Socionics Causes Pain

[SaveYourself]

omfg I can't believe that's an actual emoticon

[Desert Financial]

So I have this theory, that those of us who fight the most against certain systems and theories do so, because it's an ongoing battle at the same time inside of us, and we feel we have more ammunition when we vocalize it or try to fight against it in other people as well. Because changing others' opinion would give us more moral support and belief in that we can - indeed - change our own perception in the long run.

Or it might just be me.

I have this theory that when you end with the caveat "or it might just be me", it's usually not just you.

Or it might just be me.

[sbbds]

The seasons are explained by the tilting of the Earth's axis, which either hemispheres receive more or less heat from the sun, depending on the location.

Humans didn’t always know this was the reason. They didn’t require this to accept it as truth.

We're not interested in "proving" whether seasons really exist or not (or "deriving"), but we're after explaining. We're interested in explaining, why do seasons occur?

How do you explain something without acknowledging it exists first?

Do the existence of types have any such explanations? No.

You don’t know that actually, but nice assumption. Based on my quote below which you ignored, there’s a good chance it might, although undiscovered and unconfirmed so far.

And if you can't explain it, then you can't predict it. The tilting-axis Earth theory can perfectly well predict which seasons will occur in which locations, and when, and even why.

You keep missing the main point. Is your weatherman always 100% accurate?

You're only "seeing" the same thing, because that's what the theory tells you to see. You can only see within what the theory says that that's all there is. If you had a different theory, then which data to observe would be completely different, and therefore you'd be seeing completely different things.

Re: the above, I notice how you conveniently avoided responding to this:

Do you know how low the chances of us all making shit up and being wrong about this statistically, would be? Such detailed, complex personal experiences?

Although, it’s no surprise that you’re unable to really conceptualize this.

[Beautiful sky]

I don’t see divergence I see mistyping and mostly unwillingness to let go of mistyping

[Singu]

Humans didn’t always know this was the reason. They didn’t require this to accept it as truth.

...Obviously.

Neither people knew that the seasons were the opposite in the other hemisphere, or how in other locations, there are only 1-3 seasons instead of 4, and even places where the sun never sets. So even if you have never even seen 4 seasons, you could understand that there would be 4 seasons from the axis-tilting theory.

If you say "I've observed that there are 4 seasons, so therefore there'll always be 4 seasons in a year", then it's a parochial explanation, where it's only true for that specific location. It's not the complete, universal explanation. Only the tilting-axis theory can explain all sorts of season on Earth, or even on some other planets.

It's the same for "types". You can't possibly know or observe everything about a person to get the full picture of the person, if you only rely on that specific observation.

How do you explain something without acknowledging it exists first

First off, "types" are an abstract phenomenon, so it can't simply be observed. So obviously, it requires explanations in the terms on what can't be seen. So explanations have to come prior if you want to say that it "exists".

You don’t know that actually, but nice assumption. Based on my quote below which you ignored, there’s a good chance it might, although undiscovered and unconfirmed so far.

So you're saying that it's "undiscovered and unconfirmed", yet at the same time you're pretty sure that it's a real phenomenon with very little chance of being wrong. Nice logical contradiction.

Do you know how low the chances of us all making shit up and being wrong about this statistically, would be? Such detailed, complex personal experiences?

The point is that with this method, you are never proven wrong, because all you're doing is writing down your observations. But like I said, the observation is going to be a parochial one, where it's centered on that specific location at the that specific time at that specific situation.

[Eliza Thomason]

Telling someone they have typed themselves incorrectly is more important than living harmoniously. After all, if people have incorrect types, what is the use of Socionics?

Indeed and Amen! That is exactly why you should understand that you are an ILI, not EII, Subteigh!

And since you are an ILI, I can feel safe (once again) asserting my correction of your self-type, because you are not going to suffer hurt feelings over my opinion. Because if you were prone to that, I would not write this post. That's because I believe living harmoniously is more important than stating the truth, at least on non-vital truth matters. (Socionics I do not consider to be a vital truth, but simply a truth). So if I thought my expressing my opinion might emotionally upset you, I would withhold from expressing it. But armed with my IEE-brand of understanding and intuition of sensitivities, I will venture forth, unafraid.

I know you are here not just for the Socionics, Subteigh, but for the society as well, but, you could be getting so much more out of Socionics for yourself if you were typed yourself correctly.

A core reason for your self-mistyping, I believe, has to do with your personal identification/emotional anchor in the word "Humanist" (or "Humanitarian"), which is often used to describe EII. But what you identify with in the word humanitarian and what Socionics means in using the word to describe EII are two very different things. With EII, it is a reference to their exquisite personal sensitivity and feelings, particularly manifested in their personal, private relationships. They are an "acutely sensitive, empathetic, listening, feeling friend" kind of humanist, while instead, ILE is an "abstract problem-solver for a better human society" kind of humanist. The EII is sensitive in every interaction to the feelings of his/her interlocutor, and can adjust his/her communication (and desire to state truths) towards maintaining the inner harmony of that person. That is quite opposite of what you just said:

Telling someone they have typed themselves incorrectly is more important than living harmoniously....

In contrast, an EII here once privately explained to me, concerning a mistyped person here, that she agreed with me as being mistyped, "Oh, that person had a serious personal problem last year, and if they want to think they are an XXX type when in fact they are an XXI type, I think that is good if it helps them feel better."

That is a true EII response, and it's polar opposite of what you said here. The two opposing responses to mistyping represent the very different priorities of an ILI and an EII. Namely, objective truth vs. exquisite sensitivity to the inner harmony of another human being.

There are so many things, besides that, that tell that you are ILI. I have never met you, heard you, seen you (even though you may have posted pics here; I didn't see them), yet, having read so much of what you wrote here I feel I have a solid grasp of who your are, and of how you speak (not audibly), and how you will respond to a thing. (I sometimes feel that not seeing/hearing and only reading the words of a person aides me in having a very clear picture of the person). And reading you, in that way, I hear your "voice". And it's not an EII voice! It's ILI.

Consider one other aspect of ILI vs. EII: the degree of traditional masculinity and femininity of those types, as described in this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-by-E-Filatova Here we find:

EII is markedly feminine, scoring a "negative two" in masculinity and highest score, a "+3" in femininity.
ILI is more androgynous, neither markedly feminine or markedly masculine, and is in fact the only type to score 0 in both masculinity and femininity. This "0" rating is explained here:

ILI - According to our chosen scales, masculinity of type ILI is poorly expressed in contrast to the representatives of opposite gender. Philosopher, critic, and skeptic, the ILI often doesn't worry about his appearance. ILI men often count on attracting women by their intellect and yielding behavior. Among ILI women, not all seek a family life, as internally they are quite independent and often financially self-sufficient. Moreover, they are often set in their opinions and love to show off their logic, which men don't always find appealing. Therefore, their feminine score is set to 0. Here we have another androgynous type. Although, androgyny presupposes that M/F qualities are displayed equally strongly, and in the case of ILIs they are simply not manifested very clearly.

Independent, self-sufficient and certainly: philosopher, critic and skeptic. Those few words that are used to describe ILI, in fact describe you!

Instead, EII is described this way:

"... a feminine type, characterized by depth of feelings, ability to love and to keep faithful, tendency to remove psychological stress and emotionally be supportive of people "

- And that's the end of the brief description of EII! Look at that! That does not describe you, Subteigh!

Think of your posts here. It truly comes down to this: would readers of your posts characterize them as showing us depth of your love and emotional support of of others (EII), or about showing us your logic (ILI)?

Two types, two completely different different programs!

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Indeed and Amen! That is exactly why you should understand that you are an ILI, not EII, Subteigh!

And since you are an ILI, I can feel safe (once again) asserting my correction of your self-type, because you are not going to suffer hurt feelings over my opinion. Because if you were prone to that, I would not write this post. That's because I believe living harmoniously is more important than stating the truth, at least on non-vital truth matters. (Socionics I do not consider to be a vital truth, but simply a truth). So if I thought my expressing my opinion might emotionally upset you, I would withhold from expressing it. But armed with my IEE-brand of understanding and intuition of sensitivities, I will venture forth, unafraid.

I know you are here not just for the Socionics, Subteigh, but for the society as well, but, you could be getting so much more out of Socionics for yourself if you were typed yourself correctly.

A core reason for your self-mistyping, I believe, has to do with your personal identification/emotional anchor in the word "Humanist" (or "Humanitarian"), which is often used to describe EII. But what you identify with in the word humanitarian and what Socionics means in using the word to describe EII are two very different things. With EII, it is a reference to their exquisite personal sensitivity and feelings, particularly manifested in their personal, private relationships. They are an "acutely sensitive, empathetic, listening, feeling friend" kind of humanist, while instead, ILE is an "abstract problem-solver for a better human society" kind of humanist. The EII is sensitive in every interaction to the feelings of his/her interlocutor, and can adjust his/her communication (and desire to state truths) towards maintaining the inner harmony of that person. That is quite opposite of what you just said:



In contrast, an EII here once privately explained to me, concerning a mistyped person here, that she agreed with me as being mistyped, "Oh, that person had a serious personal problem last year, and if they want to think they are an XXX type when in fact they are an XXI type, I think that is good if it helps them feel better."

That is a true EII response, and it's polar opposite of what you said here. The two opposing responses to mistyping represent the very different priorities of an ILI and an EII. Namely, objective truth vs. exquisite sensitivity to the inner harmony of another human being.

There are so many things, besides that, that tell that you are ILI. I have never met you, heard you, seen you (even though you may have posted pics here; I didn't see them), yet, having read so much of what you wrote here I feel I have a solid grasp of who your are, and of how you speak (not audibly), and how you will respond to a thing. (I sometimes feel that not seeing/hearing and only reading the words of a person aides me in having a very clear picture of the person). And reading you, in that way, I hear your "voice". And it's not an EII voice! It's ILI.

Consider one other aspect of ILI vs. EII: the degree of traditional masculinity and femininity of those types, as described in this article: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-by-E-Filatova Here we find:

EII is markedly feminine, scoring a "negative two" in masculinity and highest score, a "+3" in femininity.
ILI is more androgynous, neither markedly feminine or markedly masculine, and is in fact the only type to score 0 in both masculinity and femininity. This "0" rating is explained here:



Independent, self-sufficient and certainly: philosopher, critic and skeptic. Those few words that are used to describe ILI, in fact describe you!

Instead, EII is described this way: - And that's the end of the brief description of EII! Look at that! That does not describe you, Subteigh!

Think of your posts here. It truly comes down to this: would readers of your posts characterize them as showing us depth of your love and emotional support of of others (EII), or about showing us your logic (ILI)?

Two types, two completely different different programs!

My comment wasn’t serious.

[Eliza Thomason]

My comment wasn’t serious.

Because you are not serious about Socionics?

[Eliza Thomason]

Absolutely. The common case I have witnessed of resistance towards Intertype Relations are people at stages in their life who are still trying to salvage failing and detrimental relations while telling themselves they can be with whomever they like. One of my closest mates has been on the rebound from a breakup he took ages to get over, with a type that was flat out shitty for him (Extinguishment Relations). I had long tried to counsel him on the nature of their issues, their types, and what to look out for in the future, but, being on the rebound, he ardently rejected IR (he's familiar with Socionics) and stubbornly told himself he could make it work with any woman he wanted.

IR tries to free people of this entropy, this wasted energy and potential, by aligning with complimentary natures, but people insist on wasting their time and energy overexerting themselves for sub-par relations. In our "you can be whatever You want" culture, the relativistic nonsense of "all options are valid" has yet to be stamped out by the truth of discernment, and so people waste their time and potential pursuing both goals and people that are not conducive to their nature. I have seen many assert that excluding or filtering Your relations through IR is essentially unfair, which is flat out not true, and even if that were the case, so fucking what!?. IR is clear on the fact that most types can operate perfectly fine as acquaintances, but the closer You wish to be with a person, the more reconciliatory, mutually beneficial, and generally conducive to longevity Your relations will be with certain alignments - even in the absence of a formal theory this is axiomatically, unequivocally true; no one person is equally compatible with all types of people, to even suggest that would be delusional at best. You can be 'friends' with anyone, but the extent to which relations are strained or confluent is what IR maps out.

Someone who is not mistyped and is using IR to their benefit will be rewarded with far more strength; the closer to the mark (their Quadra) they get, the more the undistilled and essential self emerges and mutually strengthens with their partner.

This is so true! I agree with all you said here, and I am referring now especially to your statement I bolded above, which I have seen a lot, too. And I have just not known what to say in the face of such a untrue sentiment, so boldly expressed. It has made me search for the truth behind that false statement, and I think I came across something in my wondering, from a memory of something i once read. I will do my best to explain that now.

Besides the bold truth of intertype relations (which these folks are denying), there is another relationship truth, that of the hierarchy of the four types relationships/marriages. One can reach the highest relationship type more easily in a dual relationship, but I think with all four relationship types can include any intertype relationship, because it has more to do with common goals and values, and psychological health, than it does type.

That alternative, parallel relationship truth refers to a hierarchy of 4 types of marriages, from the worst, dubbed "Deadly" to best, dubbed "Exceptional", in a book by Gregory Popcak called "The Exceptional Seven Percent", a book describing the characteristics particularly of the best marriages, a book I once read, that really stuck in my mind because I saw it's truth.

The Four relationship types are in this order: Deadly, Shipwrecked, Conventional, Exceptional. When you read the descriptions of the types (linked below) I am sure you will see the truth of them, as you can think of marriages or committed relationships in your life that fit into those categories. They are not one like another! I see myself as in an "Exceptional" marriage now with my Dual husband, whereas before I was in a "Shipwrecked" (2nd from bottom) marriage with my Narcissist, Benefactor previous husband.

A SEE I am related to reports being very happy in her Supervision relationship. My husband expresses gladness that, finally, this one is not a "scumbag" like all the others! He is not; he is a good guy, for sure! But when the relationship was established and these two put lives together, living as a family, parenting each other's kids from previous relationships, I was concerned for this liaison, because she is Supervisee! The psychologically worst position for her to be in! But she, as classic SEE does, chose him, in that classic SEE "I choose" way, and she chose him wholeheartedly. And he is a really is a decent guy, and he does provide stability.

So she is one who makes that statement you made, that I bolded above, Luminous, and I just see how she is wrong, or at least, how can she be right, since Supervisee is Socionically so wrong for her. But now I see in what way it is right for her. At the time I shut up when I saw my concerns were ignored, I knew she could not see what I see, and that I need to butt out. But that did not keep me from seeking truth in my own mind, to understand better, for myself.

And what I recently came to understand is this: she is seeking a lower hierarchy in relationship, and that psychological compatibility that I am referring to in Duality is just not in the crosshair for her, so my point is moot. To explain what I mean by hierarchy, Popcak says that any marriage/relationship can become exceptional, (except maybe "Deadly", which in most cases should just end), but must move through each stage to get to the next. So she has already experienced plenty of Deadly relationships, the next in line is "Shipwrecked", and then "Conventional" (before Exceptional, which is not in her crosshairs at this time). "Conventional" is a an amazingly great relationship for them both, since both have had, apparently, only "Deadly" relationships!

The problem remains that while the Supervisor finds the Supervisee a bit annoying, the Supervisee is in the the far less fortunate position of being in the most psychologically damaging relationship position possible for her! But two things mitigate this for our dear relation: 1) Her mother and her only sibling, both, are also her Supervisors, so, this particular relationship challenge is one she is used to, and 2) She is prescribed and uses medical marijuana, and that probably helps her get over the humps in her life.

[Here is a very short and concise article summarizing Popcak's progression of the 4 types of relationships: http://catholicmom.com/2013/10/10/is...ked-or-deadly/ ]

____________________

Meanwhile, Sociotype knowledge helped me respond appropriately to her recently. We decided for a Christmas gift on a generous restaurant gift certificate, plus tip money, so they could enjoy a family outing for five at a nice restaurant, because she does value family time, but there seems to be alarmingly (to me) little of it with their work (we and many others participate a lot in the childcare for this family), so I wanted to support an easy way for some family together time. We gave it with that intention, but upon receipt (boyfriend not present) she said, "I might save this for two times out for just us, because when we don't have the kids all we do is sit around together at home" My feeling-response was that this was against the whole intention of why we gave it, but I am glad (because peaceful relations is important to me) I responded with, "It's your present, you decide." Later, on reflection, I realized that while a weekend night at home with no kids and no work is a great evening for an "I", a SEE's style is more to celebrate their relationship in a memorable meal out together. And since in a Supervision relationship the Supervisee has less say (even for a strong SEE!), its a good thing to provide support her to manifest her desire.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Because you are not serious about Socionics?

The point of my comment is that if people are not concerned with living harmoniously, then they are acting contrary to the spirit in which Socionics was invented.

I believe that generally, people are better at typing themselves than other people, and also, that it is pointless getting into angry arguments about someone else’s type particularly when Socionics is far from objective even when it is not just a matter of subjective interpretation.

I do however think The Truth is the most important thing. But angry arguments about matters of subjective interpretation do not serve The Truth. Getting emotional has no bearing on determining the truthfulness of a claim, unless it is directly relevant to the claim.

[Beautiful sky]

@Eliza Thomason supervisee SEE with LSI? Let me know how that plays out

[Chthonic Daydream]

Can confirm; I get a sense of existential dread whenever I check up on this thread.

[Eliza Thomason]

@Eliza Thomason supervisee SEE with LSI? Let me know how that plays out

Yes, I am sure of the types, so, also being sure of Socionics intertype relations, I am the sole one who seems to worry about this for her. But there are those two factors - 1) she has lived all her life trying to please LSI Mom (who is not prone to giving her the verbal approval she hopes for) and her only sibling (brother) is also LSI (which is a good relationship, except when she is accusing him of being a socially reclusive or inept, but i think he feels fine (and is) the way he is... he is not unapproachable - he just doesn't talk unless he feels he has something worthwhile to say!). Also there is 2) she use her medical marijuana prescription to chase away blues or anxiety, whc. is not a wise choice for her IMO (particularly because she is a recovering/recovered member of N.A.) but it's not my call. She reports that is working for her, and also she reports to all (and also on FB) that she is VERY happy w/ her LSI guy. From what my husband and I can see, he is hardworking guy trying to make a stable family and succeeding at it. I was the only one to over hear him saying to her, "I wouldn't be with you if you didn't have kids," said in jest, but i knew it would sting her, and her brief response showed that, I almost said, "Wow, that's not nice for a girl to hear." and then I realized it might be better for her dignity to pretend I didn't hear, so I did that. And since I did not hear the previous words they were having (no rancor), it occurred to me that she might have been jesting/insulting him and he might have just been giving it back to her, so, best to ignore anyway.

[sbbds]

the observation is going to be a parochial one, where it's centered on that specific location at the that specific time at that specific situation.

How do you make any decisions in life?

How can you use any information at all with this kind of mentality lol. If you want to talk about logical contradictions, your existence is one. How do you survive?

[Singu]

How do you make any decisions in life?

How can you use any information at all with this kind of mentality lol. If you want to talk about logical contradictions, your existence is one. How do you survive?

Well it's pretty ironic really, since you're dependent of various scientific theories that are made in this exact way, to go throughout your life.

Do laws of physics just say, "Well I've OBSERVED this happening, therefore it should happen again in the exact same way"? No, it was only possible when people made bold predictions about what's going to happen in the future.

I mean really, you're just not going to get it unless you actually understand how (scientific) theories are actually made. You're still stuck in Inductivist and Empiricist phase, which is a phase most people are admittedly stuck in. But it's just not how science is done at all.

So there's just this huge gap between how most people think science is stereotypically done, and how science is actually done. Admittedly, I used to think stereotypically, that science was all about Empiricism and carefully measuring things and observing nature and all that, until I actually looked it up and studied how science was actually done.

In a way I used to think that science was supposed to be "Te", until I realized that Socionics was all bullshit, lol.

[sbbds]

Well it's pretty ironic really, since you're dependent of various scientific theories that are made in this exact way, to go throughout your life.

Do laws of physics just say, "Well I've OBSERVED this happening, therefore it should happen again in the exact same way"? No, it was only possible when people made bold predictions about what's going to happen in the future.

I mean really, you're just not going to get it unless you actually understand how (scientific) theories are actually made. You're still stuck in Inductivist and Empiricist phase, which is a phase most people are admittedly stuck in. But it's just not how science is done at all.

So there's just this huge gap between how most people think science is stereotypically done, and how science is actually done. Admittedly, I used to think stereotypically, until I actually looked it up and studied how science was actually done.

Yeah. Few decisions that people consciously make in everyday life have anything directly to do with pre-determined scientific theories.

How do babies learn and form assumptions, and gain knowledge about the world and operate? How do people become fully functioning adults who use what they see in the world?

[Singu]

Yeah. Few decisions that people consciously make in everyday life have anything directly to do with pre-determined scientific theories.

That's why the world is so full of errors, until science came along and shown as how to create real knowledge. The world used to be full of myths, religions, superstitions, and other irrationalities, that really got as nowhere. And the world is still full of them.

People tend to think inductively. "It has happened before, so it will happen again". People tend to imagine causality, when all it happened is that something happened in succession, and there may not have been any actual causality in the physical sense. A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B. Not necessarily the case. A and B may have nothing to do with each other.

What kind of conscious and unconscious decisions do people make in their everyday lives? Gamblers spend their entire money away, thinking that "This is my luck tonight, I can feel it". People rely on "hunches" that may or may not be correct. People hold various prejudices and stereotypes. People believe in hundreds of "personality theories"... astrologies... where none can explain why those exact numbers of types should be correct.

[sbbds]

That's why the world is so full of errors, until science came along and shown as how to create real knowledge. The world used to be full of myths, religions, superstitions, and other irrationalities, that really got as nowhere. And the world is still full of them.

People tend to think inductively. "It has happened before, so it will happen again". People tend to imagine causality, when all it happened is that something happened in succession, and there may not have been any actual causality in the physical sense. A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused B. Not necessarily the case. A and B may have nothing to do with each other.

What kind of conscious and unconscious decisions do people make in their everyday lives? Gamblers spend their entire money away, thinking that "This is my luck tonight, I can feel it". People rely on "hunches" that may or may not be correct. People hold various prejudices and stereotypes. People believe in hundreds of "personality theories"... astrologies... where none can explain why those exact numbers of types should be correct.

I’m (obviously) not talking about views on the universe, but everyday decisions in life.

Babies have an inborn understanding of physics which quickly develops with experience. I fail to see why this is problematic at all.

And if we can never really know anything, real knowledge doesn’t exist anyway. You’re just contradicting yourself.

[Singu]

I’m (obviously) not talking about views on the universe, but everyday decisions in life.

...Why do you think your everyday decisions aren't affected by the latest discoveries and scientific theories? In fact, what exactly are you doing with Socionics?

[sbbds]

...Why do you think your everyday decisions aren't affected by the latest discoveries and scientific theories? In fact, what exactly are you doing with Socionics?

I said they aren’t directly affected. Most people aren’t regularly conscious of that information, even if they have it, and many don’t. In any case, decisions don’t usually directly require that kind of information.

What do you mean by “in fact”? Now you’re suddenly curious.

[sbbds]

So you're saying that it's "undiscovered and unconfirmed", yet at the same time you're pretty sure that it's a real phenomenon with very little chance of being wrong. Nice logical contradiction.

This isn’t a logical contradiction btw, because I’m saying the explanation or reasoning behind it is undiscovered and unconfirmed. This doesn’t contradict anything about the observations having very little chance of not being real and not having something to them.

[Singu]

I said they aren’t directly affected. Most people aren’t regularly conscious of that information, even if they have it, and many don’t. In any case, decisions don’t usually directly require that kind of information.

What do you mean by “in fact”? Now you’re suddenly curious.

So when you make decisions involving people, you don't consciously or unconsciously consult Socionics information? What is even the point of Socionics?

I hardly see what your point is. Are you suggesting that when people are making everyday decisions, they suddenly forget about all their acquired theoretical, background knowledge?

This isn’t a logical contradiction btw, because I’m saying the explanation or reasoning behind it is undiscovered and unconfirmed. This doesn’t contradict anything about the observations having very little chance of not being real and not having something to them.

Then you don't quite know if your observation is a real thing or not, since "types" are not exactly obvious. I don't mean "real" as in some behaviors that you're observing in others are real or not, but as in this phenomenon existing as "types" is real or not.

You're saying that you know, when you don't know. Saying that types "exist" without an explanation, is extremely baseless.

[sbbds]

So when you make decisions involving people, you don't consciously or unconsciously consult Socionics information? What is even the point of Socionics?

I hardly see what your point is. Are you suggesting that when people are making everyday decisions, they suddenly forget about all their acquired theoretical, background knowledge?



Then you don't quite know if your observation is a real thing or not, since "types" are not exactly obvious. I don't mean "real" as in some behaviors that you're observing in others are real or not, but as in this phenomenon existing as "types" is real or not.

You're saying that you know, when you don't know. Saying that types "exist" without an explanation, is extremely baseless.

- They forget or don’t recall it because it’s usually not necessary
- Or they don’t have much stored in the first place, which is more common than not
- Theoretical scientific information for the common individual in society can’t be compared to people like us with Socionics information

- “Not exactly obvious” is your own opinion, and that has nothing to do with the observations being valid or not anyway. In fact it has less, because if the types are more elusive and the system is more complex with specific information, it’s more likely people who are seeing it and agree about it are right. It’s like the opposite of the Forer/Barnum effect taking place.
- No, I’m saying that we do know, we just don’t yet fully understand or have confirmed the reason and how it’s connected to the larger picture.

[Singu]

- “Not exactly obvious” is your own opinion, and that has nothing to do with the observations being valid or not anyway. In fact it has less, because if the types are more elusive and the system is more complex with specific information, it’s more likely people who are seeing it and agree about it are right. It’s like the opposite of the Forer/Barnum effect taking place.
- No, I’m saying that we do know, we just don’t yet fully understand or have confirmed the reason and how it’s connected to the larger picture.

You don't fucking know whether what you're observing is due to "types", or not. You've admitted this yourself by saying "It's undiscovered and unconfirmed.

You don't know, you don't know.

[Aylen]

@Singu

You made a thread once where we discussed science, dna, personality etc.. Any idea what it is titled? I have something to add but if you would rather it not be bumped I will post elsewhere.

[Singu]

@Singu

You made a thread once where we discussed science, dna, personality etc.. Any idea what it is titled? I have something to add but if you would rather it not be bumped I will post elsewhere.

I don't remember, just post it here or something.

[Aylen]

I don't remember, just post it here or something.

Too bad, it had some interesting stuff. I probably should post in a dna thread or make a thread. I don't think it would fit here but since I saw you I thought I would ask. Thanks...

[sbbds]

You don't fucking know whether what you're observing is due to "types", or not. You've admitted this yourself by saying "It's undiscovered and unconfirmed.

You don't know, you don't know.

It seems more reasonable to think so than not at this point, is my point.

Knowledge is always updating. Some say it doesn’t exist, and others say it takes form in action. You don’t need a full picture complete with full explanations to use information and make decisions with it either.

Well, I suppose you do, apparently. Not my problem, though.

[Singu]

It seems more reasonable to think so than not at this point, is my point.

Knowledge is always updating. Some say it doesn’t exist, and others say it takes form in action. You don’t need a full picture complete with full explanations to use information and make decisions with it either.

Okay, and there are thousands of other "personality theories" out there that are saying that their version of "types" is correct. What makes your "types" the right one? None offers any plausible explanations as to say which is the correct one.

Well, I suppose you do, apparently. Not my problem, though.

That's why no one outside of this forum takes Socionics seriously, duh. Good lucking trying to turn it into "science". No scientist is going to take something without an explanation seriously.

That's because science is in the interest of working at things from the perspective of a theoretical framework, and not just observations. Nobody gives a shit if you can make a bunch of observations and categorize them accordingly.

[sbbds]

Okay, and there are thousands of other "personality theories" out there that are saying that their version of "types" is correct. What makes your "types" the right one? None offers any plausible explanations as to say which is the correct one.



That's why no one outside of this forum takes Socionics seriously, duh. Good lucking trying to turn it into "science". No scientist is going to take something without an explanation seriously.

That's because science is in the interest of working at things from the perspective of a theoretical framework, and not just observations. Nobody gives a shit if you can make a bunch of observations and categorize them accordingly.

Socionics does have a theoretical explanation lol...

There’s a difference between that and a scientific explanation though. Anyway, I won’t have the time to argue with you for a while regularly so I’ll ttyl.

[vesstheastralsilky]

As a variation of this thread theme, there is now a poll called Ambiguous Profiling to register your related pain woes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...uous-Profiling

[Beautiful sky]

I’ve been very satisfied with Socionics overall.

[sbbds]

It’s like the opposite of the Forer/Barnum effect taking place.

Lol I love it whenever I can make Singu-chan swear. It’s probably because I said this. Te ass-rape. Or making the bulleted list.

[sbbds]

I wanna hear him scream next lol.

[Sol]

when the typing went wrong...

[Singu]

@sbbds Well actually, I wasn't even replying to that, I was replying to this:

- No, I’m saying that we do know, we just don’t yet fully understand or have confirmed the reason and how it’s connected to the larger picture.

I mean you've just got to appreciate this idiocy. You keep saying you know, yet you don't actually know.

If people keep "seeing the same thing"... then it's because it's a cult that makes people see the same thing through the same system, duh. You go to an astrology place, they too, would be seeing the same thing all over the place. But no one outside of the place gives a damn, because they can't actually give any convincing or plausible explanations for whatever it is that they're supposedly seeing, or how it is that it actually works.

The "larger picture" is the totality of the personality. How does that personality work? They can't explain it, other than "This is what we have seen so far (and apparently, there's no more)". That's just Inductivisim all over again.

Basically, this approach solves no problems, so it's rather pointless.

[Grendel]

If you want to talk about logical contradictions, your existence is one. How do you survive?

[sbbds]

@sbbds Well actually, I wasn't even replying to that, I was replying to this:



I mean you've just got to appreciate this idiocy. You keep saying you know, yet you don't actually know.

If people keep "seeing the same thing"... then it's because it's a cult that makes people see the same thing through the same system, duh. You go to an astrology place, they too, would be seeing the same thing all over the place. But no one outside of the place gives a damn, because they can't actually give any convincing or plausible explanations for whatever it is that they're supposedly seeing, or how it is that it actually works.

The "larger picture" is the totality of the personality. How does that personality work? They can't explain it, other than "This is what we have seen so far (and apparently, there's no more)". That's just Inductivisim all over again.

Basically, this approach solves no problems, so it's rather pointless.

There are apparently some correlations between temperament and the time of year people are born, to do with weather conditions and epigenetics. However, I believe astrology as a whole is definitely too complex, inconcrete and vague to prove scientifically. It’s on a completely different caliber compared to Socionics. It’s like the issues we have with making Socionics scientific x 100.

Re the bolded, there’s a difference between deciding information is valid within certain reasonable limitations and being able to give an explanation for that ... and it being accepted as mainstream fact. It also touches on rather complicated issues which aren’t fully understood in mainstream knowledge either, so... it’s comparable to our knowledge and understanding of a scientific understanding of the universe and the mind.

[Singu]

Re the bolded, there’s a difference between deciding information is valid within certain reasonable limitations and being able to give an explanation for that ... and it being accepted as mainstream fact. It also touches on rather complicated issues which aren’t fully understood in mainstream knowledge either, so... it’s comparable to our knowledge and understanding of a scientific understanding of the universe and the mind.

Well it's that kind of conspiratory thinking that attracts people to things like Socionics. It's "what the mainstream doesn't know or understand". They believe they have some secret knowledge that the rest of people don't know.

However if you analyze Socionics and see it for what it really is, then you'll realize that there's actually nothing special or magical about it. It's just about making a bunch of observations and categorizations. Just because it's shrouded in some mystical or vague language doesn't make it any more special or magical.

[sbbds]

Well it's that kind of conspiratory thinking that attracts people to things like Socionics. It's "what the mainstream doesn't know or understand". They believe they have some secret knowledge that the rest of people don't know.

However if you analyze Socionics and see it for what it really is, then you'll realize that there's actually nothing special or magical about it. It's just making a bunch of observations and categorizations. Just because it's shrouded in some mystical or vague language doesn't make it any more special or magical.

That’s all unrelated to it being valid or not.