Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 391011121314 LastLast
Results 481 to 520 of 532

Thread: Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

  1. #481
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post

    Which of his points are valid?
    Mainly where he says that psychologists are very critical of Freud and Jung, and mention them to say how much they don't work.


  2. #482
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    You just come across as being really easily intimidated tbh.
    This isn't about me.

    It seems like you are using what I call intimidation to get your point accross. Emotional pressuing would have been a synonym of that in this context.


  3. #483

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Also what the fuck at “just a clinical psychologist”.
    Definition of clinical - Relating to the observation and treatment of actual patients rather than theoretical or laboratory studies.

    They don't work with theories.

  4. #484
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Mainly where he says that psychologists are very critical of Freud and Jung, and mention them to say how much they don't work.
    Freud’s works are mentioned in that way, but not Jung’s that I’m aware of. MBTI which was adapted from his works are widely being used by psycholgists and in practice now.

  5. #485
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    This isn't about me.

    It seems like you are using what I call intimidation to get your point accross. Emotional pressuing would have been a synonym of that in this context.
    You mean saying the f word?

    LOL. Come on. Don’t make it impossible to be taken seriously.

  6. #486
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Definition of clinical - Relating to the observation and treatment of actual patients rather than theoretical or laboratory studies.

    They don't work with theories.
    Just look at him @Uncle Ave

  7. #487

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm pretty sure what we're dealing with is theoritical.

    Unless you're saying that Socionics is not theoretical, which I would somewhat agree.

  8. #488
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also @Uncle Ave , Singu is clearly not intimidated by me. So maybe it is just about you after all, hm?

  9. #489
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    You mean saying the f word?
    No, this is an example of what I mean:

    LOL. Come on. Don’t make it impossible to be taken seriously.
    Argue your point with reason instead of saying things like this, or like this:

    Be aware that if you don’t acknowledge this, it becomes apparent that you live in a hole and are a dumbass, for talking out of your ass.
    I'm not gonna say what is wrong with this style of "argumentation". What about it is not wrong?

    If you cannot convince people thorugh reason it seems you resort to telling people that they live in a hole, can't be taken seriously, are dumbasses etc.


  10. #490
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Also @Uncle Ave , Singu is clearly not intimidated by me. So maybe it is just about you after all, hm?
    Keep up the gaslighting.


  11. #491
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    No, this is an example of what I mean:



    Argue your point with reason instead of saying things like this, or like this:



    I'm not gonna say what is wrong with this style of "argumentation". What about it is not wrong?

    If you cannot convince people thorugh reason it seems you resort to telling people that they live in a hole, can't be taken seriously, are dumbasses etc.
    No. This is my style. It’s not wrong. And you have no right to tell me what to do. When you act like this, people’s respect for you only goes even lower.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Keep up the gaslighting.
    I will. Keep up being batshit LOL.

  12. #492
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    These three lines one after another in one breath LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Argue your point with reason
    I'm not gonna say what is wrong with this style of "argumentation". What about it is not wrong?
    If you cannot convince people thorugh reason ..
    So... you can’t convince me with any reasons what’s wrong with it?

    You’re even worse than Singu!!!! Congraturations!

  13. #493
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now mind your own damn business and quit being annoying if you don’t want more. I can make more at any time for the likes of commenting like this.

  14. #494

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This pretty much says all about the current state of Socionics. And they expect to be taken seriously...

    They need to step up their game.

  15. #495
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  16. #496
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I'm pretty sure what we're dealing with is theoritical.

    Unless you're saying that Socionics is not theoretical, which I would somewhat agree.
    The point to all this is that you shoot yourself in the foot because science is not just about the theoretical. It needs to be proven true via the hypotheses it’s built upon being tested. A theory that doesn’t work in practice isn’t science at all.

  17. #497
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Uncle Ave And I only say Singu is being a dumbass by talking out of his ass because he lives in a hole, because it’s true. Relative to me. And I know that he can take it.

    By play pretending to “be the bigger person”, you only support and enable his willful ignorance. And you make yourself look pathetically, tastelessly patronizing.

  18. #498

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    The point to all this is that you shoot yourself in the foot because science is not just about the theoretical. It needs to be proven true via the hypotheses it’s built upon being tested. A theory that doesn’t work in practice isn’t science at all.
    Science is 100% theoretical dude.

  19. #499
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Science is 100% theoretical dude.
    You are like a dystopian version of Sol. I’m just ignoring you from now on until you stop being 100% wrong.

  20. #500
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I’m going to be really busy again and not around as much probably so message me on Facebook if you need me for whatever reason @ajsindri . I’m going to be marketing a robotics program I’m involved with so if there’s any connection there let me know.

    I’d recommend PMimg Myst too even though she’s often busy and is keen to help, just appreciate it and don’t overload her.

  21. #501
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    I’m going to be really busy again and not around as much probably so message me on Facebook if you need me for whatever reason @ajsindri . I’m going to be marketing a robotics program I’m involved with so if there’s any connection there let me know...
    Cool! That sound fun. I think we need to finish the math first, but when we do, I'll let you know ^u^

  22. #502
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry still won't help you

    Science is fiction

  23. #503

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If there were ever to be an "experimental test" of Socionics, then it must show that "types" stay consistent across different times, situations and cognitive circumstances.

    So for example, if there were a type that has been unquestionably typed as "LIE" by all typists, then:

    A) Does the LIE act consistently over time?

    B) Does the LIE act consistently across all different situations that he is put under?

    C) Does the LIE act consistently, if we try to change his beliefs?

    --

    I think the answer is that obviously, who does actually act consistently and predictably under all those different circumstances? Especially C) is almost logically impossible, since it is the particular belief that translates into particular behavior. Someone with say, a capitalist belief is going to be acting completely differently than someone with a communist belief. And if you say that people are "born" with certain beliefs, then that can't be explained by how genes cause certain beliefs. In fact, how can something like belief in capitalism be evolutionarily guided by genes? That has been created post-birth.

  24. #504
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    If there were ever to be an "experimental test" of Socionics, then it must show that "types" stay consistent across different times, situations and cognitive circumstances.

    So for example, if there were a type that has been unquestionably typed as "LIE" by all typists, then:

    A) Does the LIE act consistently over time?

    B) Does the LIE act consistently across all different situations that he is put under?

    C) Does the LIE act consistently, if we try to change his beliefs?

    --

    I think the answer is that obviously, who does actually act consistently and predictably under all those different circumstances? Especially C) is almost logically impossible, since it is the particular belief that translates into particular behavior. Someone with say, a capitalist belief is going to be acting completely differently than someone with a communist belief. And if you say that people are "born" with certain beliefs, then that can't be explained by how genes cause certain beliefs. In fact, how can something like belief in capitalism be evolutionarily guided by genes? That has been created post-birth.
    Why are you continuing to consider this even if Socionics doesn’t have a theory apparently?

  25. #505
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ajsindri I hate waiting so I’ll try to help with the math if it’ll speed things up a bit.

  26. #506
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    If there were ever to be an "experimental test" of Socionics, then it must show that "types" stay consistent across different times, situations and cognitive circumstances.

    So for example, if there were a type that has been unquestionably typed as "LIE" by all typists, then:

    A) Does the LIE act consistently over time?

    B) Does the LIE act consistently across all different situations that he is put under?

    C) Does the LIE act consistently, if we try to change his beliefs?

    --

    I think the answer is that obviously, who does actually act consistently and predictably under all those different circumstances? Especially C) is almost logically impossible, since it is the particular belief that translates into particular behavior. Someone with say, a capitalist belief is going to be acting completely differently than someone with a communist belief. And if you say that people are "born" with certain beliefs, then that can't be explained by how genes cause certain beliefs. In fact, how can something like belief in capitalism be evolutionarily guided by genes? That has been created post-birth.
    A) No

    B) No

    C) No

    Socionics is not a behaviorist theory. There will never be a 1:1 correlation between sociotypes and behaviors. If we allow that an individual's behavioral patterns can change over the course of time, and we do, then this is trivially the case.

    If you don't like socionics, why think about it so much? What is your purpose in doing this? Socionics is a highly speculative theory that isn't totally ready for mass consumption. Over time, it will either lead to some obviously useful results and gain mainstream attention, or it won't. If you are not interested in learning or contributing anything, then the best course of action is to just leave it well alone.

  27. #507
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good, thanks you can take care of him now. BBL

  28. #508

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    If we allow that an individual's behavioral patterns can change over the course of time, and we do, then this is trivially the case.
    Something must stay consistent, so what does? (Otherwise there's not much point in saying anything, it might as well be random). Socionics is saying that a type, or the entire person, stays consistent over time and in different situations.

    Does a physics theory for example, allow change? Yes, it allows the change of physical objects over time and space. But it is calculating that from the laws of nature and laws of physics that stay consistent and do not change over time.

    Socionics obviously does not refer to any "laws of nature" or "laws of psychology". If it's saying that it does, then it's saying that the functions are timeless and stay consistent over time. The problem is that the functions are apparently capable of generating many behaviors (or cognition), even unknown ones. We have no idea what kind of behaviors they are capable of creating. That's not how you "prove" the existence of functions, because you might just as well attribute anything to functions. And if anything can be attributed to functions, then what is the point?

    So the question arises: What does stay consistent in Socionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    If you don't like socionics, why think about it so much? What is your purpose in doing this? Socionics is a highly speculative theory that isn't totally ready for mass consumption. Over time, it will either lead to some obviously useful results and gain mainstream attention, or it won't. If you are not interested in learning or contributing anything, then the best course of action is to just leave it well alone.
    I'm trying to figure out why these kinds of communities try to shield itself from criticism by taking everything personally and not impersonally, which is not how you gain "mainstream attention".

  29. #509
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ Actually a pretty good post. I agree! Good job, @Singu .

  30. #510
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    @ajsindri I hate waiting so I'll try to help with the math if it'll speed things up a bit.
    That would be great! Do you want to work on the structure, or the statistical analysis?

  31. #511
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    That would be great! Do you want to work on the structure, or the statistical analysis?
    Prob analysis but interested in either

  32. #512
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Prob analysis but interested in either
    I really need to learn "structural equation modeling". But if you want to teach yourself that and then help us out, that would be super helpful! And if you can do basic programming, I would learn a free stats program called "R".

  33. #513
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @sbbds and start small. If you can figure out how to analyze a small group system, like temperament, then we can scale that up to all of socionics.

  34. #514
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @sbbds and start small. If you can figure out how to analyze a small group system, like temperament, then we can scale that up to all of socionics.
    Yes, sir!

  35. #515

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Why are you continuing to consider this even if Socionics doesn’t have a theory apparently?
    Everything has a theory, even if it's implicit and unexpressed. The "theory" of Socionics is expecting the current observation of types to stay consistent in the future and in different situations.

    That theory will be refuted if it changes over time or in differe situations. And that must, because people change over time and will act differently in different situations.

  36. #516
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @sbbds I met someone who is a stats major, and he gave me links to books that can teach you basic structural equation modeling and R programming!
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=122...ggy0-kwd4kBqHJ

  37. #517
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @sbbds I met someone who is a stats major, and he gave me links to books that can teach you basic structural equation modeling and R programming!
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=122...ggy0-kwd4kBqHJ
    LOL you’re awesome, nice work!

    Let’s ofc open this up to anybody else interested too. I don’t exactly have the most time or resources to spend at the moment.

  38. #518

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's really required is an alternative theory to compare it to, not any more tests. It doesn't matter how rigorous and scientific the test is, if there's no alternative theory where we could choose which theory performs and survives the test better.

    Even if the tests proves Socionics wrong in some ways, I doubt that most people would start abandoning Socionics en masse. That's because they could either blame the test as being flawed, or say that the basic premise of Socionics is correct, but it needs more research.

    The fact is that there already are some alternatives theories in scientific psychology, which most people are either aren't aware of, or they deliberately ignore them. Or they would incorporate those theories into Socionics and start making ad-hoc modifications, and see no conflict or contradictions between them.

    The reason why it's so easy to make ad-hoc modifications in Socionics, is because it has no systematic and theoretical skeletal framework. It has no mechanistic explanations as such. The more rigorous and scientific the theory is, the harder it is to make arbitrary ad-hoc modifications without ruining the entire thing. That's because each of the explanations have their own functions and have internal consistency with the other explanations, just as each of the components in a mechanical clock have their own use, and if you change 1 thing then it ruins the entire thing.

    If it's so easy to modify a theory, then it's a bad theory, i.e. a bad explanation. A good theory or an explanation is hard-to-vary. You can't make arbitrary changes to how reality actually is.

  39. #519
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Singu is a big nub

  40. #520
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok. Finally I'm going to start working on this this weekend.

    Always make use of the placebo effect. Blind faith and confidence that you'll succeed increases your odds beyond what's assumed to be reasonable. It's not just a new age motivational meme, it"s an actual thing that's ingrained in the scientific process. Scientists go to great lengths to get away from it because it messes up the numbers. Today we use it in an ironic way. Fuck the odds, don't let them fuck you.

    Even if we fail it will be educational and fun. Anybody welcome to join me, if only to help me make fun of Singu.

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 391011121314 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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