Proving MY pointOriginally Posted by Singu
Proving MY point
Isn't that rather two different cults fighting against each other? Cults tend to be rather homogenous on their own (and if not, it gets enforced), and follow the teachings of their leader.
... ****** made Germany his cult back then
People are exactly the same everywhere then, that means?
A united front may be presented to the world. There is a bubble around what you are supposed to believe, say, and do, but within that bubble, conflict and disagreement will happen. One of the ways people can convince themselves they are not in a cult is that they are thinking “for themselves” and disagreeing — yet it is done within the confines of the bubble, so not quite.Isn't that rather two different cults fighting against each other? Cults tend to be rather homogenous on their own (and if not, it gets enforced), and follow the teachings of their leader.
... ****** made Germany his cult back then
If there’s a living leader, the leader can generate conflict by drawing some people close, pushing others away. Factions will form, may even break away. If there’s no longer a living leader, the question of who will hold power and who has the best take on the beliefs arises and power struggles happen.
The people are still human.
As an aside, as a fascistic political movement that was militarily and governmentally enforceable regardless of people’s beliefs, I don’t think Nazism was a cult per se, though it had some features of a cult.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Yes, that.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Socionics is a brainworm and subject to all kinds of logically fallacious thinking, especially attentional bias. But it’s a relatively harmless pastime compared to an actual cult, and there I include the milder cults, because although people on a site like this might have some capacity to fuck with your mind or feelings (so long as you show up for it), they don’t have any leverage and control over your family, your job, your finances, your body. There is nothing much material for anyone to wrest to wield true power over anyone else.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I think that whenever there's a criticism of Socionics, there is always a conscious or unconscious attempt by someone to underplay it or soften the blow, by saying "It's not so bad", "Sure it has its flaws, but there is some good as well", "Just don't think about it too much", etc. Of course, this kind of phenomenon is not necessarily limited to Socionics, but you often see it in other similar dubious practices. There is sort of this automatic reaction to attempt to justify it. But in the end, it's just a way to side-step the issue and prolong its inevitable decline.
Ironically, that's what makes it even more cult-like.
My guess is that these people don't necessarily want to "defend" these things like they normally do, but they're "speaking for" the people that might get seriously mad from the criticisms of any theories or persons or countries or whatever. So they want to soften the blow.
But what if they are using a strap on? Or they might be a futanari.
These exceptions disprove the rule.
your assumption is its baseless to begin with, but really those sorts of rejoinders are usually because they see something you don't... you can't just assume your knowledge and insight are godlike and everyone else is wrong. the first step is actually listening to people rather than dismissing any resistance as some kind of instinctual kickback and at the same time totally without merit... its like just think about that for a second. all of life is a prolongation of its inevitable decline, you mummy. in some sense you're not even, technically speaking, wrong, you've just totally destroyed the proper significance of the interaction, because at the root you've eliminated the possibility of traction on the issue by pre-defining it. in essence you could destroy any idea with that sort of tactic, but it just makes you totally useless not "objective" in any meaningful sense, except in the sense that on a long enough timeline there's a heat death of the universe. its like, that is not insight--its a special kind of stupidity to bring that to every interaction
Last edited by Bertrand; 10-04-2018 at 09:42 PM.
Well unfortunately the problem is, it's the "Socionists" that are claiming that they can see something that others can't see, and that they're right but it can't be explained.
So the whole thing basically reverts back to "I'm right because I'm right".
that's actually your position if you think about it
Well no, because I can actually explain my position, which I just did, among other things: That my issue with these "Socionists" is that they think that they're right, but they can't explain on exactly why they're right. All they're saying is that their own observations are correct and it shouldn't be questioned. Which is why it creates endless debates that can't even convince amongst themselves.
So the problem with subjectivity isn't just that it's not "science" or whatever. The problem is that subjectivity is inherently self-referential and tautological. What you can say subjectively can be completely and totally true. But it also won't be telling us much about it. You can say, "I do this because this is how I feel" or "I do this because I'm angry", which is true, but it also doesn't tell us anything relevant.
Basically, what it said was "I do this because I do this".
yeah the fact you do the same thing but find it exceptional and, moreover, convincing, is proof of the psychological principles underlying jung and socionics
Well you see, I said nothing of the sorts, and it has nothing to do with me personally. Someone else could say the exact same thing that I have just said, and it wouldn't make a single difference either way.
While the same thing couldn't be said for Socionics arguments, since a Socionist making an argument must be personal, because the whole thing is by definition subjective.
The Socionics argument of "I have observed it, therefore it must be correct" cannot be wrong because subjectivity by definition cannot be wrong. It's circular and tautological, so it's just another way of saying "I'm right because my observations are correct" which is another way of saying "I'm right because I'm right".
Last edited by Singu; 10-05-2018 at 10:09 AM.
I have criticized Socionics myself, and still do, particularly insofar as personality traits show normal distribution, making it clear that the dichotomies mean drawing a black line in gray areas. Meaning, for example, if I’m very mildly extroverted and you’re very mildly introverted, there’s not much difference between us, but we will get sorted into the I or E box, and so on for all the other traits.
But you missed one of my main points, which is that I was actually in a cult and have learned a great deal about them as well. I don’t appreciate you throwing the word cult around for emotional effect without having done the work to learn what distinguishes a cult from any other set of beliefs or social group.
Moreover, it’s very poor logic and inflammatory to say what people “always” do. It’s as if you’re unable to speak directly to me and instead find it easier to trash my statements with a generalization.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Yes, some people call that “exclusivism.” And there’s plenty of overlap between cults and other groups, endeavors, professions, etc., on various dimensions.
Here is an okay list of cult characteristics:
Other lists include exclusivism and thought reform. I could make the case for those. But there is no powerful in-group / out-group dynamic. Socionics is some material on the Internet, again, without any real power behind it.No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement.
Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader.
Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
The group/leader is always right.
The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
But when Gulenko buys us a Socionics compound in Brazil, lemme know! We can get matching tattoos, can’t wait.
Last edited by golden; 10-05-2018 at 05:18 PM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I think the assumption is that every competing notion in socionics is as good as every other notion in socionics, and anyone who claims to be better is engaging in "cult-like" behavior. its like, all that does is assume that better/worse is purely a matter of opinion and that in point of fact there is no such thing. if that's your take on socionics its fine, but it deprives socioncis of all its validity at the root. it simply becomes something people talk about but that has no real meaning or consequence to any of it. its like why even bother at that point. its just a form of anarchy where every group competes with every other group, and that's been the state of socionics for however long now.. the bottom line is preferring that state keeps it from developing further. try to still progress by calling any manifestation of it the beginning of a cult is clearly an attempt to keep things "light" and within alpha quadra, but its just one more baseless opinion on the matter, by its own admission about the truth value of any claims relating to socionics
not everything is a cult just because you've been duped before. erasing the distinction between better/worse in an attempt to avoid repeating the same mistake is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. sure you lose all conviction, by definition, but at the same time you achieve nothing except becoming a nullity with respect to any possible position of importance. the only position left is radical skepticism which is like, okay, but its so incredibly played out, everyone already knows scams abound. the trick is not to re-iterate that so much as being able to discern between them. this is precisely the problem socionics has because theres no discernment, and discernment is discouraged as being "cult-like" and thus progress becomes impossible thus we never break out of the vicious cycle of meaningless discourse between competing theories. this sort of stalemate is perhaps to the advantage of some people, but its by no means a fair assessment of G or anyone else really. it just locks things in an endless state of confusion and then justifies staying in it, on principle... this is a principled position for a person who can't be trusted to make informed decisions or evaluate information, but its not exactly a useful stance for others. its more like a cry of the confused for others to be more "scientific" and so forth. putting forth petty demands on the environment etc. if people want to go full scientismist with respect to socionics they should just check back in a hundred years, where they will be at the appropriate place on the curve--i.e.: about a century behind
I admire your patience, but don't waste your time - Singu has been ranting about the evils of socionics for over a year and is going to continue doing it at every opportunity he gets until he gets sick of it. He can't be reasoned with.
@golden where does that list come from?
Okay. If he can’t stop himself from coming here to rail against it, that might be his best proof that indeed, Socionics is destructive.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
That one is by Rick Ross. I didn’t link to it though I should have, because I’m not certain I want to promote Rick Ross per se, but I think the list is okay as it gets at the fact there are power dynamics involved in cults.
There are many lists out there, but one commonality is that the cult impacts your material life and relationships in an undermining way. For example, Socionics may tacitlly encourage you to go out and “find a dual,” which would be a material impact, but it’s unlikely for Socionics to isolate you from mainstream society as so many cults do.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
OK, thanks for the link and info.
I was just curious because you never know if such information might be of use in the future. I don't really care to comment on whether socionics or this forum are cults because that idea seems kinda silly to me.
I have never heard of this Rick Ross guy and google results give me some overweight rapper. Who is he and why do you not want to promote him?
It’s a different Rick Ross. I remember he had a very active anti-cult website, but I don’t know if it was good or not. I remember hearing something negative about him, but it was so long ago I’m not sure what it was. So I’d want to take more time to investigate the guy before I recommended him generally.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I figured that much.
Nevermind you added this:
Oh, ok. Yeah, that's probably wise.I remember he had a very active anti-cult website, but I don’t know if it was good or not. I remember hearing something negative about him, but it was so long ago I’m not sure what it was. So I’d want to take more time to investigate the guy before I recommended him generally.
Sorry, I expanded my response. This is his wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Alan_Ross
and he appears to have been a “deprogrammer.”
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Lol, I never claimed that Socionics was dangerous. However, it is pretty stupid and will lead to self-delusions and derangements. And excessive relativism, subjectivism, self-justifications and rationalizations. It will also likely increase misunderstanding rather than reduce it.
Well sure, you probably hit the nail in the head about cults, and I wouldn't disagree with what you're saying. But it's just that there isn't really anything new that I didn't know about, so I didn't really care much to comment on it.
Well anyway, calling Socionics both a cult and not-a-cult, is just a distraction that distracts away from the genuine philosophical problems that Socionics faces, which I have clearly stated or can clearly state in a rational manner. My main interest isn't to find whether Socionics is a cult or not, but whether Socionics actually works as it claims it does, or not.
But if they can't give a rational answer to my claims, but instead react with various irrationality, then I have no choice but to call it a cult or cult-like.
Thank you for responding.
I hear you calling Socionics an irrational belief system. I’m just pointing out that a cult comprises more than a belief system, but I understand most people will use the term cult more loosely than I would.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Gulenko wants ur moneys.
Lol.
Yeah, I agree with all of that. It's not like you'll be discommunicated and shunned for disagreeing or something, you won't even be banned from posting. People like Singu can walk around passing out their dissident pamphlets and it's really no problem. The outside world is not an evil trying to ensnare and condemn you to eternal punishment or etc. So while there are some parallels and similarities, and it can be entertaining to stretch those similarities out and embellish them a bit to joke and kind of poke fun at ourselves, it's not in the same level at all as actual cults.
No, but it’s totally cult-like tho, you guys. Singu said it.
Change your name to Overlord and become our charismatic leader.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
OH GREAT GULENKO. We humbly approach your alter today with an offering. One of our own, @Spermatozoa, shall serve as a sacrificial virgin. Through this oblation, this Eucharist, this sublimation of our collective will, we wish to appease you. With your mercy, we humbly avoid the turbulent waters of neurosis, PoLRs, and the perils of conflictor dynamics. Amen.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 10-06-2018 at 02:21 PM.
Calling Spermatozoa a virgin... I see what you did there.
Ok, enough shitposting for today
Lol, but what about the others who say the same thing? Actually I didn't start this whole "Socionics is a cult" thing, but whatever.
Nice job trying to make it personal, when it isn't. This kind of ad-hominem, irrational personal accusation tactics is exactly what makes it cult-like.
It wasn’t really meant to be an ad-hominem attack. More than anything I wanted to highlight (in a provocative manner, I will admit) how I don’t think your thesis that “Socionics and this forum are cult-like” holds up very well. Many posters before me have provided reasons as to why, so I didn’t find it necessary to expand. I just don’t think this site has enough elements characteristic of “cults”, to be called “cult-like”. The only one I can see is that people here are willing to suspend their rationality to believe in a system of thought that is unscientific and essentially unprovable, so it’s kind of a blind faith. However, nobody is saying that whoever doesn’t believe in this system is “wrong”, or “evil”, which makes this site significantly less cult-like already, don’t you think?
For example, I think that many of your criticisms of Socionics are valid and I respect you if you don’t subscribe to it. Hell, as a person who puts a great deal of importance in science and rationality, I am perfectly willing to admit that Socionics is a weakness of mine, and as a “man of science” I’d probably better drop it.
I just criticize your insistence on calling “cult-like” something that’s just a little, dumb hobby for most of the people here. That’s all.
Well like I said, I don't really particularly care whether Socionics is cult-like or not, and that's not my main point. However, someone started saying that Socionics is a cult, and it was pretty funny and it stuck. It's probably what a lot of people latently feel about it, but don't overtly express it.
But it's like people have gotten so touchy that we can't even jokingly call it a cult. If people started calling physics or biology a cult, then people would just laugh it off since there's nothing about it that's cult-like.
Ok, then I must admit I didn’t realize that you were joking. Irony can be difficult to pick up on an online forum. Sorry for being a bit of a troll.
Reply With Quote
