Model A isn't a theory...

[Singu]

There's a lot of confusion over Model A and hence people get into muddled "debates" that really go nowhere (with people eventually resorting to the "authority" of Jung or Augusta to settle debates). The reason is because Model A isn't actually a theory, and hence there's nothing to theorize over.

So we'll need to know what a "theory" actually is. What is a theory? A theory is an overall framework, a hypothesized explanation that can answer why a particular thing happen.

For example, we all know the legend of an apple falling on Newton's head, and he came up with his theory of gravity. But how?

He first came up with a hypothesis, a theory that the reason why the apple falls to the ground, is because objects are attracted to each other. And the degree of its attraction has to do with the amount of the total mass of an object. So the more mass the object has, the greater the attraction. This made him wonder whether the same gravitational force that the Earth attracts an apple, is applied to the moon as well, as well as all the other stars and the planets in space. And then, and only then, he could work on his equations and hence he could come up with his universal law of gravitation.

This was quite revolutionary, because nobody had thought like Newton before. Nobody had thought that objects are attracted to each other in that way, and hence the reason for gravity. By the way, this isn't the last explanation, as Einstein had managed to come up with an even better explanation later on, which made possible to come up with an even more accurate models and predictions, when the Newton's theory was coming up with wide margins of errors on some observations, but we won't get to that now.

So it's pretty obvious that a theory first comes up with an explanation, an overall framework that can explain something, and only then it is possible that you can come with calculations, equations, predictions, etc. Newton didn't just keep observing an apple falling over and over again, and magically came up with his equations and laws out of nowhere, or he "generalized" or "extrapolated" from the repeated observations. It's also not as if he came up with this explanation to justify his observation. He had to have an explanation first, that objects are attracted to each other, before he could even start working on anything.

And yet that is exactly what Model A is not doing. So why would Model A not be a theory? Because it's just a catalog of observations, it doesn't theorize, it doesn't explain anything. "Why does this person have bad logic?" "Because of his Ti PoLR". That's not actually a theory, it's just an observation. And if you say "He has bad logic because he has strong Fi", then that's just a correlation, not a theory.

It is as if saying "The apple falls to the ground because of gravity". But that's not a theory or an explanation. A real theory, as we have known, is to say "The apple falls to the ground because objects are attracted to each other, which we call gravity". A theory is an explanation that can explain a fact or an event. And then it all goes from there.

Also saying things like "Creativity is Ne" is nonsensical, because we haven't yet established HOW Ne causes creativity to happen. ONLY THEN and after that, we can say things like "Creativity is Ne". It's as if to say, "Apple falls to the ground because of gravity", when we first needed to establish that "Gravity is the act of objects being attracted to each other".

But rather the entire premise of Socionics is to say that "If something repeats in the past, then it will repeat indefinitely in the future". So if there's a type, then that type will remain the same, forever. If a relationship has conflicted in the past, then that relationship will always conflict in the future. There's not much more to it than that.

So Socionics has got everything backwards. And that's why people are becoming so confused over it.

[domr]

So why would Model A not be a theory? Because it's just a catalog of observations, it doesn't theorize, it doesn't explain anything.

This shows how little you understand. A theory is a proven conjecture and model A is a conjecture. It explains how personality types are created. It uses the building blocks (cognitive functions) and structures them in a way to explain the behavior. And it works to a large degree. It explains quite a lot of things like Quadra Values and ITR.

Also saying things like "Creativity is Ne" is nonsensical, because we haven't yet established HOW Ne causes creativity to happen

This is correct. However the reason for this is because we don't have a defintion for Ne, rather than description.

Based on this post and your other posts, you are a strong Ti users, 3D or 4D. But instead of learning how Ti functions and the limits and constraints, you let your Ti go wild and only use it to attack other people's ideas. You sound a lot like SLIs and ILIs who only use their Ti to nitpick other people's logic rather than building their own logic.

[consentingadult]

@ the OP: You are making an error here: assuming that only a positivist approach can be scientific, can constitute a theory. But in the realm of social sciences, anti-positivist approaches are completely acceptable as a way for theorizing. In Sociology, anti-positivism is a major way to get started. The reason: we ourselves are the objects of our study, we can use 'empathy', so to speak, to help us understand ourselves, others, our interactions, and ultimately arriving at positivist conclusions about all these matters.

If you want to be most fruitful with Socionics, start thinking like a social scientist, not as a physicist.


August Comte - the father of Positivism, grandfather of Sociology


Emile Durkheim - Father of Positivist Sociology


Max Weber - Father of Anti-Positivist Sociology

[Singu]

You are making an error here: assuming that only a positivist approach can be scientific, can constitute a theory. But in the realm of social sciences, anti-positivist approaches are completely acceptable as a way for theorizing. In Sociology, anti-positivism is a major way to get started. The reason: we ourselves our the objects of our study, we can use 'empathy', so to speak, to help us understand ourselves, others, our interactions, and ultimately arriving at positivist conclusions about all these matters.

You are incorrect, this approach of seeking explanation is precisely anti-positivism. Positivism doesn't even care about coming up with explanations. Which is why both Newton and Einstein were not positivists. They were rationalists.

Just to be sure, positivism is just a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with science or how science is actually done. And that's why it has already been refuted a long time ago.

On the contrary and ironically, as Socionics is a system based on observations, it's rather positivist and inductivist.

[consentingadult]

You are incorrect, this approach of seeking explanation is precisely anti-positivism. Positivism doesn't even care about coming up with explanations. Which is why both Newton and Einstein were not positivists. They were rationalists.

Just to be sure, positivism is just a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with science or how science is actually done. And that's why it has already been refuted a long time ago.

On the contrary and ironically, as Socionics is a system based on observations, it's rather positivist and inductivist.

Have it your way...

[Singu]

A theory is a proven conjecture and model A is a conjecture.

Nothing can be "proven". Everything will be eventually replaced later on, and hence why Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's, and Einstein's theory will eventually be replaced by something else.

It explains how personality types are created.

It doesn't.

It uses the building blocks (cognitive functions) and structures them in a way to explain the behavior.

It doesn't, not in a way that's not circular: "Why did the person do this?" "Because of his PoLR". "Why is there PoLR?" "Because the person did this".

It's like saying, "Why does the apple fall to the ground?" "Because of gravity". "Why is there gravity?" "Because the apple falls to the ground". What's really needed was, "Because objects are attracted to each other". And if you ask "Why are objects are attracted to each other?", then you can come up with a new explanation, such as Einstein's Relativity, or you can say "We don't know yet the reason why, but we're trying to find out", which is at least not circular or an infinite regression.

And it works to a large degree. It explains quite a lot of things like Quadra Values and ITR.

ITR is nothing but an assumption that if a relationship had conflicted before, then it will always conflict in the future. Quadra values are just a bunch of random observed values and traits.

[ooo]

I knew this was coming

[Singu]

I knew this was coming

Do you wonder why people are just talking in circles? Well, this is the reason why.

[domr]

Nothing can be "proven". Everything will be eventually replaced later on, and hence why Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's, and Einstein's theory will eventually be replaced by something else.



It doesn't.



It doesn't, not in a way that's not circular: "Why did the person do this?" "Because of his PoLR". "Why is there PoLR?" "Because the person did this".

It's like saying, "Why does the apple fall to the ground?" "Because of gravity". "Why is there gravity?" "Because the apple falls to the ground". What's really needed was, "Because objects are attracted to each other". And if you ask "Why are objects are attracted to each other?", then you can come up with a new explanation, such as Einstein's Relativity, or you can say "We don't know yet the reason why, but we're trying to find out", which is at least not circular or an infinite regression.



ITR is nothing but an assumption that if a relationship had conflicted before, then it will always conflict in the future. Quadra values are just a bunch of random observed values and traits.

Like I said, it's pointless trying to have a conversation with you because you only use Ti to attack other people's ideas with strawman arguments. You don't know how to use Ti to build systems.

Everything will be eventually replaced later on

That's just your conjecture based on intuition. It's clear to me that you are an unbalanced NT type. ILI, ILE or LII, probably the former.

[ooo]

Do you wonder why people are just talking in circles? Well, this is the reason why.

because the world twists itself in circles around the sun which turns around a black hole in the middle of our galaxy which is like a whirlpool, we're spiralling all the time

[Singu]

Like I said, it's pointless trying to have a conversation with you because you only use Ti to attack other people's ideas with strawman arguments. You don't know how to use Ti to build systems.

You'll need to forget about things like "Ti" for a while, because this has nothing to do with Ti or whatever. It's simply about what is possible and not possible, what is based on rationality, and criticisms.

All I'm saying is, if you don't solve this problem, which is basically the problem of induction, then you can't progress. I'm all for people coming up with their own ideas, own conjectures. I'm just saying that Socionics isn't exactly a theory, it's a catalog of observations.

That's just your conjecture based on intuition. It's clear to me that you are an unbalanced NT type. ILI, ILE or LII, probably the former.

It's not based on intuition. It's based on Cantor's diagonal argument, and Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Or are you saying that people have an access to the "absolute truth"?

[woofwoofl]

[Bertrand]

I dunno why you guys feel the need to defend the status of model to A to Singu, just say yeah bro its totally not a theory and move on. its totally meaningless as to what status Singu personally affords model A, because he retains total control over what he defines as a theory, although he'd never admit it. in other words, its not an objective property of model A anyone is even talking about, its about Singu's personal understanding of what a theory is, and if you want to delve into that, you're wasting your time. unless someone wants to handhold him through the history of science and philosophy, and even then I'm not sure thats not a lost cause too

also lol @ him being ILI, unless he's 16 years old I find that totally unimaginable

[domr]

You'll need to forget about things like "Ti" for a while, because this has nothing to do with Ti or whatever. It's simply about what is possible and not possible, what is based on rationality, and criticisms.

Ti is deductive logic. I'm analyzing your behavior through the lens of deductive logic. I'm just saying Ti because it's a word you understand.

All I'm saying is, if you don't solve this problem, which is basically the problem of induction, then you can't progress. I'm all for people coming up with their own ideas, own conjectures. I'm just saying that Socionics isn't exactly a theory, it's a catalog of observations.

1) Induction is Te. Deductive is Ti. So neither is defined as more true.
2) With that said, I agree that people have a bias towards deduction. Humans view it as more rigorous.
3) That is why I created definitions for the cognitive functions and used them to derive the personality types. I need help finalizing my work, figuring out which things are axioms, which are conjectures. You are correct that we can't prove analytical psychology but it explains enough to be taken serious. If it was a regression equation, the r^2 would be high.

It's not based on intuition. It's based on Cantor's diagonal argument, and Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Or are you saying that people have an access to the "absolute truth"?

Of course you can. Somethings will never change. Others will change. Your idea that everything will always change is illogical.

[Singu]

socionics isn't real! mrah rah rahh (again)

When did I say that Socionics is not "real"? lol.

I dunno why you guys feel the need to defend the status of model to A to Singu, just say yeah bro its totally not a theory and move on. its totally meaningless as to what status Singu personally affords model A, because he retains total control over what he defines as a theory, although he'd never admit it. in other words, its not an objective property of model A anyone is even talking about, its about Singu's personal understanding of what a theory is, and if you want to delve into that, you're wasting your time.

Oh look, it's Bertrand, who has zero understanding of anything of what this thread is even about.

Yeah, it's not a theory, so what's wrong with it? I don't know! I'm Bertrand and I totally can't think for myself, because I'm an idiot and have no thoughts.

unless someone wants to handhold him through the history of science and philosophy, and even then I'm not sure thats not a lost cause too

That's an irony for you, since again, you have zero understand of both science AND philosophy. Again, what were you doing in your philosophy class? Sleeping?

Come back to me when you have at least understood the problem of induction.

[Singu]

Ti is deductive logic. I'm analyzing your behavior through the lens of deductive logic. I'm just saying Ti because it's a word you understand.

I'm not exactly using deductive logic.

1) Induction is Te. Deductive is Ti. So neither is defined as more true.
2) With that said, I agree that people have a bias towards deduction. Humans view it as more rigorous.
3) That is why I created definitions for the cognitive functions and used them to derive the personality types. I need help finalizing my work, figuring out which things are axioms, which are conjectures. You are correct that we can't prove analytical psychology but it explains enough to be taken serious. If it was a regression equation, the r^2 would be high.

1) Sure, and induction doesn't work.
2) People have a bias towards induction. They think that they can just "extrapolate" information or patterns from observations. And then they think that pattern will continue in the future. That's exactly what people are doing with Socionics, and it's clearly not working.
3) What you are still doing is just observing things, which doesn't create anything new.

Of course you can. Somethings will never change. Others will change. Your idea that everything will always change is illogical.

What I mean is that you can never have a "perfect" understanding of something. Think it of like this. You are only a part of reality, and hence you can never become the complete reality. Your information of reality will always be partial information. And are you really saying that since you are a "type", you will never change, forever?

[Singu]

The sensitivity some people have towards any perceived criticisms of Socionics is just staggering. It's like they react with a mix of confusion, fear and hostility; they cannot react in a rational way, because they have no rational defense. They have thrown rationality out the window. This might show that Socionics is not actually a rational theory. Or certainly, its practitioners are not acting in a rational way.

I'm just pointing out the obvious facts of some of the problems that Socionics is facing, and its obvious impossibilities in creating any new information. Perhaps some rational people can understand this, but as for the rest, well I guess it's hopeless.

[domr]

I'm not exactly using deductive logic.



1) Sure, and induction doesn't work.
2) People have a bias towards induction. They think that they can just "extrapolate" information or patterns from observations. And then they think that pattern will continue in the future. That's exactly what people are doing with Socionics, and it's clearly not working.
3) What you are still doing is just observing things, which doesn't create anything new.



What I mean is that you can never have a "perfect" understanding of something. Think it of like this. You are only a part of reality, and hence you can never become the complete reality. Your information of reality will always be partial information. And are you really saying that since you are a "type", you will never change, forever?

I seriously cannot speak to you. Your use of Ti (deductive logic) is so poor that it's impossible to communicate with you. You'll nit-pick everything I say for a desperate attempt to "win."

[Singu]

I seriously cannot speak to you. Your use of Ti (deductive logic) is so poor that it's impossible to communicate with you. You'll nit-pick everything I say for a desperate attempt to "win."

Don't speak to me then.

[Muddy]

@Singu, I'll help you get an idea about how people see you on here.

Let's say your watching a movie. It isn't a perfect movie but you are enjoying it regardless, whether it be for the effects, story, atmosphere or whatever. Then some nerd asshole walks in the room and tells you "Dude, why are you watching that crap?". You tell him to shut up so you can watch the movie but then can continues to point out all these plot holes which feel redundant to you. You tell him again that you don't give a shit be he keeps trying to convince you that the movie is bad and that you should stop watching it.

You are being a "that guy" right now. I hope this helps bring about some self-reflection.

[Soupman]

I'm not exactly using deductive logic.



1) Sure, and induction doesn't work.
2) People have a bias towards induction. They think that they can just "extrapolate" information or patterns from observations. And then they think that pattern will continue in the future. That's exactly what people are doing with Socionics, and it's clearly not working.
3) What you are still doing is just observing things, which doesn't create anything new.



What I mean is that you can never have a "perfect" understanding of something. Think it of like this. You are only a part of reality, and hence you can never become the complete reality. Your information of reality will always be partial information. And are you really saying that since you are a "type", you will never change, forever?

You seem to be an ILI pissed off at "Ti" frameworks in socionics lacking direct evidence for the claims being made which cannot be verified.

[domr]

You seem to be an ILI pissed of at "Ti" frameworks in socionics lacking direct evidence for the claims being made which cannot be verified.

Yep.

Would add it's precisely because he doesn't understand the limits of Ti and how logic works. e.g. doesn't know what is and isn't a good model. I've seen this poor usage of demonstrative Ti in quite a few ILIs and SLIs. The irony is instead of realizing that he could use Socionics to grow, he attacks the system.

http://www.cs.ru.nl/~fvaan/PV/what_is_a_good_model.html

[Singu]

@Singu, I'll help you get an idea about how people see you on here.

Let's say your watching a movie. It isn't a perfect movie but you are enjoying it regardless, whether it be for the effects, story, atmosphere or whatever. Then some nerd asshole walks in the room and tells you "Dude, why are you watching that crap?". You tell him to shut up so you can watch the movie but then can continues to point out all these plot holes which feel redundant to you. You tell him again that you don't give a shit be he keeps trying to convince you that the movie is bad and that you should stop watching it.

You are being a "that guy" right now. I hope this helps bring about some self-reflection.

And it's not even about not being "perfect", lol. It simply has to do with the logical impossibility that whatever people are doing with theorizing Model A, isn't working. Because it's not actually a theory, so there's nothing to theorize over.

And if you are too stupid to realize this, then well, of course there's no help, but you'd be looking totally stupid to the people who are actually aware of this very problem that I'm talking about.

And you are being "that guy".

You seem to be an ILI pissed off at "Ti" frameworks in socionics lacking direct evidence for the claims being made which cannot be verified.

No actually, that's not at all what I said in any of this thread.

Some people are too focused on the stereotypes of "types" or "function" to actually even understand what the other person is talking about. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with Ti or Te.

The entire premise of Socionics is based around on inductivism, which is to say that if something happens in the past, then it must also repeat into the future indefinitely. Which means that if there's a type description, then that type description will be true forever, and hence people must always be doing the same things, over and over again, according to Socionics. And if there's ITR, then that ITR will repeat into the future forever. That is just asinine, and it won't tell you anything new about anything. Which is why I've always been saying, you need an explanation of something first, which is the entire purpose of having a theory. Which is to come up with a hypothetical explanation for something.

[Soupman]

No actually, that's not at all what I said in any of this thread.

Some people are too focused on the stereotypes of "types" or "function" to actually even understand what the other person is talking about. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with Ti or Te.

The entire premise of Socionics is based around on inductivism, which is to say that if something happens in the past, then it must also repeat into the future indefinitely. Which means that if there's a type description, then that type description will be true forever, and hence people must always be doing the same things, over and over again, according to Socionics. And if there's ITR, then that ITR will repeat into the future forever. That is just asinine, and it won't tell you anything new about anything. Which is why I've always been saying, you need an explanation of something first, which is the entire purpose of having a theory. Which is to come up with a hypothetical explanation for something.

Exactly this is why I got pissed off at socionics for making hasty generalizations not backed up by intrinsic evidence, you are describing exactly why I got annoyed at Gulenko after investing the time to deconstruct his ideas these past 5 years. I'm annoyed at socionics for mixing factual-factoids with hasty generaliations.

It's the whole - "Are all swans white just because every swan you've seen is white?"

Instead of being direct and honest about said claims saying well some "things" we think of as "swans" are white because that what we've observed at this very specific epoch in time. The question as to whether all swans are white or not, is irrelevant and disingenuous without a falsification process that can conclusively establish all swans to be white. (Even if such a falsification process were to be constructed then it would be up for questioning and critique).

I describe myself as an ILI with Alpha values and that's not a crazy observation on my part - given the contradictions my own nature reveals when evaluated against claims in socionics. I dislike the fact that socionics is both true and untrue concurrently, people have failed to make it a formal science.

Now Gulenko is hoping on to EEG nonsense with elaborate explanations of supposed patterns under a vague premises with regards to systematically diagnosing or understanding what exactly that data from the EEG is saying.

[niffer]

Model A is Your Mom.

[The Reality Denialist]

I use model A to take over the world using highly detailed plans.

Or was it to roughly estimate my preference patterns for interactions between different kinds of people and find some suitable comfort in it?

Nah, it was the latter.

[Bertrand]

Man, Singu as an ILI... this is crazy. But soupman is behind it, so maybe there's something to it. I guess I did say if he was super immature, but I still have a hard time seeing it. Do SEEs find him sympathetic? What other support for this idea is there, other than people think he has good Ti? (I think he has really simple Ti and just reads Wikipedia a lot--everything he says is super predictable in a retarded way, but I could see it coming across as imaginative if you weren't aware its all shitty copy/paste jobs of arguments that were already made a long time ago and not generated extemporaneously--then again perhaps this is part of being an immature ILI?). I'm curious as to where the gamma values are, and I would guess that balzac wouldn't be interested in such a quixotic mission given how obviously futile such a project is. I feel like balzac would know even if you could convince people it wouldn't change anything. I expect a degree of fatalism from ILI I don't detect in Singu, although he is into determinism, its the kind of "bright" determinism I associate with alpha/beta, which is to say they see no problems with a mechanistic worldview in principle from the point of view of meaning and so forth, think they're lightening everyone's moral load by pointing out we're all essentially automatons and so on

[Singu]

Man, Singu as an ILI... this is crazy. But soupman is behind it, so maybe there's something to it. I guess I did say if he was super immature, but I still have a hard time seeing it. Do SEEs find him sympathetic? What other support for this idea is there, other than people think he has good Ti? (I think he has really simple Ti and just reads Wikipedia a lot--everything he says is super predictable in a retarded way, but I could see it coming across as imaginative if you weren't aware its all shitty copy/paste jobs of arguments that were already made a long time ago and not generated extemporaneously--then again perhaps this is part of being an immature ILI?). I'm curious as to where the gamma values are, and I would guess that balzac wouldn't be interested in such a quixotic mission given how obviously futile such a project is. I feel like balzac would know even if you could convince people it wouldn't change anything. I expect a degree of fatalism from ILI I don't detect in Singu, although he is into determinism, its the kind of "bright" determinism I associate with alpha/beta, which is to say they see no problems with a mechanistic worldview in principle from the point of view of meaning and so forth, think they're lifting everyone's moral load by pointing out we're all essentially automatons and so on

Sorry Bertrand, you still don't understand what I'm talking about. And no, I'm not basing this information on Wikipedia. Ok well to be fair, you will understand it once you have read "Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper.

And who cares if Soupman is behind it? If you could even understand what this is about, then you would understand it perfectly well. It's about rationally understanding abstract ideas in an objective way. It has nothing to do with any of the "functions".

What people are doing with Socionics, is that they extrapolate or generalize some information from someone or some group of people, which is basically stereotypes, and they impose that stereotype onto someone else. And how would this even work, exactly? It's just totally asinine and it doesn't work. You won't be getting any new information from it, other than the stereotypes.

It takes an understanding to get what I'm talking about. It can't be done by just looking at Wikipedia articles and copying and pasting and simply listening to what other people say. You'd have to think for your self, you'd have to apply your own understanding. Use your rationality.

Too few people these days even try to understand things by themselves. They just want to look at something and repeat or quote or cite what others have already said. But they're not understanding it by themselves.

[Soupman]

And who cares if Soupman is behind it? If you could even understand what this is about, then you would understand it perfectly well. It's about rationally understanding abstract ideas in an objective way. It has nothing to do with any of the "functions".

*I'm making a throw away comment here, but "functions" is an attempt to rationalize the fact that mental processes are oddly different - sometimes slightly, other times significantly, as well as being confusingly similar yet they can't be said to be the same since the "difference" exists and affects how we come off to each other/whether we are easy to understand or not... etc.

What people are doing with Socionics, is that they extrapolate or generalize some information from someone or some group of people, which is basically stereotypes, and they impose that stereotype onto someone else. And how would this even work, exactly? It's just totally asinine and it doesn't work. You won't be getting any new information from it, other than the stereotypes.

You sound exactly like me around 6 years ago when I first started to be perplexed by some of the claims being made in typology. The first theory to really piss me off was Keirsey Temperament Sorter with bizarre descriptions about SJs, NTs, INTJs... so and so... having people love to serve, people who love following rules and fitting nicely into their pigeon-hole within society.

Firstly I then fell back to Jung, because of being "abstract" and more open. But within time I'd have to realise its flaws, its inability to be elaborate. Secondly I was figuring out that some of those "stereotypes" weren't half backed and I was seeing the claims being made reflected in some people in reality.

For example, it took me some time before I started to figure out that there's a grain of truth to this description. The whole "ethics of emotions" wasn't entirely fluff instead it describes aspects of some personalities were there are people who are flexible and reckless, yet adhoc in their relations mending and breaking relations as if their previous actions never happened (I was surprised to see this in some family members). Despite Gulenko's biases were he doesn't explore personality strengths and weaknesses equally, some of his observations were correct in determining significant personality motivations/traits.

SEE is very discerning of the system of relationships that exist between people. He knows how to tell someone precisely that which this person wants to hear from him. However, he does not rush to fulfill his promises if he doesn't feel a particular need in this. Balances between interests of the opposing groups, successfully negotiating and bargaining. If it's in his interests, he easily reconciles with former adversaries. Knows how to mend and improve previously broken relations. However, most often he plays on negative relations and dislikes rather than on sympathies and positive relationships. He finds it difficult to break relations that have run their course. Instead he will let a person know indirectly that he or she is no longer interesting to him. Dislikes allowing people too close to himself, because he feels that this imposes certain obligations on him. Easily strikes up acquaintances and new contacts and feels better and more confident in groups of people rather than alone in everyday environment.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/320-ESFp-The-Politician-profile-by-Gulenko

And then there are horrible profiles such as saying a whole personality is devoted to caring about family and serving food. This is a profile based on a caricature which fails to capture the core and consistent motivations (which can be extrapolated to be stable) around a person's behaviour. Also the one dimensional bias pisses me off about this profile, but that's a problem in socionics were authors give people they like flattering descriptions.

Very caring in relations to his family and friends. Attentive and responsive. Takes care of people who are not feeling well and those who seem impractical and poorly adapted to life. Understands who needs what kind of help. Won't lend a hand simply for the sake of good relations. With pleasure receives guests. Loves holiday dinners and gatherings. Knows whom to invite, how to behave, what to serve, how to leave a positive impression. Practical in everyday life. Quickly adapts to a new place. Knows how to create comfort from what is readily available at hand. Gets rid of unnecessary things, sells them or gives them away. Picky in his aesthetic taste. Analyzes whether the appearance of others is harmonious. Gives thought to how he dresses, masterfully combining various aspects of his outfit.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko

The trouble with socionics is that it has half-truths, and failure to capture the why of personalities - why people do what they do, so we don't have to rely on caricatures and stereotypes, some of which apply to multiple people.

Nevertheless it's not a lie that some people have habitual behaviours (or more accurately motivations) that colour how they see the world, what they are inclined to behave like, or treat and be treated by others. This is in spite of further individuals differences with complexities like nature vs nurture in behaviour.

It takes an understanding to get what I'm talking about. It can't be done by just looking at Wikipedia articles and copying and pasting and simply listening to what other people say. You'd have to think for your self, you'd have to apply your own understanding. Use your rationality.

This is more of from an academic standpoint were one has to learn and/or demonstrate the ability to comprehend an deconstruct ideas under peer-reviewed frameworks (not making formal logical errors etc). The trouble is that socionics is in the wild-west were falsification is no where to be found and claims aren't peer-reviewed/ or able to be so.

It's hard to start robust discussions from dubious foundations. Yet unfortunately there's something to socionics but it's hard to know were exactly to begin.

Too few people these days even try to understand things by themselves. They just want to look at something and repeat or quote or cite what others have already said. But they're not understanding it by themselves.

*People love "answers" and they love to defend a worldview they've began to be partial on, over applying "system 2" from Daniel Kahneman's Thinking fast and slow. People aren't always interest in the chaos of doubting, questioning, and discovery, especially if they have no personal motivation to do so.

[Enters Laughing]

It would certainly be possible to test the hypothesis that certain pairings of personality types get on well with each other. Unfortunately, those in Socionics have not been able to give a precise and unambiguous definition of the Socionics types in order to test their conjecture.

@Singu is quite right when he says that in science, nothing is ever truly proven. There are only ever degrees of confidence, based on observation. Hypotheses and theories and should always be based on observation, and thus be possible explanations or conclusions.

[Bertrand]

Sorry Bertrand, you still don't understand what I'm talking about. And no, I'm not basing this information on Wikipedia. Ok well to be fair, you will understand it once you have read "Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper.

And who cares if Soupman is behind it? If you could even understand what this is about, then you would understand it perfectly well. It's about rationally understanding abstract ideas in an objective way. It has nothing to do with any of the "functions".

What people are doing with Socionics, is that they extrapolate or generalize some information from someone or some group of people, which is basically stereotypes, and they impose that stereotype onto someone else. And how would this even work, exactly? It's just totally asinine and it doesn't work. You won't be getting any new information from it, other than the stereotypes.

It takes an understanding to get what I'm talking about. It can't be done by just looking at Wikipedia articles and copying and pasting and simply listening to what other people say. You'd have to think for your self, you'd have to apply your own understanding. Use your rationality.

Too few people these days even try to understand things by themselves. They just want to look at something and repeat or quote or cite what others have already said. But they're not understanding it by themselves.

lol yeah you're the voice of reason. everyone knows socionics has shortcomings, the fact that people fill in informational gaps via intuitions arising out of the collective unconscious is the premise socionics is built on. to turn around and be like yeah but you shouldn't do that because its innacurate is true, and is in fact the basis of Jungian analytic psychology "The aim of individuation is nothing less than to divest the self of the false wrappings of the persona on the one hand, and of the suggestive power of primordial images on the other." you should think about that for a long while. because its like you're attempting to say something like that but in different words and somehow arriving at the conclusion that socionics is fatally flawed because you assume it hasn't built the fact that this happens into the theory itself, mainly because its like you just discovered it (in your own idiosyncratic way), so therefore socionics could not have possibly beat you to it. your entire criticism is based on this idea that its an illicit move without realizing that by noticing that this happens you've only begun to understand socionics, which describes how it is personalities do this in general. none of it applies to any specific person because these are abstract generalities that illustrate how the categories interact in theory. if people are misusing the theory because they're stereotyping people they're missing the point, but its not because socionics is wrong, its because their understanding of it is wrong (and they failed, like you, to take in the first premise upon which socionics is based) [1]. this is what I mean when you are constantly thrusting your subjective understanding onto things as if they are properties of the thing when they only tell us about your relationship to the thing

also a lot of your problems always invoke people taking some kind of Se step on the basis of things, which you need to realize only applies to people for whom that is how they operate. I agree that people take Se way too far, but you live in a world where absolutely everyone does, which is why you're so concerned with tossing out anything that could be misused. this totally ignores enantiodromia and so forth. you say I should read Karl Popper in order to respond to you; I could pull out an entire list of authors you should read as well, the point is people can go back and forth forever on that. if you can't make his point for him then you either don't understand him or its not a point that holds up (the other difference: I am honest about what I have and haven't read, because I know first of all its pointless to stand on appearance). if everyone was required to read some common core to have an opinion or ability to understand we are back in 1984, which is exactly the fascist ideal that gave rise to the american public school system. this in of itself is a beta kind of thing--the Se you're so concerned about, but can't help but embrace at the same time. trying to make out social science or all manner of discourse into a strict mathematics wherein one must know the principles in order to have a voice is useful only in the most qualified sense (and again this assumes that you have some superior number of principles at your disposal when in reality the opposite is more likely true--people are indulging you to begin with, although you ignore that and play god). it is actually trivial to claim someone lacks understanding because no ones understanding is ever complete, in this sense everyone lacks understanding and who is to judge? you can appoint yourself but I can write up a little quiz right now you're bound to fail. the only difference is you still think you're somehow above it all, when everyone else has the modicum of self awareness required to know better

in any case, what is at issue here are basic premises, not structural bodies of reasoning. this is also something Jung addresses, that people try to defend their point of view with recourse to the structure arising out of the premise when it is the premise itself at issue. at this point I am tempted to suggest you read Jung lest you be a hypocrite, because you are essentially coming to a place based on adoption of a premise and the study of a common structural knowledge, and simply trying to replace it with a premise of your own on the basis that until people adopt your structural understanding (which conveniently entails adopting your premise) they aren't allowed to reject your premise. you've tried to put people in a catch22 but the jokes on you. this is commonly referred to as being hoist on one's own petard [2]. its a tangle of misguided assumptions, to call it the work of a mastermind is confused. its a circle with no drawbridge extended. you are simply confused and isolated, and to that extent, aggressive, occasionally tossing out volleys from your stupid castle. you are simply saying, "try to see it my way" (but of course you have to be rude about it) and the kicker is, people can and do inasmuch as such a thing is possible, and yet you assume that rejection means they don't but that is predicated on the assumption you cannot be wrong. this is hubris and ego inflation, which entails coming under the sway of the primordial image which is what youre trying to warn against but undermining yourself at every turn, you are in essence fighting this battle with yourself across every level. I think soupman is simply trying to help you out, but like many posters he will come and go once he realizes you didn't come to be helped you came to conquer, which really means you came to lose. shall we take wagers on how long he persists in dialoguing with you?

[1] I have often said there's a bad version of socionics where people use it simply to inflate their ego and supply more projections with which to stereotype the world. this is the "pokemon" categorical socionics that goes on so much. the difference between me and you is you think that kind of result is the product of socionics itself and not the product of the individuals who misunderstand socionics... that's all this is, but you cannot help from continually making a scene, which I guess is better than shooting up a school in protest, but I really do not understand why people such as yourself have to make it everyone elses problem while at the same time claiming the moral high ground. its like be a good martyr and go quietly if thats what you think you are, otherwise admit you could be wrong. you can't have it both ways, you literally come as god the father not the son (Jung prefers the Christ image), which is bizarre to say the least. again, confused, inflated, claiming superior clarity

[2] speaking of who should read what, this a Shakespeare reference

[niffer]

*cough*...

[Sol]

model A is not a model

[domr]

Man, Singu as an ILI... this is crazy. But soupman is behind it, so maybe there's something to it. I guess I did say if he was super immature, but I still have a hard time seeing it. Do SEEs find him sympathetic? What other support for this idea is there, other than people think he has good Ti? (I think he has really simple Ti and just reads Wikipedia a lot--everything he says is super predictable in a retarded way, but I could see it coming across as imaginative if you weren't aware its all shitty copy/paste jobs of arguments that were already made a long time ago and not generated extemporaneously--then again perhaps this is part of being an immature ILI?). I'm curious as to where the gamma values are, and I would guess that balzac wouldn't be interested in such a quixotic mission given how obviously futile such a project is. I feel like balzac would know even if you could convince people it wouldn't change anything. I expect a degree of fatalism from ILI I don't detect in Singu, although he is into determinism, its the kind of "bright" determinism I associate with alpha/beta, which is to say they see no problems with a mechanistic worldview in principle from the point of view of meaning and so forth, think they're lightening everyone's moral load by pointing out we're all essentially automatons and so on

1) His Ti isn't good, it's just strong or dominate.
2) Quadra values only appear in the most healthy or self-actualized people. Most people do not live in line with their Quadra values which causes them to underperform in life.

Exactly this is why I got pissed off at socionics for making hasty generalizations not backed up by intrinsic evidence, you are describing exactly why I got annoyed at Gulenko after investing the time to deconstruct his ideas these past 5 years. I'm annoyed at socionics for mixing factual-factoids with hasty generaliations.

It's the whole - "Are all swans white just because every swan you've seen is white?"

Instead of being direct and honest about said claims saying well some "things" we think of as "swans" are white because that what we've observed at this very specific epoch in time. The question as to whether all swans are white or not, is irrelevant and disingenuous without a falsification process that can conclusively establish all swans to be white. (Even if such a falsification process were to be constructed then it would be up for questioning and critique).

I describe myself as an ILI with Alpha values and that's not a crazy observation on my part - given the contradictions my own nature reveals when evaluated against claims in socionics. I dislike the fact that socionics is both true and untrue concurrently, people have failed to make it a formal science.

Now Gulenko is hoping on to EEG nonsense with elaborate explanations of supposed patterns under a vague premises with regards to systematically diagnosing or understanding what exactly that data from the EEG is saying.

This doesn't matter because even in math, all proofs rely upon axioms so they need unproven rules to be true. Regardless Socionics is a model not a proof. You have to evaluate it based on model criteria such how accurate is it? The reason all of us are here is because we've realized there is (some) truth to the model. It makes predications that do describe reality. If you guys don't like parts of Socionics then go fix it. Do your own research. That's what I am doing.

The first theory to really piss me off was Keirsey Temperament Sorter with bizarre descriptions about SJs, NTs, INTJs... so and so... having people love to serve, people who love following rules and fitting nicely into their pigeon-hole within society.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko

Kinda ironic. I agree that Keirsey's temperaments are poor. With that said, his descriptions of the personality types aren't much worse than some of the current profiles. (Meged & Stratiyevskaya are the only descriptions I like). With regards to Gulenko SEE, Keirsey had a better description of the ESFP which he called the Entertainer. IMO this is one of the worst political types. So it's ironic that Gulenko is worse than Keirsey here.

The trouble with socionics is that it has half-truths, and failure to capture the why of personalities - why people do what they do, so we don't have to rely on caricatures and stereotypes, some of which apply to multiple people.

Agreed. The reason for this is because people don't have a solid definition of the functions and aren't deriving the personality types from blocks, from Modal A. It's mind-boggling IMO because that is the entire point of having the diagram.

[woofwoofl]

When did I say that Socionics is not "real"? lol.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...55#post1272655 <- clear-enough-for-me specific case, under two mins of digging

http://podlair.com <- and here's the cult if there ever was one.

Most of us here find utility in an imperfect system, run with it some, and come out better than a coin flip. Legit course of action/s in a constantly-moving universe of things-pushing-things. One that won't suspend its moves, that won't decide to die; that won't make hermetic sanctuary for anyone's "perfect" thought, only to resurrect itself, right on some subjectively-appropriate time. Raising hell on a cult full of loons can be fun -- there are far better places to do this than 16t.

[Enters Laughing]

You cannot meaningfully have a theory if the premises are malleable to the extent that they are made to fit the results of any attempt to falsify the premises.

[Singu]

lol yeah you're the voice of reason. everyone knows socionics has shortcomings, the fact that people fill in informational gaps via intuitions arising out of the collective unconscious is the premise socionics is built on.

Yeah I am the voice of reason, thank you.

And that's not even the problem of Socionics, I would say there's nothing really wrong with "filling in the gaps", as long as that gap can be filled in some day. But the problem is in saying that "types exist" is as pointless as saying that "gravity exists". Or another way of saying it is: "an apple falls to the ground". But what you really needed was an explanation, such as "an apple falls to the ground because objects are attracted to each other". "Gravity" is just used as a word to shorten that explanation, so that you don't have to keep writing that sentence over and over.

Socionics is saying "an apple falls to the ground because of gravity" without even explaining what gravity is, like "Creativity is Ne".

So the entire premise of Socionics is based around the assumption that if something has happened in the past, then it will always happen again in the future. It doesn't explain anything, it just says that things will stay the same as it is observed in that moment. That's the only thing that you can get out of explanationless theories such as Socionics.

you say I should read Karl Popper in order to respond to you; I could pull out an entire list of authors you should read as well, the point is people can go back and forth forever on that. if you can't make his point for him then you either don't understand him or its not a point that holds up (the other difference: I am honest about what I have and haven't read, because I know first of all its pointless to stand on appearance).

Obviously I can explain Popper, and I have been. What I've been saying are basically just Popperian ideas. But the point is that you will likely reject it just because I have said it, it will take too long to explain all of it and it's also just quicker to read the book to get the ideas. Popper writes in a very simple and straightforward manner that is easy to understood. No technical knowledge is required in understanding "Conjectures and Refutations". So I would recommend anyone to read that book.

So the point is that SOCIONICS ISN'T (exactly) A THEORY, it's just a catalog of observations. And that's why people are becoming so confused over it, when they try to theorize over Model A or whatever. To have a theory, you'd have to come up with hypothesized explanations on why people do X, why do types exist, why do some relationships get along and some conflict, etc.

So this is basically the problem of induction, and it's a really common trap for people to fall into, because inductivism is our "default" way of looking at the world. And obviously Jung and Augusta didn't know about the problem of induction, so they have fallen into it as well.

[domr]

So the point is that SOCIONICS ISN'T (exactly) A THEORY, it's just a catalog of observations. And that's why people are becoming so confused over it, when they try to theorize over Model A or whatever. To have a theory, you'd have to come up with hypothesized explanations on why people do X, why do types exist, why do some relationships get along and some conflict, etc.

There is a theory, Model A. The problem is that people aren't using Modal A to justify their typings, instead they are doing baseless speculations.

Let me ask you a question. Have you tried deriving your own insights into personality types from the modal?

[Bertrand]

So the point is that SOCIONICS ISN'T (exactly) A THEORY, it's just a catalog of observations.

yeah of course, your entire premise is based on socionics being used a certain way, which is based on projection: how you would use it were you to employ it (not to mention the importance the status of "theory" affords a thing--a sanction of use of force essentially). this entire journey through popper and so forth is so you can bring the light back to your audience not realizing that people use it differently and have different conceptions of what it stands for (its like you went off an found a holy grail for person who wasn't sick). not everyone uses science as some kind of strong arm to leverage their way through the world; I agree the people that use socionics as if it were some form of eugenics or mind control or whatever Se application of it an authoritarian society trying to implement its insights into an orwellian nightmare would do with it needs to be battled. you're simply (psychologically) railing against a special instance of your own quadra. I think that this is mostly on point for certain posters who have a shallow view of socionics, but instead of knowing your proper audience you just blast it at everyone.

a lot of people use socionics for self development and see it as the tool it is for self transformation, not leverage over others. anyway, your point is directed and valid at only a very certain version of socionics used by a particular person (namely someone who does not comprehend Jung). for everyone else your bleating is just white noise. I can see within the noise there is a certain story playing out, that until you to come to grips with you're going to be its puppet and not realize why people "aren't listening"--this funny thing is this gives the group who needs you most the excuse they need to ignore you. in semi tragic fashion the people who refute you best are the people who need you least, so you never make contact with your prime audience. in that sense you're in a pearls before swine scenario because you need to be having these discussions with betas who are actually liable to think in the way you think people think and therefore need to hear what you have to say, etc.. when I first got here the forums were far more beta and guilty of the shallow stereotyping and behaviorism you rail against, in that sense I can see how you got so worked up. anyway someone does need to hear your message, my only point is its not nearly as universal as you seem to think

in short you have an entire set of assumptions (or lack of assumptions) about:

what Jung means
what you think socionics does
what you think people use it for
what you think people are thinking when they use it
what their intentions are
what Popper means
what the consequences of all this being in the hopper will result in
that something bad will happen
how to avoid that

but its so incredibly hackeneyed with snags at every point it dilutes your message into the ineffectual ramblings of a crazy person

[Singu]

yeah of course, your entire premise is based on socionics being used a certain way, which is based on projection: how you would use it were you to employ it (not to mention the importance the status of "theory" affords a thing--a sanction of use of force essentially). this entire journey through popper and so forth is so you can bring the light back to your audience not realizing that people use it differently and have different conceptions of what it stands for (its like you went off an found a holy grail for person who wasn't sick).

Then that would no longer become Socionics, it just becomes their own theory.

what Jung means
what you think socionics does
what you think people use it for
what you think people are thinking when they use it
what their intentions are
what Popper means
what the consequences of all this being in the hopper will result in
that something bad will happen
how to avoid that

but its so incredibly hackeneyed with snags at every point it dilutes your message into the ineffectual ramblings of a crazy person

You are a total idiot, and I guess you can't cure idiocy. I guess some people will get it, some people won't. You mostly won't, because you can't think rationally or logically.

You've never even read Popper, and you think you know what Popper means. Good job, idiot.