Fe as organic causality

[Exodus]

Eventually the original subject of discussion becomes so morphed that the participants realize the silliness/grossness that has resulted from their efforts and they move on.

This seems more like an existential problem than anything. I have sympathy, but what would happen if people felt the same way about modern science when it was just beginning? They did - take Galileo, for instance.

Whenever a radically new system of thought is created, you have the choice of either adapting your mind to the system, or denying it and reverting to the old.

I believe socionics gives real insight, but I guess there is no way to convince someone of that. "I can only show you the door", right?...

[Expat]

I hardly doubt that anyone can deny that many people have "moved on" from socionics because they just think it is useless/pointless. That it is better and easier to interact with others naturally than to reinterpret the interaction into a format that they "need" in order to understand because that necessity is no longer present. They understand so they do not need to waste their time with extra steps. That was my original point. I hope I have made myself clear.

But why should I - or anyone else who's still interested in Socionics - care about that some people have "moved on" from Socionics? Perhaps they never really needed it, perhaps they never really understood it. So? It is of no consequence imo.

[science as magic]

This seems more like an existential problem than anything. I have sympathy, but what would happen if people felt the same way about modern science when it was just beginning? They did - take Galileo, for instance.

I understand what you're saying but I am not suggesting that we revert to the old system. In my opinion it would be best to study things like this in terms of some sort of communications theory perhaps as a discipline within complexity theory or some such. However I do think it is interesting that in some ways "the old system" is better than an equivalent to socionics. Maybe there is something there that we are missing? Also, a lot of times retrograde can be quite useful. A lot of times complex systems create unnecessary clutter that should be wiped away. You see this sort of thing occurring in philosophy for example. As the system grew more complex certain questions which it was focused on lost their potency/became irrelevant (what is the nature of the soul? to be or not to be? free will or determinism?). Even if we choose to examine such topics nowadays the way in which we go about it is completely different. We essentially go back to the point at which those ideas start and insert the new system. For example atomic theory was created first but now we can replace atoms with a combination of protons, neutrons, and electrons and not lose any data while also having an entirely new kind of discussion.

But why should I - or anyone else who's still interested in Socionics - care about that some people have "moved on" from Socionics? Perhaps they never really needed it, perhaps they never really understood it. So? It is of no consequence imo.

I am not suggesting that you do necessarily. Just make sure that it is capable of representing people and is capable of giving people the tools to create whatever interaction they wish to create. I just do not see the need to stick to socionics. I think the good thing about socionics is that it points out things that no one paid any attention to before, but now that those things have been pointed out I am not sure what there is to examine without the infusion of more material for consideration. Also, there is a big difference between socionics and naturally understanding people. Many of the "awkward NTs" on here seem to want to be capable of creating a sort of natural rhythm with people. Many of them understand socionics quite well and yet it has still not helped them overcome these obstacles. Many times people say things like "I will never get it (emotions)" or "why doesn't anyone treat me as I wish to be treated?" on these forums. I think they would be best served by learning "organic " if you will. I am not suggesting that everyone should do this/needs to do this but I think we can all agree that having a representational format that can encompass natural interaction and give people the capability to transition between that and any other mode they desire is superior to not having access to capability. Obviously there are other dilemmas to consider such as whether or not increases in such capability would lead to decreases (functionally at the least) in capability in other areas. All I can say regarding that representational capability allows for greater complexity.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

we tried to use my crutches to free my friends bottomed out truck once when we got stuck 4-wheeling in the desert. I learned something that day... aluminum crutches are about as strong as a wet noodle and break almost imediately when you put any sort of force on them. I ended up having to wait in the truck for 4 hours while me friends walked back to civilization to get help

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[CuriousSoul]

I am not suggesting that you do necessarily. Just make sure that it is capable of representing people and is capable of giving people the tools to create whatever interaction they wish to create. I just do not see the need to stick to socionics. I think the good thing about socionics is that it points out things that no one paid any attention to before, but now that those things have been pointed out I am not sure what there is to examine without the infusion of more material for consideration. Also, there is a big difference between socionics and naturally understanding people.

I agree with much of what you are saying, but personally I think you are rather missing the essence of this forum.

I found this poem by William Wordsworth quite relevant for the discussion at hand.



My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold

My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began,
So is it now I am a man,
So be it when I shall grow old
Or let me die!
The child is father of the man:
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.