I've never really understood the "hate" directed at @Singu, at least when the conversation was primarily focused on Socionics. If his criticisms were not well-founded, they could easily be refuted. I don't see how accusing @Singu of not being interested in Socionics helps.Originally Posted by ashlesha
I've refuted most of his claims and @Grendel typically just agrees with my refutations. His entire criticism of socionics amounts to considering psychology a pseudoscience, nothing more or less. Now psychology is a much subtler science than physics and people produce a bunch of garbage trying to make it work like physics, but the same is true of geology and only Sheldon Cooper says geology is not a real science, and he's fictional.
People can't refute @Singu easily because they don't know the scientific method well. I live by the scientific method and have actually staked my life on it, but most professional scientists don't seem particularly familiar with it sadly.
I can respect a person who has only one aspect to their personality, if that aspect isn't flaccidly raving at people that their play with tarot cards and tea leaves is actually the new Aum Shinrikyo, and that instead they should be more like him, the Enlightened Popperian Rationalist Boomer.™ I don't know how dense a person has to be that they can't infer how half-serious many of us take the thing he hates. When I would miss hints that obliviously as a child I would get called autistic and repeatedly humiliated for it, but now this stooge gets away with it as an adult. He's like a religious grandma screeching about board games being Satanic, except this time his religion is secular rationalism.
The real nut-kicker is that the high-chair he sits on to condescend to you unsolicited about how wrong you are about everything is really just dusty basic-bitch rationalism that no one in real life believes and has probably been refuted a thousand different ways by now, and the attitude with which he advocates it would get him run out of the room and called a fedora-tipper in any environment that accurately simulates organic human interaction.
I hate rationalism with all my hate I have left over from hating flagrant lacks of integrity.
Type me.
No wonder everyone seems to run kicking and screaming from my discord. "Ahhh, there are bots, sounds, images, and bright colors! This feels like a physical place and my autism is overwhelmedzes!"
A few people only left because they don't like that it's a public discord, and I'm not after them, though I wish they'd get over that since being masked in public is not a big deal and 16t is already almost entirely public already.
I called out Subby and Singu on this in my thread on the Chomsky-Foucault debate right before you posted this. Basic bitch rationalism is unfortunately common.
Occam's razor. I wanna postulate that it's more likely that you're just that unlikable. And beyond that and even worse, severely uncharming.
Who wants to be charming? Charm is the last refuge of people of no character. Everyone talks the Barbie and Ken talk, but everyone walks the Ares and Aphrodite walk.
Character and charm are the lion and the fox. But I bet you are just a fat cow that learned fancy talk. Devoid of either. A needle could deflate you of all your character still. But not your obesity.
I love trolls. Trolling is simply the opposite pole of adoration, as much a part of it as the south and north poles are part of a magnet. If you wanted to hurt me, you'd try to deal in facts.
@Singu is basically right in saying that in irl, so much random shit is usually happening that ITR stipulated by socionics theory gets lost in the chaos. Quality of the ITR can’t exceed or go below the average quality of the people involved.
I think also that socionics ITR working has more to do with the quality of the individuals changing. Someone who is in a lower place, less open to differences, is going to be less likely to seek a dual opposite. So you’re already healthy and in a better place to begin with if you are. It’s your own efforts that “make duality work”, really.
My EII boss came to encourage me to bring my laptop home in case the predicted snowstorm made travel to work too troublesome tomorrow. I was like, "mhm, thanks for the suggestion I won't follow, bye"
Maybe she sought help because she returned with my higher-up EIE boss, who further encouraged me, and I was like, "oh! Good idea, I'll do that!"
Higher position=superior communication skills? Intertype relationship or just Fe base powers? It really didn't (duhh) sink in the first time.
No you were suspicious of her attempt at being concerned for you. Se Se Se Se se
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I think Jonathan Miller (who has just died) may have been EII. I have previously considered LII and ILE before I think, and maybe other types.
my ESI sis, currently studying sociology "oh, I adore what I'm doing right now because I just have to deal with hard data all day (insert quirky smile)", someone else "all those numbers...", she "yeah, facts.. *insert other quirky smile*"
Se HA is funny. I find it very amusing. It's like watching a toddler trying to walk?
I feel like wherever my Ti is, it must lay dead in a trench by now because I can't bring myself to write those literary essays for crap. I still haven't receied feedback on my first one, but I feel like it's not exactly going to be my magnum opus.
Interestingly enough, I read Ekaterina Filatova's book on IEI and IEEs and there is some information on there that says IEIs find it hard to waddle through academia. I'm pretty sure she said the opposite thing in one of her articles.
(about the IEI):
III. Vulnerable Channel (P — pragmatism, efficacy) It’s difficult for Romantics to work hard at anything business-related. For example, they plan to take courses at a community college, but after the first few classes, they can’t take the pressure and drop out. This is how most of their attempts at fulfilling business responsibilities, duties, or chores turn out.
I'm definitely not going to drop out, but so far I do feel a certain amount of pressure, no matter how accomodating the university tried to be with its first year students.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
I know ten IEI’s (of both sexes), and of the ten, seven either didn’t attempt college or they dropped out in the first year. All are smart.
Of the three who finished school, one (who went to hairdresser’s school) finished and is a hairdresser. The second one studied psychology and is a therapist. The third was forced by her mother to get a PhD in Astronomy and is miserable. She should have been an actress.
On the other hand, I’m a Te-dom and I dropped out of school twice before going back and getting my degree in Physics. I was having a hard time seeing the point of school. I was anxious to make money. But I told myself that a degree would be useful (it has been) and that I’d learn things in school that I wouldn’t learn on my own (I did).
School is hard, especially when you are directing yourself. You have to be able to both Plan and Do.
One of the things I studied in college was the Capitalist System and the way in which the class system in the US is maintained and propagated.
You may know that if you are born into a particular economic class in the States, it is very hard to escape it. Schools are funded by local property taxes, ostensibly to permit local control of the curriculum, but actually to ensure that poor areas have poor schools and rich areas have great schools. The school system is the foundation of the class structure. Society has a lot of shit jobs to fill, and what better way of filling them than to make the school experience much worse than a shit job, and then telling the kids that they can choose to be anything that they want? It absolutely works, and is absolutely brilliant.
However, there is a problem.
Social dominators arise from every class. When one arises from the intentionally disadvantaged classes, he or she will become a revolutionary who wants to tear down a system that has no place for him. These people must be coopted and brought into the ruling class. So how are they identified and how are they coopted?
It turns out that two things are necessary to make a person a threat to the ruling class. One is intelligence and the capacity to plan ahead: they must get good grades. The second thing is the capacity for hard work and perseverance in the face of adversity. If a poor school has a student with these characteristics, they have a threat to the status quo on their hands.
The solution is to give them a scholarship (for having good grades AND for working hard) to a good school and bring them into the ruling class, thus defanging the threat. It is relatively cheap and it works.
If they fail at any of these points, they fall back into ineffectiveness and are never heard from again.
As long as the US has its school system working in this manner, there will never be a revolution in the US. The sheep can complain all they want. You can even let them have slingshots, which they will use on each other. But the wolves with the slaughter machines are running the farm.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 12-01-2019 at 01:16 PM.
The mcgregor walk
https://youtu.be/TbdZrcl_Jso
Socionics typing exceptional achievements is always how it made sense to me. Not necessarily genius-level exceptional, but still not the banal parts of life.
Which brings me back to @Singu's criticism that he believes all of psychology is pseudoscientific. This is not accurate at all. I do believe psychology happens to be practiced as pseudoscience, but this is because it's a popular field for people who don't want anything from life to study in college, not because it's not empirical. People's behavior and cognition in certain controlled circumstances can certainly be studied empirically, and it's possible to extrapolate scientifically as well if enough is known in general. It takes a very advanced mind to do this and all the special ed social sciences majors kind of mess this up though. @Tearsofaclown is basically spot-on with his comments.
That post was.... beautiful.. please more
Has anyone been typed by Gulenko? https://socioniks.net/article/?id=273
Thank you, kingslayer. That post was actually a result of my going to a very good university, rather than an average university. There are different levels of teaching in our society, each appropriate to its intended class. Scary, eh?
I wish I had an endless number of revelatory perspectives from school to share, but I only have a few. Some that come to mind are:
1. Physical theories like Relativity may be superseded or replaced, but the laws of thermodynamics will never be overthrown.
2. Thermodynamics is proof that God has left the room.
3. No one understands why probability works as a predictor of physical events.
4. Mathematics is not a discovery, it is a construct, and not a very good one. It isn’t even self-consistent.
5. The reason we aren’t living in a Paradise on Earth is that some people are willing to sacrifice their own welfare if they can piss on you.
There may be more, but those are the big takeaways that come immediately to mind. I might have learned some other things unconsciously that would shock most people, but I can’t think of them at the moment.
Aside from education as a societal class-building project, you learned everything wrong, but that fact can't harm you, so it's none of my business.
My interest is in understanding how things work, so that when I apply a lever, something predictable actually happens. Your interests might lie elsewhere, and so you might have different ideas of what is important than I do.
You also have to have a goal, so it isn't something predictably awful happening. Anyways, if you settle for predictably awful, sooner rather than later you'll lose even that.
I don't want to lecture everyone, so I'm leaving it at that.
There is a video down on the page. It's Varlavend who is a forum memeber. He got typed by mr G.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I haven't looked for threads because I know there's no need. So I'm in the dark lacking memory about what will be found.
But I just saw a post saying someone struggled in school and equating it with weak socionics logic and I've had it up to here with this line of thinking.
So: CHALLENGE OFFERED!
Find a thread where people post intelligence/logic scores of some kind and either 1) realize you're either self-inflating or making excuses depending on how you self-type and come to terms with it or 2) link it to me and show how it displays a very clear line in the sand when it comes to intelligence levels of logical and ethical types, forcing me to understand that I'm less intelligent than all the logical types on the forum (I know, this should be obvious, right?)
Who will take up the banner?
I need a female ESI for a quick bang, and then we can both get to work.
Since I bristle so much at logic=actual intelligence stuff (just a new thing thought by a handful of people, I know I'm overreacting a little and I don't think I'm a genius but like anything else I've gotten up in arms about wrt socionics, I dislike having bad things attributed to me for no other reason)
And
Since I don't take socionics seriously, I would enjoy a little challenge and entertainment, and LSI occasionally comes up as a typing for me recently and I like it,
I could justify exploring LSI as a self-typing, especially since my brain broke my emotions. Even if base Ti + Fe seeking (and, in conjunction, unvalued Fi/Te) would be a challenge. I'm sure a few ppl here would be happy to help me with it.
Should I do it? Would it be annoying as fuck? (Whether you think it's correct or not is irrelevant to these questions)
This forum is absurd in a way because I don't know how many people have realized that we are talking about one of the greatest discoveries that mankind has ever made?
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Your Duals are not going to tell you what to do. You need to ask your Supervisor.
I woke up horny and wondered if there was an ESI within 20 minutes driving distance who could help me out with that. And I looked out my window and who should be across the street but the ESI with whom I went on a date last year.
She has a lawn care company, and she was wielding a chainsaw against the neighbor’s transgressing shrubbery while wearing a leather jacket (smart, with chainsaws) and little pink ear warmers (very cute) over her blond hair.
I thought, OK, I just had a tree cut down. Time for a short walk across the street to ask her if she can help me get rid of some wood.
But before I could put my plan into action, I noticed that she was hovering around one of her employees, an SLI by the way he looked and moved. I remembered that she has a thing for SLI’s (she met my SLI son and really, really liked him >_<) and her father is an SLI.
She was bowing down before the employee, like she was getting ready to hike a football, and was pointing back past her ass, behind her. I have no idea what this meant, and neither, it seemed, did the SLI, who just stood there in his hoodie with his hands in his pockets.
I changed my plans in the face of these events, and just sent her a text. You can’t ripen a field before its time, and I think her time is many, many years away. If ever.
"In contrast, weak functions tend to oversimplify data, do not usually generate conclusions on their own, and depend on help from outside sources."
If I see a kid in class picking up on things on his own from a young age and requires no help, he either has good teachers/parents (so the kid could be either F or T), or just has an innate ability to understand the material (T).
I mean that is in essence what differentiate types.
But I don't consider intelligence an indicator of type. You need to dig deeper to type someone. T types don't always excel in school. Some of them are actually too stubborn to learn the material and drop out of school. Moreover, different subjects appeal to different people and require different kind of intelligence. Also, written tests measure knowledge, not the application of it. You need practical tests for that. Most of the time you don't actually need to be extremely knowledgeable to do the job. I actually hate this topic. I think intelligence is an overblown subject.
I agree with most of this post, except the last, bolded sentence. Intelligence levels mean a lot. They may be discussed more than what you would prefer, but they make a real difference in outcomes in the real world.
Why does an ability to understand the material depend on the socionics logics function, as opposed to general intelligence?
The fact that getting As was a breeze even though I had a shitty home life is a point for being a logical type, then. (Except for math. And except for when I skipped constantly.)
My feeling is that getting A's in school is more a function of being able to please the teacher than it is of understanding the subject. And since the subject in school might be gym class, where high intelligence is only slightly helpful, A's might not correlate perfectly to intelligence.
Which is not to say that ethical types are not intelligent. I know two ESI's with PhD's in Physics. Assuming you associate getting a PhD with intelligence.
I'm not sure how you'd quantifiably measure intelligence, but I'm not sure Sociotype would correlate with it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
