probably give Reinin dichotomies and Quadra values each a 3. They can useful, but on the whole you have to be quite wary of them. So on the whole, I have to regard this as a factual error from you, but maybe it is merely a detail hiccup because you included sources that can check your claims.

    "Lack of clarity": I think it could fairly be said that some attempted descriptions of Reinin dichotomies are not even wrong. If we can't even apply a description in practice, then it probably isn't much good. However, we have to be wary of two things. 1, sometimes they aren't "not even wrong", they are just wrong. A good example is the Questioner/Declarer dichotomy that you use as an example. This isn't "not even wrong" mush; it's quite clear what it is saying, and it is just clearly wrong. It is more fruitful to be more direct in our rejection, if we can. The second thing we must be wary of is the possibility of subtle distinctions. Sometimes dichotomies or distinctions can be subtle, but that doesn't mean they aren't clear or significant. Granted, you'd have to see it to use it.

    "No theoretical basis": First of all, the most widely agreed upon theoretical basis is the Jungian foundation, not the strength and value function dichotomies (maybe strength then, but not value). Of course, mere consensus isn't the same thing as truth, so that doesn't mean that you are wrong or that your point of view isn't valuable. Considering the differences in what people find a basis in, we'll have to try to examine people's perspective from their point of view, rather than our own, to see what they are getting at and resolve disputes. In some cases, Reinin dichotomies are used inconsistently with foundational work, and that should be rejected. However, some people have been able to connect some Reinin dichotomies to a strong foundation such as Jung's, and they have also found emergent empirical patterns. These cannot be rejected by appealing to theory alone, since theory is answerable to experience and what works. We do have to make sure our theories connect, this is true. But we also must acknowledge what raw empirical patterns exist, and build our theories after this, rather than deriving purely from theory.

    Subtypes and Enneagram are separate matters. The enneagram is a separate system to Socionics, and the connection has not yet been rigorously explored. Subtypes are a matter of dispute, like many of the other things we are talking about. Some claim to have done real experiments on them, and have them working well within their framework. Others don't like the idea as much, but that is a topic for another day.

    "Actual contradictions with the base theory": I agree with your comments about LSI and the mobilizing/launcher function. Mironov's Carefree is not a reliable description for LSI's. Aristocracy also applies much better to Beta Quadra than Delta Quadra. In general, I think the Central quadras fit Aristocracy (Beta) and Democracy (Gamma) in a much more impactful, brighter way, in the general case at least. These dichotomies could possibly be made to work, but a better name and semantics would be desirable for them to fit Alpha and especially Delta better. And I agree that Ni leading types are better described as Strategists than Tacticians. And the list certainly goes on

    For all the reasons above, there is no way to justify using the Reinin dichotomies practically at this time. They aren't useful (and are in fact harmful) for typing people, and mostly not even useful for explaining behavior after the fact. Could they be useful theoretically, in the future? Could they be given definitions that make sense, even if they aren't particularly visible in practice? I think so. I myself have attempted to come up with better definitions, and there are clues which indicate that they hold an important place in the structure of socionics. But the jury is still out on what they mean.
    I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Certainly the Reinin dichotomies don't work well in your typing paradigm, and are thus harmful to it if you take a "one right way to describe or break down reality" or fundamentalist approach. But, with an attitude that sees the limits of Socionics perspectives at the present time, conditioned by our own habits, experiences, cognitive biases (we all have these issues and need to find ways to actively overcome them, myself included, so this is not an accusation towards you specifically), more exploration and balancing between points of view is potentially fruitful. It is true that they are not widely agreed upon, but I and some others think that they have potential, and you might be one of those others in your own way. However, we have to cautious of excessive contrarianism or preclusive inflexibility, otherwise fruitful conversation becomes impossible. I disagree that anyone could even know something like "that there is no way to justify using the Reinin dichotomies practically at this time". There are literally infinite possible ways people could potentially justify this which we don't know. And what we don't know is more important than what we think we do know.

    So, while thinking about Reinin dichotomies may be a fun exercise, I also don't consider it a productive research direction. Maybe thinking about the "other" IM element and function dichotomies would be a nearer goal. In any case, the greatest success will be found in refining and deepening the existing content of the theory, rather than trying to come up with something from scratch. If you put a building on a shaky foundation, it will surely fall down.
    Indeed about the shaky foundation, and it is just such a shaky foundation to assume that we already know where progress will come. With that sort of attitude, Socionics would never even have been discovered in the first place! That requires an omniscience that we simply do not possess, and vulnerabilities of our fragile minds such as overconfidence bias, the dunning-kruger effect, confirmation bias, status quo bias, and optimism bias prey upon such rosy confident expectations. The important thing about such biases is that a large body of evidence has established that a defining characteristic of cognitive biases is that they manifest automatically and unconsciously over a wide range of human reasoning, so even those aware of the existence of the phenomenon are unable to detect, let alone mitigate, their manifestation via awareness only. Our subjective opinion is thus of limited value. That said, continuing to research things from your perspective is something you are simply likely to do and this is for reasons that make a good deal of sense, so I hope something fruitful comes out of it. I will, however, research in a different direction, and this is good because we are covering more ground this way, and mutually testing our assumptions which will help build stronger theories all around. Different research groups will research slightly different things, and this has a good effect on science as a whole. So, cheers to that.

    Next, I will discuss a few Reinin's that I have found valuable so that we can think critically together about them, among other things. Those are static/dynamic, right/left, and positivist/negativist (with a bit of Asking/Declaring). This may take some mutual mental effort since we come from a variety of Socionics paradigms.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 09-07-2019 at 11:09 AM.

  19. #19
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-H, 594 sp/sx
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    At first blush, this idea of blurry, post-hoc dichotomies kind of made sense to me. However, upon further examination, I’m not sure that it works very well. In any case, I can think of two reasons for the existence of this idea.

    One is that when you type people at first, you are using other dichotomies which you have more reason to trust in the reliability of. Only later do these other dichotomies become visible. However, in that case, once these new dichotomies become visible to you, then even if they were more subtle, aren’t they then usable for typing in the future (not post-hoc) if you happen to notice them?

    There is at least one more thing that could happen though: it may be that the dichotomies apply to a person in such a way that they are not visible at the individual level, but only at a more social or collective level. Granted, even in this case they still apply to the individual in a sense, just in a way that might not be so reliable for typing. Maybe this corresponds to what it means for a dichotomy to be useful at an abstract level? I think there are some dichotomies that fit this to some degree, such as Aristocratic/Democratic, Asking/Declaring, and even Central/Peripheral and Ascending/Descending. These may occasionally stand out in an individual, but they become especially evident socially and collectively (in things like Quadras, Order Rings, etc.)

    Today, I’ll just do one dichotomy, because I have things to do.

    Static/Dynamic as I use it:

    Static in the most general sense means orientation to space (stationarity), and Dynamic means orientation to time (temporality).

    At the intellectual level, static thinking is discrete and fragmented, and the various parts do not mix. It consists in rigid semantic connections, such as what is stored in the memory cell of a computer. For memorization, it is helpful for statics to fix the material on paper or some other tangible medium. Statics create better clear schemes or designs with minimal change. Dynamic thinking is continuous, a holistic image with moving boundaries. Dynamics have better associative memory, combinations of two concepts with a conditional temporal connection. One concept, appearing, immediately causes the other in consciousness. Dynamics create better models which convey changes, or design projects that remind people of their personal experience.

    At the social level, static corresponds to the division into classes, niches or specializations. This specialization leads to stability but conservatism; rapid changes cannot be easily implemented. Dynamics corresponds to diversification of resources, which makes the group much more unstable and sensitive to outside interference. It is a more holistic group where one thing affects many other things, not as autonomous and specialized. However, it can better endure supply interruptions and change of values.

    At the psychological level, static corresponds to a balanced nervous system. This means that the mood is difficult to raise or to spoil. Dynamic corresponds to an unbalanced nervous system, where one thought alone quickly carries away into a chain of associations. This can lead to rapid improvement or deterioration of mood, for reasons that seem very small from an outside observer.

    At the physical level, statics only tend to change the aspects of their physical setting for a specific reason rather than just because they are bored. They are more stable in parameters such as body weight, temperature, blood pressure, sweating: these fluctuate more slowly and within smaller limits than dynamic types. Dynamic types, on the other hand, can change their wardrobe, housing interior, arrangement of furniture in the apartment just for the sake of diversity or boredom. Their body weight, temperature, blood pressure, etc. are less stable and fluctuate more widely.

    If you want, we can later consider how this applies specifically to functions, temperaments, club dyads, types, etc. Examples can help add clarity and groundedness.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 09-08-2019 at 09:17 AM. Reason: changing "change" to "chain"

  20. #20
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,294
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    good to know about quadra values

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •