Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Evolution vs. saltationism ("paradigm shift")

  1. #1

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

    Default Evolution vs. saltationism ("paradigm shift")

    I'm sure we now all agree that the Darwin's theory of evolution correctly explains that things gradually change from one thing to the next, without having any intermediate "gaps" in the transition. The opposite view of this is called saltationism, which is the belief that new species suddenly appear by "instantaneous transition from one form to the next", without the gradual process of having to go through intermediate steps.

    The problem of this approach has been explained in such a way:

    For example in political philosophy the "quantum jump" is called revolution, and the absurd error is that progress can be made by violently sweeping away existing political institutions and starting from scratch. In the phiosophy of science it is Thomas Kuhn's idea that science proceeds via revolutions—i.e. victories of one faction over another, both of which are unable to alter their respective "paradigms" rationally. In biology the "quantum jump" is called saltation: the appearance of a new adaptation from one generation to the next, and the absurd error is called saltationism.
    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25453

    The problem is that logically, there will always be something that will intermediate between something, and things don't just "jump" from one thing to another without having that logical explanation. Darwin correctly recognized this, and so did Einstein (the lack of intermediacy in the "force" of gravity is something that actually greatly perturbed Newton, because it seemed logically absurd to him).

    --

    It seems that Socionics doesn't even have the correct philosophical premise in this regard, as the theory of the progression of the Quadras imply that there's a sudden "jump" in the transition of one historical epoch to another, where one faction violently takes over from another faction, and that's how things "progress".

    In Socionics, it is claimed changes in societies and cultures are due to sudden changes in Quadra values, without having an intermediate stage that can explain the transition. So it is claimed that the progression of the human history: "Primitive culture -> feudalism -> democracy -> perfected state" can be explained by the factional takeover of Alpha -> Beta -> Gamm -> Delta.

    But for example, there was an intermediate stage that connected between feudalism and the modern democracy that we have today (such as the Magna Carta, and the constitutional monarchy that kept much of the political system from monarchism, but has been improved to make it democratic).

    This obviously can't be explained Socionically, as there are no intermediate Quadras. It is claimed that the transition from Fe to Fi and Ti to Te are due to changes in takeovers by "types" or persons, and so there is no gradual process, and they cannot rationally change their views and perspectives. There will always be factional struggles between Betas vs. Gammas for example. But how can the Gammas just "know" when to make it democratic, when all the systems are in place to make it possible to have a large-scale, modern democratic system? The reason why there's a gap in this knowledge is because there is a literal gap due to the absence of an intermediate stage. The intermediate stage between feudalism and democracy was something like the Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy and the French Revolution. Nobody "knew" when was the best time to make it democratic, and nobody had planned it to get democracy going at a specific time. This was a gradual and an organic process. People had to become gradually convinced that democracy was a good thing. It was an evolution, not a literal revolution.

    And yet Socionics effectively says that the Gammas are democratic from the start. That obviously doesn't happen in reality, without having an intermediate stage that closes the gap of the sudden leap in knowledge. That would be like the Western countries invading other countries, and saying they should just become democratic after the political takeover without having any previous knowledge or system in place to base it on, or without having to convince the people there that democracy is a good thing (this was exemplified by the invasion of Iraq, which had a disastrous result that didn't suddenly result in democracy).

    So there's an obvious explanation of why things gradually changed in this way, that can't be explained by Socionics. The reason is that feudalism is at least better than primitive societies or nomadic cultures, and democracy is better than feudalism and so on. It simply gradually improved from one thing to the next, much like in evolution. And you cannot suddenly "jump" to the modern democracy that we have now, without having some system already in place, such as the political system left over from feudalism.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,044
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Isn't this something like...

    Humans living in peaceful tribes before agriculture (Alpha state), discover agriculture (Ne innovation) and continue peaceful structured existence, but population grows. Then resource shortages and famine issues happen and people begin competing for one another's stuff (Beta state--Ne loses favor, Se is needed). New system emerges to deal with this constant state of conflict and organize it better (still Beta--Ti/Se emphasis). New system is harsh and causes great suffering. Beta NF role begins process of reform in response to the suffering, staging revolution. A more stable system emerges that organizes human suffering better (Fi not Ti) so that the overall suffering decreases, entering into Gamma state (unlocking Te). Gamma state builds economy in new more stable environment but still there is too much inequality, too much suffering, too much war/conquest to maintain or grow the system (e.g. colonialism). Fi reform continues looking for a stable utopia that better benefits all with greatest resources/least hardship (seeking Delta state). Fi initiates value hand off of Ni/Se back to Si/Ne (society needs to innovate better relationships). But Delta state has a tendency to revert back to Alpha state. It frees Si up (maximum pleasure in society) and that somehow opens the Ne/Ti realm again (new technology and innovations as society is stable enough for Ne/Si to reign). The cycle begins again, only each time it's like on a new level. This Alpha state is more sophisticated than the previous one. The following Beta state is more sophisticated than the previous one. On and on.

    Transitions occur based on reality aspects it seems. Alpha-->Beta is transition from Ne focus to Se focus (within realm of Ti/Fe). Beta-->Gamma is transition from Ti focus to Fi focus (within realm of Ni/Se). Gamma-->Delta is transition from Se focus to Ne focus (within realm of Fi/Te). Delta-->Alpha is transition from Fi focus to Ti focus (within realm of Si/Ne).

    I don't know if it's evolution exactly, or more like a cycling state change. But each cycle builds upon the last.

    Mainly I guess I think it's fun to think about, but don't feel I'm finding the deep truth of human existence here or something like that.

    And of course it could be that a society is in one state and tries to carry through a transition, but fails and falls back (or even backwards). It could be that another society tries to force such a transition within society but that transition fails. Sometimes society "levels up," sometimes it fails to, sometimes it drops back a level. For instance if Beta state (full of strife) cannot level up society may break apart with much loss of life. As a result it could fall backwards into Alpha state and have to start over. The dream of anarchy is kind of like a dream to fall back to the previous level, or perhaps even the one before that, or perhaps all the way back to the beginning.

    Also I don't know that Gamma=democracy. I am unsure about that.

    I personally think that lots of these things are going on at once. Gamma is about controlling the Middle East for its resources. It's not trying to "level up" those regions. It's trying to control their resources on the economic level.
    Last edited by marooned; 06-16-2018 at 12:08 AM.

  3. #3

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    Isn't this something like...

    Humans living in peaceful tribes before agriculture (Alpha state), discover agriculture (Ne innovation) and continue peaceful structured existence, but population grows. Then resource shortages and famine issues happen and people begin competing for one another's stuff (Beta state--Ne loses favor, Se is needed). New system emerges to deal with this constant state of conflict and organize it better (still Beta--Ti/Se emphasis). New system is harsh and causes great suffering. Beta NF role begins process of reform in response to the suffering, staging revolution. A more stable system emerges that organizes human suffering better (Fi not Ti) so that the overall suffering decreases, entering into Gamma state (unlocking Te). Gamma state builds economy in new more stable environment but still there is too much inequality, too much suffering.
    Well this would not be possible, because it would imply that things like "Te" existed from the start, and then it stayed dormant for a while until it somehow "knew" when to "unlock" it. But how would Te "know" this without having an intermediate stage that would mediate it? It would imply that the evolution somehow "predicted" this whole thing, which would not be possible.

    What happened in reality was that what we know as "Te" (such as large-scale systemization) was gradually built up on top of previous knowledge. It didn't suddenly "jump" from one faction to another, and that was the reason for the transition. There's no explanation of having an intermediate stage. It's like saltationism and not a gradual evolution.

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,597
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Both are correct. Any questions?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,044
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hah. Somehow I accidentally deleted my post. I was saying Te was already there. It wasn't born when a human society became primarily driven by it. The Moon wasn't born the first day a human gazed upon it. Te is an information aspect, not something that evolves. It's a fundamental of reality itself.

    When animals are fighting over resources, they are in beta or gamma phase basically. When the fight becomes less necessary, Se goes back to sleep. Ne awakes, and they play and experiment. One flows into the other. The play is practice for the real fights within a safe and nurturing space.

    Maybe phases of the Moon is a better analogy. New moon doesn't evolve into half Moon--the light is just hitting it differently.
    Last edited by marooned; 06-16-2018 at 01:11 AM.

  6. #6

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    Hah. Somehow I accidentally deleted my post. I was saying Te was already there. It wasn't born when a human society became primarily driven by it. The Moon wasn't born the first day a human gazed upon it. Te is an information aspect, not something that evolves. It's a fundamental of reality itself.

    When animals are fighting over resources, they are in beta or gamma phase basically. When the fight becomes less necessary, Se goes back to sleep. Ne awakes, and they play and experiment. One flows into the other. The play is practice for the real fights within a safe and nurturing space.
    Yes, Te is already "there". We're assuming that the 16 types (and Quadras) are "programmed" into our genes (or at least, they were all present from the start).

    The point is that things cannot or need not progress if the very thing was there from the start. If the thing was already there in the first place... then we would already have it now, and not later. And so if the Gamma was "already there" in the first place, then we would have had vibrant democracy from the very beginning of human history!

    Detailed explanation:

    Te had been "useless" or "dormant" during the Alpha and Beta phase. And yet things could only evolve, if there is some use for it. So we're saying the genes could somehow "predict" that Te would somehow come in handy, after when Betas established the feudalism, and when feudalism would come crashing down, because of Gamma's democracy...? This obviously doesn't make quite a lot of sense.

    Well let's say that Te still has some limited use during the Alpha and Beta phase. The Te is not completely dormant. But what made it possible for it to become a full-blown Gamma phase, after when the Beta phase was nearing its end? Why would it progress from Beta to Gamma, other than that Te would just "know" that it would progress from Beta to Gamma in that way? This again, assumes that the genes could have predicted such a thing in advance, which would be impossible.

  7. #7
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,372
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Reading between the lines isn't that hard, you should be able to peace together the transitional phases yourself. Ideas(A) lead to change(B), the new gets refined(G) and what's in place holds on in sustainment for as long as it can(D) until it becomes obsolete and society favors a different idea(A).

    There is dynamicism there, it's just not explicit.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  8. #8

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Reading between the lines isn't that hard, you should be able to peace together the transitional phases yourself. Ideas(A) lead to change(B), the new gets refined(G) and what's in place holds on in sustainment for as long as it can(D) until it becomes obsolete and society favors a different idea(A).

    There is dynamicism there, it's just not explicit.
    And how would Betas "know" to implement the ideas generated by Alphas? And how would Gammas "know" to refine the things implemented by Betas? If Betas didn't have any ideas, then they would stay dormant. If Gammas didn't have anything to refine, then they would stay dormant. There would be no "use" for them, and yet they were "there" from the start. This would only imply that the "Socion" could have somehow predicted all of this to find a use for them in advance, which is impossible.

    A much more obvious explanation is that things gradually evolved from the previous knowledge, and these things came into existence after only by the necessities created from the pressures of the environment. So there would be nothing to implement if there weren't any ideas. They would be no need for the "Betas" at this stage, so they didn't "exist". And there would be nothing to refine if nothing had been implemented, and so "Gammas" at this stage didn't "exist". They all came into existence at a much later time than the beginning.
    Last edited by Singu; 06-16-2018 at 05:28 AM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,026
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quadra progression is a crock. Everything is there at once all the time you are just to brain washed to see the different colours according to your conditioning.

  10. #10
    falsehope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    ILE ENTp-Ti
    Posts
    438
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As far as I remember socionics doesn't state that there is progression of Alpha->Beta->Gamma-Delta. At least not the original theory. What what said in that subject was that at the same time two quadras dominate, either Alpha with Gamma dominate Beta and Delta or vice-versa.
    I don't see the problem with seeing intermediate steps between stages but anyway. Society is huge and complex and adapts slowly.

  11. #11

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falsehope View Post
    As far as I remember socionics doesn't state that there is progression of Alpha->Beta->Gamma-Delta. At least not the original theory. What what said in that subject was that at the same time two quadras dominate, either Alpha with Gamma dominate Beta and Delta or vice-versa.
    I don't see the problem with seeing intermediate steps between stages but anyway. Society is huge and complex and adapts slowly.
    That's a slightly better explanation than Quadra progression. Quadra progression has too many holes and inconsistencies, and it's obviously a load of crap.

    But that still doesn't explain the problem of it being factional takeovers, where each factions are unable to rationally change their views and perspectives. It's either democratic vs. aristocratic, and who has the most power at that moment. That obviously doesn't happen in real life, since there was a clear progression of aristocracy -> democracy, not aristocracy vs. democracy. Large-scale democracy was simply not possible without some of the leftover political systems from monarchism. That's because democracy was a criticism of the current system. It was simply better than what was there before. And aristocracy was at least better than primitive societies or nomadic lifestyles.

    So there IS a progression, and not in a way that is explained by "Quadra progression". "Factional takeovers" are not progression, because you can't explain progress that way. You'd have to start everything from scratch, and progress doesn't happen that way. Progress is always a correction or an improvement from the old.

  12. #12
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,806
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post

    In Socionics, it is claimed changes in societies and cultures are due to sudden changes in Quadra values, without having an intermediate stage that can explain the transition.
    There are some articles on quadra progression assigning to each type a specific role and in each quadra there's an "atypical" type whose role is letting society transition to the next quadra.

    I remember in Beta beign assigned to IEIs which "dream of a better future without wars" and this creates the right conditions for SEEs to take over, in Gamma ESIs lay the foundation for an ethics-based market system (after LIEs and ILIs have created too much inequality) which paves the way for LSEs to create an organized/stable way of getting things done, in Delta it's SLIs who after having perfected all the technology and having retired in the countryside, they basically get bored and hope for some ILE to start some shit.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,044
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu trying to marry Jung/Socionics and evolution doesn't make sense to me. Information aspects are an arbitrary break down of all of reality (as perceived by humans, though I think it's quite applicable to animals/nature in some ways too) into 8 boxes. It's looking at what human nature is and has always been and applying it to a model. That's it. It's not that information elements are programmed into our genes. That doesn't make any sense. My posts have been trying to kind of turn things about to show that it's not what you're claiming it claims it is. Sure, I'm sure there are some weirdo Socionists who might be trying to turn this pseudo-science into actual science, but so far it seems like a way of getting lost in tedious little categories with no real purpose and no end in sight. One can manufacture puzzles out of nothing, but that won't turn that nothing into something real.

    Socionics is a model that categorizes people by how they behave basically, by their perceptions and interactions. It's not God's blueprint for reality or the human genome.

    I think you can argue that certain quadra values are at work in certain societal shifts, but that is not the same thing as saying that it's literally humans evolving new information elements. Society could be dominant Beta and shift to dominant Gamma, for instance, because Beta values fall out of favor due to social or resource pressures or whatever. That isn't about biological evolution.

    Ugh. My phone is driving me mad.

    And I don't mean to shoot down the idea that human nature has itself been evolving, as it probably has, so I'm over-simplifying that. But the way the 8 aspects work, they can't actually exist without one another in the model. And since they can't be scientifically quantified or qualified anyway, it would be quite difficult for a geneticist to somehow make a case for any evolution concerning them. Not to mention, they are kind of just reflecting a way in which reality itself is being modeled, and reality existed long before humankind, at least if one is looking at time linearly. If one isn't then well we have always been part of reality, perhaps.

    Also as @FDG mentioned this thinking is archetypal. In some ways it doesn't belong in the realm of science.

    It gives a somewhat useful model to apply to some stuff in some cases.

    ETA- one last thing - if a society is dominant Beta (for instance) that doesn't mean all the people in that society are Betas. It means Beta values are dominant in the society. So when it shifts to Gamma (as example) that means that Beta values are falling in dominance and Gamma values are rising. With the rise of the new, there are likely new people coming into power who embody those values. And there are sympathizers who facilitate this shift even if Gamma values aren't the values of their types personally. This is easy for humans to do because we're way more complex than a Socionics type. If all we are was these type descriptions, it would be crazy. All these weird box people.

    Sorry I keep adding things on, but also society can evolve in its sophistication of use of information elements without that meaning we evolved new genes. Similar innovation processes are involved in designing the wheel and the computer, but between these two innovations obviously human knowledge had increased (collectively). "We stand on the shoulders of giants" and build upon all we know that came before, etc.

    And Te was being used in beginning Alpha state from my made up example. It just wasn't a dominant value of society at the time. It wasn't ruling society, so to speak.

    It's like, let's say there is some harsh terrible Beta dominant regime operating (sorry I'm a fan of Beta's evil side, I'm not trying to say Beta is most evil). Does it still use Ne? Of course! I'm sure many an Alpha NT scientist can be found slaving away at gun point developing some WMD in some lab prison basement. Haha.

    Many an Alpha NT narcissist politician might exist finding ways to play the game so s/he gains and isn't killed.

    Society is still using all 8 IEs just like it always is.
    Last edited by marooned; 06-18-2018 at 04:38 AM.

  14. #14
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    You’re saying that Quadra progression is bs because nature doesn’t work that way

    You think the Quadra progression concept exists as random jumps from one Quadra to the next. It doesn’t work like that, and as others have mentioned, there are socionics articles that have explicitly explained it and have outlined the transitioning too.

    But aside from this though, not everything in nature/existence operates under that principle necessarily anyway.

    (Let’s ignore for a second that you’re spending time contemplating socionics again after bashing it and the members who do so here continuously for the past year)
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

Posting Permissions

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