The spam was a Ti discussionOriginally Posted by idontgiveaf
The spam was a Ti discussion
The real question is: Is idontgiveaf seeking autism in her life?
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Or an emotionally intuitive person?
Yep, does she want to dive into obscure world of non-concrete emotionality? Well, whatever floats their boat. It makes them bit funny and ST's get thrilled by those things.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Well this is really a matter of... a frame of thinking. Me and idontgiveaf are supposed to be different types... even completely different types, we have never really interacted before and yet there is a kind of an understanding. And I would suspect it's because there's a reach towards a certain kind of objectivity. We have more or less independently reached the same conclusion. Not because of certain "other" supposed complementaries.
I don't really think that people have different "modes" of thinking, it's just something that any people with rational thinking faculty is going to get and understand, with enough thinking or experience. I mean if what I'm talking about is incompatible with certain "types", then science would be incomprehensible to a whole chunk of the population, and that is simply not true. Science is accessible to pretty much anyone, anyone with a rational mind.
What I'm talking about will be understood by virtually any scientists, and hence that's why people like idontgiveaf get it.
Err, they do. Seeing things based on subjective emotional factors is a very different mode of thinking than that scientific rational objective one. And then these are just two basic different modes, there are more, e.g. mode of thinking that is cautious and strongly focuses on consequences vs ignoring those, and so on and on... And yeah, not everyone's gonna be good at all these modes, nope... I personally cannot get into the way of thinking needed for astrology, for example. And some hardcore astrology people may not be able to focus on the scientific way of thinking. And so on, again.
I don't actually think that Socionics makes a direct causal link between the ability for comprehending science and type, the astrology vs science example isn't determined by type either, there are just some correlations at best.I mean if what I'm talking about is incompatible with certain "types", then science would be incomprehensible to a whole chunk of the population
@Myst Yeah I get that, but are things like Astrology people simply a matter of things like willful ignorance? Almost anyone can do things like math or logic with a certain amount of training or diligence, bar certain learning disabilities. I would suspect that if scientific method of thinking was rigorously taught in every compulsory education in the same way that they teach basic math, then almost anyone can immediately understand these concepts.
I mean of course, there are things like personal beliefs as well. You're not going to convince anyone with certain religious beliefs when some scientific evidence contradicts those beliefs, no matter how hard you try.
But I do think that rationality is basically "objective", and it's more or less a linear step and there's more or less only 1 answer or 1 way of doing things at a fundamental level. I mean I certainly didn't get it right away, it's not as if I was "born" with these thoughts that I have right now, I had to learn it in my own way and take every steps until I got here. And people are not going to get it either, until they more or less take the same steps that I have taken. It's the same concept with math, you're going to have to take every steps and understand every concepts until you get to a certain level of math. And by that I mean actually understanding how things work, and not just memorizing a couple of formulas.
No. And that's precisely my point. It seems like some kind of associative thinking I for example don't have. It's absolutely the opposite of systematic thinking. It's the kind of thinking also that can lead to apophenia a bit too easily, but I'm not shooting down its usefulness that some people apparently see for it, for intuitively detecting some patterns and using that as a guide for understanding some things more. (Still not a systematic understanding... some different kind.)
BTW, I can't believe that you skimmed my post that fast to assume that I'd claim it's just about willful ignorance. I said absolutely nothing that would imply such a message. So please stop applying narrow stereotypes to other people's writings and read more closely instead.
You might as well say that I have "willful ignorance" for the thinking of Astrology people, using your stereotyping logic. This is not the case. It's simply a thinking mode that's too foreign to my brain.
Well, I will never be able to do that astrology thing.Almost anyone can do things like math or logic with a certain amount of training or diligence, bar certain learning disabilities.I mean I'd rather not torture my brain with trying to learn it... Thanks.
And no this was not about depreciating that way of thinking.
And at what level will all these people be able to do math/logic? In their everyday life as a default approach, too?
And I predict there would be individual differences in the affinity for it. Just like there are for maths too.I would suspect that if scientific method of thinking was rigorously taught in every compulsory education in the same way that they teach basic math, then almost anyone can immediately understand these concepts.
That's precisely because those people are not applying the objective thinking mode that you think everyone can learn to use anytime anywhere to any extent required. And no I'm not saying that none of these people can ever think objectively - I know some scientists do organized religion too. Just they don't think objectively for this topic... BTW this is me, but I was unable to utilize the kind of thinking needed for organized religion, too, lol. I was brought up religious and it failed due to this...I mean of course, there are things like personal beliefs as well. You're not going to convince anyone with certain religious beliefs when some scientific evidence contradicts those beliefs, no matter how hard you try.
There's the problem. What they can teach you in school is taking steps and memorizing them, if you do not have the affinity for the conceptual understanding that can't be rote-taught/learned. It's not simply a step by step thing. It heavily involves working memory and certain resources in the brain being utilized by it, for that kind of thinking mode. Again, I don't buy that everyone would learn it to the same level going just by school education.But I do think that rationality is basically "objective", and it's more or less a linear step and there's more or less only 1 answer or 1 way of doing things at a fundamental level. I mean I certainly didn't get it right away, it's not as if I was "born" with these thoughts that I have right now, I had to learn it in my own way and take every steps until I got here. And people are not going to get it either, until they more or less take the same steps that I have taken. It's the same concept with math, you're going to have to take every steps and understand every concepts until you get to a certain level of math. And by that I mean actually understanding how things work, and not just memorizing a couple of formulas.
I mean, maybe with brain damage you can rearrange some structuring of the brain but is that worth inflicting brain damage? You either get lucky and get a new way of thinking or you don't. Perhaps you can use transcranial magnetic stimulation too to modulate brain activity for these thinking modes but I don't think that on its own is enough to make big enough changes for this goal. Some changes sure, maybe, but it's not going to be very fundamental changes and the fact that you even need to change stuff around proves my point.
I'm done arguing my point however. Please go and look up *scientific* studies on actually existing individual differences in thinking modes/styles. There are such studies. Wanna links? I can remember some links for you if you can't find these studies easily.
You can't spell "autism" without "Ti" after all.
“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
@Myst Out of curiosity, why do you think Astrology is false, or why would you not believe in it?
Well it is simply that, correlation does not equal causation. I don't think you can conclude, that there must be an "Astrology way of thinking", until you can explain the causal mechanisms of how that kind of thinking actually result in Astrological way of thinking. And that this is in-born, or genetic.
You can have the statistical result that F types tend to believe Astrology to be true, while T types tend to believe Astrology to be false. And you may conclude from this correlation that being an F type must cause the Astrology way of thinking.
But that obviously creates some contradictions. For instance, being a Fi type may cause someone to strongly trust in someone. And if they trusted scientists, then there would be a negative correlation between being a Fi type and believing in Astrology.
But you still see the correlation that being an F type is correlated with believing in Astrology, so you think that can't be true, or it's so small an influence that it's irrelevant. Or is it? It is still perfectly consistent that being an F type does NOT cause them to believe in Astrology, and yet there is strong correlation between being an F type and believing in Astrology.
In short, the real answer may be that there are simply other factors that are involved in believing in Astrology to be true. Being an F type was a red herring.
Last edited by Singu; 05-03-2018 at 08:26 PM.
Nopes. I actually cannot understand autistic nerds. Omgggg. But I'm not mean to them either. It's just that i cannot understand.. Well i can understand but it's like well whatever. It takes psychoanalysis to understand them
what do you want your type to be and how do you interpret the theory?
@idontgiveaf Are you a programmer?
lol, so you don't want an ILI for your dual
Its observations are not put in a consistent and sound system for me so I cannot (and will not) process it. Simple as that. And yes it does mean that many conclusions to be drawn from it would be false if I was to take its "system" literally. It's clearly not a scientific system. But I've seen people who don't actually use it in a distinct systematic way but in a less distinct, more intuitive way and so they actually arrive to useful conclusions too where I cannot do that. I wouldn't even attempt it heh
BTW with this I'm not claiming that quacks/psychics will actually magically see things about people. A lot of their guesses from very little data are wrong and they just try to earn money. I was talking more in general about people who apply a type of pattern finding when dealing with astrology for themselves or for friends or other people. My understanding as far as I can see is that they pick up data from themselves or from people they already have a bit of data on and then apply the pattern finding using patterns from astrology to aid the process. But again, if they go towards plain guessing or trying to act like it's real magic, they will end up guessing wrong. That's where it all goes over into the domain of apophenia or almost schizophrenic delusions sometimes lol.
Clearly not as simple, and I don't think you expected my actual answer instead as above.Well it is simply that, correlation does not equal causation.
Don't really need to do any of that, all I needed was observe how other people think about it. This was mainly by examining what they think and how (based on their reports) and in this way it's a direct observation, I do not need to hypothesize about causal connections and whatnot. Where I would need to derive causal connections is how come some people have this thinking while other people do not, but that's a different question. It's a more complex question too at that point, for sure. And for that, I would not expect to just use the Socionics model, nope, it does not cover enough of cognition to use it for a full explanation here.I don't think you can conclude, that there must be an "Astrology way of thinking", until you can explain the causal mechanisms of how that kind of thinking actually result in Astrological way of thinking. And that this is in-born, or genetic.
My observations regarding this topic would be most like a pilot study in scientific research. Not really any deep explanatory model yet.
I was not using statistical results here. See above. And I would never conclude things in this fashion lol. That's just bad thinking.You can have the statistical result that F types tend to believe Astrology to be true, while T types tend to believe Astrology to be false. And you may conclude from this correlation that being an F type must cause the Astrology way of thinking.
Too many "may" and "if" here. Does this one possibility on its own create a strong trend or not? Against other trends of other factors?But that obviously creates some contradictions. For instance, being a Fi type may cause someone to strongly trust in someone. And if they trusted scientists, then there would be a negative correlation between being a Fi type and believing in Astrology.
And this idea that Fi type -> strong trust is really bad, too. A really bad example of use of the Socionics model. An example of how it's used wrong.
Luckily I never said that being an F type causes someone to believe in astrology.But you still see the correlation that being an F type is correlated with believing in Astrology, so you think that can't be true, or it's so small an influence that it's irrelevant. Or is it? It is still perfectly consistent that being an F type does NOT cause them to believe in Astrology, and yet there is strong correlation between being an F type and believing in Astrology.
To be very clear, I was describing an intuitive and associative thinking that has the drawback of inclination towards apophenia but at the same time it has advantages too. I never said that this is Feeling. I'm not even going to claim that it is Intuitive. While it has a noticeable overlap with the Intuition definition by Socionics, and to a smaller degree with some aspects of Feeling as described, I see the truth of this issue as unanswerable by the Socionics model. It is a type of thinking that does exist, but Socionics's model does not cover enough aspects of cognition to explain it fully.
Okay so do you realize I've done quite some research papers before. The topic of the discussion is ok, I'm just... not seeing the point of having to explain every time that I meant something else when you try to push these black and white stereotypes on me. I'd be way more okay with discussing this with you if you stopped making these stereotypical assumptions and just simply asked me as to what exactly I think. Thx.In short, the real answer may be that there are simply other factors that are involved in believing in Astrology to be true. Being an F type was a red herring.
Last edited by Myst; 05-05-2018 at 09:03 PM.
@Myst That Feeling type thing is just used as an example, I don't literally mean that there's a correlation or causation. Actually I don't even believe in Socionics, obviously.
Anyway, I do think that there are types of people who simply think that Astrology is accurate and is scientific etc, and there's just nothing to convince them otherwise, and I don't deny that. But what I would be interested in, is why would that be the case
According to the sociologist Adorno, beliefs in things like Astrology may be related to authoritarian personalities:
https://theconversation.com/some-peo...eres-why-28642What is particularly interesting, though, is the connection drawn between astrology with authoritarianism, fascism and modern capitalism. For Adorno, astrology emphasised conformity and deference to higher authority of some kind. As some researchers put it: “Take things as they are, since you are fated for them anyway”. In short, Adorno believed that “astrological ideology” resembles “the mentality of the authoritarian personality”.
People high on authoritarianism tend to have blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong and have high respect for acknowledged authorities. They are also those who are more favourable towards punishing those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking and aggressive towards those who think differently.
If this hypothesis is correct, then we should see that people who value conformity and obedience will be more likely to give credence to the claims of astrology.
In line with Adorno’s prediction made in 1953, people who attach high importance to obedience as a value (more authoritarian) are indeed more likely to think that astrology is scientific. This is true regardless of people’s age, education, science knowledge, gender and political and religious orientations.
(Well since science is the rejection of authorities and authoritative knowledge, that might also have to do with it. What's troubling is that things like that in Socionics apparently have to do with Aristocracy/"Beta" heh)
Here's an interesting study on Astrology and people with college degrees and scientific education, and it doesn't seem to be super correlated that there's a link between belief in Astrology and scientific education. However, it does seem like things like knowledge in critical thinking would tip towards not thinking that Astrology is scientific:
https://astronomy101.jpl.nasa.gov/do.../Buxner011.pdf
Last edited by Singu; 05-06-2018 at 01:54 AM.
it probably has more to do that if you're authoritarian and you believe in astrology, you're forced to attach your belief in astrology to a legitimating authority, i.e.: science. there's tons of people who believe in astrology but don't think of it as a science, and that's a good thing in their mind, because they don't think science has a monopoly on meaning. But if you're an authoritarian you need to establish a kind of institutional credibility to any of your beliefs and that means in this day and age calling a thing scientific. Thus authoritarian personalities are more likely to believe astrology is scientific but that tells us nothing about whether they're more likely to believe in astrology to begin with. What Adorno is saying is that authoritarian personalities need an official sanction on even their irrational or unscientific beliefs, and this leads them to associate whatever they believe as being having some basis in authority, because to do otherwise would cause cognitive dissonance. The logic is as follows: I believe in x, I also believe in authority, I wouldn't believe in x if there wasn't sound authority behind it, therefore x must be back by authority y [in this case science]
I personally think the value in astrology is in opening up alternate perspectives on the same happening. so you go through your day and something you think is negative happens, but its the first thing that comes to mind, many people are not tuned to think of the alternative possibilities, i.e.: to look on the bright side, or give people the benefit of the doubt. This creates conflict and needless negativitiy, so lets say you read your horoscope that morning and it describes the event in general terms, but it says its part of something you wouldn't have otherwise considered. Its not that whatever it suggests its true like a scientific fact with all its appurtenant causation, its that it suggests "maybe look at it as x and not y" and when you do that you realize the significance of the event is what you make of it. Its empowering to realize you can transform the same event via a perspective shift, and it becomes a source of strength in the face of adversity. The horoscope helps people do that, because if they have it in their back pocket they realize there's alternative ways to frame things that can make things better not worse going forward because of how it influences your attitude towards things. The main thing is to validate such a thing in principle not to lock down a single chain of events written in the stars like some kind of deterministic prophecy. People who look at astrology this way find meaning not in the specific interpretations, although they can, but in the meaning is something much grander in scope that we often go around thinking in day to day existence, getting hung up on petty quarrels and setbacks and so on. When you realize this dynamic actually does work, you realize that there's an energetic economy to life that escapes current scientific knowledge, but nevertheless has real effects. This is why astrology is not a science but it is a good thing, because it can do something science can't at present.
People live in so much darkness are obsessed with fighting over small ball this is totally lost on them, they just subsume astrology into the same petty competition they think science is the winning ticket to, so either they exclude it in the name of science or attach it to science, but its a symptom of small mindedness to begin with, i.e.: authoritarianism
Nice authoritarian personality, right here.
Science is the exact opposite of authoritarianism, since it is a rejection of authoritarian knowledge. In science, you'd have to think for yourself, and not have your beliefs guided by someone else, like say religion or astrology. Which is probably why most scientists tend to be atheists. Science does not claim to have any ultimate authority on anything. Your view that science is authoritarian or has a monopoly on knowledge, is nothing more than a projection of your own authoritarian personality.
So there probably is something to beliefs in Astrology and authoritarianism.
Science is authoritarian. You have to have authority to learn science. Science requires money (= power) and peer review. Authority is lyfe. Everything is authoritarian.
I think science as an ideal is democratic, but as a reality is an institution subject to the power games of the people behind it like anything else.. to say you can't bludgeon people with "science" because its inherently democratic is like saying you can't murder someone with a really well made gun. this is one of singu's fundamental problems, he thinks he thinks like a scientist merely because he's set up to receive everything as if it were a scientific theory, even when its not, without realizing that makes him inherently unscientific inasmuch an approach is baseless and unempirical to the core. its like saying I think everything is food so that means I have good taste or that makes me a chef. quite the opposite in fact. the idea that since scientific theories are, ideally, derived in an impartial fashion means he can employ them in any ridiculously partial way he wants and is inoculated from bias or wrongdoing is also laughable and dangerously naive, but entirely convenient for someone with a power complex
Lol you think everything is authoritarian, because of your own authoritarian personality. You see authoritarianism everywhere because that's what you would do if you were in their shoes. So nice authoritarian personality. You see these "power games" everywhere, apparently.
Besides you make no sense, as usual. There's just no logical connection to anything you say, and you think that if you just think something up, then that happens or it's true.
I like that you're a pain in the ass Singu, its very insightful into the mind of beta quadra
if I hadn't encounter Jung and you along with him, I don't think I ever would have realized how crazy and different people are. I would have always just assumed God made people that are half-there. its not that you're half there, its that you're working on entirely different set of problems than me, but we share the same language and sometimes space
Hey guess what Bertrand, you look up to people like Jung and Jordan Peterson and God as the Ultimate Authority on the Absolute Truth of Life, which means that you have an authoritarian personality. Lol.
It seems like people like Sol are a classic case of a Right-wing authoritarianism (right-wing does not necessarily mean political right):
Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manners.
Right-wing authoritarianism is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:
- Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
- Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
- Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.
According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.
they're not even authorities, if I were authoritarian aren't I obligated to align myself with actual power, or is any agreement at all between two people an act of submission..? perhaps thats why you're pathologically averse to to admitting any error. viewing the world through such a lens is so bizarre to me, its like "all agreement is submission, if I submit I might as well submit with the strongest bully, since I'm going to be bullied no matter what so I might as well pick the strongest one". its just so unsophisticated. its like you've outsourced your ability to make decisions to some silly proxy. to call me an authoritarian personality is to subsume the world into an incredibly meaningless dynamic of power relations with no individual agency. perhaps that's why you tend to be so big on determinism
Obviously, they are an authority to you. You go on defending Jung and Peterson everywhere you go, and you loyally submit to them. That's the authoritarian follower part of an authoritarian personality.
Also the rest is again nice projections on your part. You hold many cognitive errors and show faulty reasoning. You hold contradictory ideas and say that logic or contradiction is meaningless. Your reasoning is either non-exist or jump from places to places, and you justify that "jump" in reasoning as some higher understanding, when it's just nonsense. Again, this points you to an authoritarian personality.
your logic is all screwed up, its like you assume I couldn't evaluate and reject their information upfront, which is a projection on your part. agreement is only submission for those that didn't first decide for themselves whether or not they should agree. its like you've abdicated your ability to evaluate information and just assume everyone operates similarly. its like do you think I just agreed with the first people I ran into, what about all these people I didn't "submit to" prior to Jung and Peterson? Also I don't agree with Jung and Peterson on some things, I just don't criticize them on unrelated aspects whenever anyone happens to say something wrong about them. Its that kind of weird "production" that is really only the appearance of impartiality that is more like a glittering inability to evaluate information that Fe types make such a show of. its clear your approach to science is something like the instagram approach to truth, which is this has x followers therefore it must be true, which is just a weak proxy for actually being able to think in the first place. then you carry that over in judging other people and assume I'm a moron for liking Jung, because obviously I "submitted" to a weak and unpopular party, and therefore am obviously wrong, but its the Fe style of wrong not a matter of anything but the most primitive logic trying to pass itself off as a kind of objective thinking judgement
Lol, obviously you think people like Jung and Peterson have some magical powers or abilities and have a claim on Absolute Truth. That's why you go on with saying how Jung was "way ahead of his time" and under-appreciated or whatever, and that things like science and academia are just evil power-hungry entities that are out to suppress people like Jung. And you think that if only people knew better, then Jung would become the ultimate authority on how people Actually Function.
nah I don't think that, you're now arguing with straw men expecting me to set the record straight; but at some point your invitations, couched in defamation, for me to explain life to you will have to be taken up by a SLE
Nah actually, unlike you I can point to exactly where you have said such things, while for you, you can point out no such things about me. They're based on evidence, while yours based on delusions. Lol.
I don't want no type. xD
I just cannot fit on the theory
Yes i am! A lazy one. Why?!
Depends if he's hot.. But usually they are hard to deal withlol, so you don't want an ILI for your dual
Actually the autistic I have seen in people is not dependent on type.
They can be very hard people to deal with but not all of them are like that.
You know people who are totally devoid of any sort connection to the rest of the world of people. They do as they want etc and they might mutilate others with random objects. No ability to co-operate while they might have some phenomenal skills. It varies.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Holy fuck, and that kind of speculation is any better than Socionics?
But an even bigger holy fuck to the idea that astrology would be scientific lol, who thinks that?!
Heh it doesn't surprise me that critical thinking would help with that.Here's an interesting study on Astrology and people with college degrees and scientific education, and it doesn't seem to be super correlated that there's a link between belief in Astrology and scientific education. However, it does seem like things like knowledge in critical thinking would tip towards not thinking that Astrology is scientific:
https://astronomy101.jpl.nasa.gov/do.../Buxner011.pdf
Thanks for describing this process, though it just shows me again how I'm totally the opposite of this type of thinking lol. I mean I agree on the part that some stuff is just petty quarrels etc., but the part where you described how some people utilize astrology is something I'll never get to do well and I don't think I should even strive to do this kind of thinking much. I tried before but it just wasn't something I could integrate well with my default way of thinking. I didn't try to do astrology per se, just the way of thinking itself, all this reframing stuff etc. But I lack the imagination for this and it doesn't stick for long and it doesn't satisfy me and I just end up feeling unsettled if I try to stick to it. I can of course change my interpretation on something but I seem to be able to do it in a way actually useful to me only if I come at it using a very different way of thinking. It's more a thinking based on directly taking up the fight, with regard to adversity etc.
Exactly, the bolded is a very good point. Also I wonder if it's his 1D Se DS showing lol in terms of being so unsophisticated in processing this type of information
I clicked a constructive on this post before noticing that there is a part I don't necessarily agree with. So, how do you link all this to Fe? That's what I'm not seeing.
I think niffer already tried.
No evidence, good luck showing where Bertrand actually said this.This stuff: "And you think that if only people knew better, then Jung would become the ultimate authority on how people Actually Function"
I think you are the one here who's prone to believe that about sources, that they are magically great. Until you get disappointed in them. And then you project your own attitude to others.
Right now you are believing in science/the scientific method, maybe until you realize that a lot of theories in science of psychology are really not all that substantial lol, which btw isn't too terrible IMO, because humans are of course complex, so it's going to take a while to figure all this out - what's actually really bad though is the *mindless* application of steps of scientific method and statistical techniques that some researchers seem to do.
You originally seemed like a smart guy, what happened to you lately? You seem overemotional, maybe figure out what it is actually that bothers you and then calm down? (Is it the disappointment in the belief in Socionics or something else in your life.)
And IEI?
I meant his past posts, obviously. He did say such things in the past.No evidence, good luck showing where Bertrand actually said this.
Okay, and when have I believed in such things? If they're wrong, then they're wrong, I don't deny that. I don't "believe" in the scientific method, I just know exactly how it works.
Hey, I'm just messing with Bertrand, it's nothing serious.
well I think the Ni base perspective reduces all Se to one dimension, but then retains for itself the ability to manipulate power on the level of abstract perception. so they submit to the biggest bully because its not really submission, its more like infiltration, and the reason they pick the biggest bully is because when they control it they control the most powerful force, i.e.: they pick people for the work they can do for them. in other words, the bully and the inability to directly challenge them is not a problem, nor is any of their literal statements or positions, because Ni base just believes it can twist all that into whatever it wants anyway, mainly through Fe and Ni in the case of beta. Which is really to say no more than SLE is easily manipulated via displays of emotion and not obvious abstract strategery, such as play on meanings and kinds of "prophecies." the fact that its all 1d is just because from the point of view of Ni base it really is all the same for their purposes of personally leveraging it, i.e.: somewhat useless and unimportant. this is how 1d functions arent just reductions of norms but categorically unique, because its not just normatively inferior, its actually a kind of synthetic and unique take on power--they're not totally blind to it since more is more when it comes to finding the baddest chief to mind control, rather its this idiosyncratic blend that characterizes their Se. that this is kind of a bad life strategy is sort of a Te blindspot (by this I mean there are significant practical shortcomings that are immediately obvious to most people, such that it seems like I'm straightforwardly denigrating them but I'm really not, in going about life in this way) and non valued Fi to boot. in any case you could say there is a kind of determinism at work here where people I think become like this in response to an environment that left them few options. thats basically what late stage beta turns into, a total gulag or kafkaesque castle--so IEI is kind of organic to that and can hardly be blamedExactly, the bolded is a very good point. Also I wonder if it's his 1D Se DS showing lol in terms of being so unsophisticated in processing this type of information
This is why these "Socionics arguments" go nowhere, lol. It's like there's no use arguing with people who are into Socionics. They make a bunch of assumptions and they just get things completely wrong.
Maybe some day, these people will finally get it.
Link! Or it's not true.
If you never believed in Socionics why are you so upset about where it's wrong now?Okay, and when have I believed in such things? If they're wrong, then they're wrong, I don't deny that. I don't "believe" in the scientific method, I just know exactly how it works.
Hey, I'm just messing with Bertrand, it's nothing serious.
I just think you were less adamant before about the issue of science vs Socionics. It's as if you are trying to prove something to yourself about this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote