DCNH rant, my own useful perspective

[The Reality Denialist]

Uh? Just begin by reading his article. Then check his beta profiles on his site.

Most people are N's anyways and there are only few D's out there. C's behave like non standard and H's just look like lobotomized individuals.

[Bertrand]

I have seen no evidence of DCNH existing in my real life observation of types so I've never believed it. What was the logical reasoning that lead Gulenko to come up with this theory? Seems like he made it up out of thin air.

the logical reasoning is you can organize any phenomenon into a quaternary split and gulenko did it with group roles. yes he made it up (the scheme not the underlying phenomena). that doesn't invalidate it and obviously people are talking about something they've observed so there's something there. if x people quantify a thing and you don't, its hard to say a thing doesnt exist, because it clearly exists for x people. that in of itself is "evidence of DCNH existing." at best you could say it exists in the form of a lie, but the burden would be on you to prove that, you can't just declare "no evidence--next" with any authority, at best its a personal statement about how you think gulenko and everyone else has failed to demonstrate the truth of their claims, but that tells us more about you than them when its all just declarations in the air both ways, because its a difference on the level of perception

[Singu]

the logical reasoning is you can organize any phenomenon into a quaternary split and gulenko did it with group roles. yes he made it up (the scheme not the underlying phenomena). that doesn't invalidate it and obviously people are talking about something they've observed so there's something there. if x people quantify a thing and you don't, its hard to say a thing doesnt exist, because it clearly exists for x people. that in of itself is "evidence of DCNH existing." at best you could say it exists in the form of a lie, but the burden would be on you to prove that, you can't just declare "no evidence--next" with any authority, at best its a personal statement about how you think gulenko and everyone else has failed to demonstrate the truth of their claims, but that tells us more about you than them when its all just declarations in the air both ways, because its a difference on the level of perception

There's so much wrong with this statement, and it's basically the entire problem with Socionics.

It is true that they're based on observations, and it is true that we can call it a fact that these people exist. But we can't say that there is a "law" of DCNH existing, nor can we say that there is a "law" of only 16 types of people ever existing, which is something that Socionics and Gulenko claims. That's the entire confusion that people have over Socionics. They confuse local, parochial occurrences with regularities and lawlike generalizations.

[Bertrand]

if people see superman in the sky they can dispute whether its a bird or a plane or whatever but it doesn't mean whatever they're looking at doesn't exist. I'm not saying there's a law of "DCNH" existing, I'm saying its a fact that people are referring to something that exists when they talk about DCNH. whether or not we will ultimately call it something else because that way ends up being better, doesn't change the fact that it refers to something existent right here and now, it just means the label may end up changing because we decided on a different one down the line. its literally a potato v patahto thing and if you think temperament is a better way to think about people then good for you, it really comes down to usefulness in evaluating these things. it seems to me you're just lost in being able to make that evaluation so you rely on one being the clear winner and excluding all other options, but life will never be that simple. all real decisions come down to choosing between equally balanced negatives or positives. this idea that you can evade having to make a choice between difficult trade-offs is silly and it goes all the way to science, this is precisely the nature of most high level scientific debate, so if you think "science" is going to solve this for you think again. in the final analysis you have to make choices of personal style i.e.: stand for something doubtful. even if you refuse to consciously make this choice you still embody a choice that others can plainly see, and that is your personal style that comes across


and gulenko is not saying people must behave this way because he split behavior up, hes saying hes observed behavior that can be understood in terms of 4 categories. you guys are very fast to strawman what you don't understand

[Singu]

if people see superman in the sky they can dispute whether its a bird or a plane or whatever but it doesn't mean whatever they're looking at doesn't exist. I'm not saying there's a law of "DCNH" existing, I'm saying its a fact that people are referring to something that exists when they talk about DCNH. whether or not we will ultimately call it something else because that way ends up being better, doesn't change the fact that it refers to something existent right here and now, it just means the label may end up changing because we decided on a different one down the line

Obviously, Gulenko is saying that there is a "law" of DCNH, just like Socionics is saying that there is a "law" that there are only ever 16 types of people existing in this world.

[Myst]

I've googled it but can't find his website can anyone post a link?

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Dcnh

[Myst]

Obviously, Gulenko is saying that there is a "law" of DCNH, just like Socionics is saying that there is a "law" that there are only ever 16 types of people existing in this world.

There are 16 types based on the specified criteria - it could be more or less based on different criteria. None of it means that people *look* only 16 ways and no other ways. Since these are abstract criteria.

The thing with the number being 16 also doesn't mean anything, it's arbitrary and no one claims differently. It's obvious that if you add one more bit of criteria it'll be more types, and so on.

if people see superman in the sky they can dispute whether its a bird or a plane or whatever but it doesn't mean whatever they're looking at doesn't exist. I'm not saying there's a law of "DCNH" existing, I'm saying its a fact that people are referring to something that exists when they talk about DCNH. whether or not we will ultimately call it something else because that way ends up being better, doesn't change the fact that it refers to something existent right here and now, it just means the label may end up changing because we decided on a different one down the line. its literally a potato v patahto thing and if you think temperament is a better way to think about people then good for you, it really comes down to usefulness in evaluating these things. it seems to me you're just lost in being able to make that evaluation so you rely on one being the clear winner and excluding all other options, but life will never be that simple. all real decisions come down to choosing between equally balanced negatives or positives. this idea that you can evade having to make a choice between difficult trade-offs is silly and it goes all the way to science, this is precisely the nature of most high level scientific debate, so if you think "science" is going to solve this for you think again. in the final analysis you have to make choices of personal style i.e.: stand for something doubtful. even if you refuse to consciously make this choice you still embody a choice that others can plainly see, and that is your personal style that comes across

and gulenko is not saying people must behave this way because he split behavior up, hes saying hes observed behavior that can be understood in terms of 4 categories. you guys are very fast to strawman what you don't understand

Yah as long as something does exist it interests me. I do care about how we "label" things more than you do tho'. I'm more patient than Singu though

[Singu]

There are 16 types based on the specified criteria - it could be more or less based on different criteria. None of it means that people *look* only 16 ways and no other ways. Since these are abstract criteria.

The thing with the number being 16 also doesn't mean anything, it's arbitrary and no one claims differently. It's obvious that if you add one more bit of criteria it'll be more types, and so on.

Then there must be people that don't fit that criteria, which it doesn't allow according to the system. It is claiming to be a law, a universal law.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yes any concept can be split up by anyone into categories of four. That is why doing that is so arbitrary and doesn’t prove anything. I’ve also seen models that split it up into 8 or 16 subtypes. I'm saying I don’t see a reason for any of their validity so I don’t espouse them. It's not just that he's organizing types into categories which is fine and already exists with clubs, quadras, etc. but he is making the claim that types have different characteristics and behave differently based on the categories that he's created. Essentially creating his own new types and changing the founding premises of socionics. And your reasoning is it must be true if x number of people believe it. By that logic other baseless popular things like horoscopes must also be true. I am willing to hear why people believe in it, that’s why I asked. But your best response is “well everyone else believes it therefore you're wrong”. Wow, great critical thinking. So this is how Gulenko gets his blind followers...


I've googled it but can't find his website can anyone post a link?

IEI
Dominant: Renata Litvinova
Harmonizing: Oleg Mityaev
Creative: Sergey Zverev (seems pretty wild case)
Normalizing: Georgiy Vitsin


IEI profiles

[Myst]

Then there must be people that don't fit that criteria, which it doesn't allow according to the system. It is claiming to be a law, a universal law.

Well someone either prefers a dichotomy or doesn't.

Of course the operationalization of said dichotomy is the catch.

[Singu]

Well someone either prefers a dichotomy or doesn't.

Of course the operationalization of said dichotomy is the catch.

Well I've now realized that Socionics doesn't have explanations for well, just about everything. Why does Ti/Ne lead to Democracy, Taciturn, etc? There's no explanation. Why should the Alpha quadra be associated with childlike naivety, etc? There's no explanation. And hence, you can pretty much associate any observable phenomena to the Alpha quadra, and there would be no inconsistency or contradiction. If you try hard enough, you can say that anything has essentially has to do with Ti Ne Fe Si. Why is Alpha not Beta or Gamma or Delta? There's no explanation. Socionics is not such a systematic system, where there are full of moving parts and mechanisms, and if you change something even one bit, then it would all fall apart. That is not a sign that it's describing any real phenomena in the real world.

[Spermatozoa]

Every time I read a thread like this, I feel ever more strongly that all Ti-egos need to be drugged, sexually assaulted, locked up in a cage and then deported to a desert island. You will love it.

[niffer]

If quadras can be assigned to DCNH, the most rational way to do it imo would be to do alpha D, beta C, gamma N and delta H... like it literally is supposed to progress just as the clock of the socion is supposed to progress, moreover these are similar theories both by Gulenko.

[niffer]

Lol he’s LII, first of all...

[The Reality Denialist]

Every time I read a thread like this, I feel ever more strongly that all Ti-egos need to be drugged, sexually assaulted, locked up in a cage and then deported to a desert island. You will love it.

Are you projecting?

[niffer]

Maybe. It doesn't matter. The important part is he treats a lot of speculation as hard logic despite the speculation breaking existing rules.

This is only a problem IMO if people don’t take his ideas with a grain of salt. They’re more a creative interpretation of observations than anything else IMO...

Well, just like socionics itself is, too...

[Myst]

Well I've now realized that Socionics doesn't have explanations for well, just about everything. Why does Ti/Ne lead to Democracy, Taciturn, etc? There's no explanation. Why should the Alpha quadra be associated with childlike naivety, etc? There's no explanation. And hence, you can pretty much associate any observable phenomena to the Alpha quadra, and there would be no inconsistency or contradiction. If you try hard enough, you can say that anything has essentially has to do with Ti Ne Fe Si. Why is Alpha not Beta or Gamma or Delta? There's no explanation. Socionics is not such a systematic system, where there are full of moving parts and mechanisms, and if you change something even one bit, then it would all fall apart. That is not a sign that it's describing any real phenomena in the real world.

I do not see what you are expecting from a general model, but you are still expecting too much from it.

"If you try hard enough, you can say that anything has essentially has to do with Ti Ne Fe Si."

"Has to do with" isn't a causal link. Don't expect concrete causal links from this model, it's just about some general trends.

Every time I read a thread like this, I feel ever more strongly that all Ti-egos need to be drugged, sexually assaulted, locked up in a cage and then deported to a desert island. You will love it.

Lol, the ones that theorize randomly, right?

[Singu]

I do not see what you are expecting from a general model, but you are still expecting too much from it.

"If you try hard enough, you can say that anything has essentially has to do with Ti Ne Fe Si."

"Has to do with" isn't a causal link. Don't expect concrete causal links from this model, it's just about some general trends.

Then you can pretty much apply anything to "Quadra values", or functions, or Reinin dichotomies, or types, or just about anything.

[Myst]

Then you can pretty much apply anything to "Quadra values", or functions, or Reinin dichotomies, or types, or just about anything.

Do you know what a general trend is?

[timber]

Vik, yeah Ejs always do have that inate leader quality about them, no matter who they are and what they do.

[Spermatozoa]

Lol, the ones that theorize randomly, right?

If the penis is just a social construct then it can't be rape

[Singu]

Do you know what a general trend is?

Yes, and there's no guarantee that that "general trend" will continue indefinitely into the future.

But you're not getting my point here. What makes "Alpha values", Alpha values? Why isn't Alpha value this rather than that? Why are Alpha values about some sort of naive childlikeness, and not gritty realism, etc? There's no functional reason to prefer this over that.

[Myst]

Yes, and there's no guarantee that that "general trend" will continue indefinitely into the future.

Sure, 99.999999% likelihood is not a guarantee. But it's close enough in practice.

But you're not getting my point here. What makes "Alpha values", Alpha values? Why isn't Alpha value this rather than that? Why are Alpha values about some sort of naive childlikeness, and not gritty realism, etc? There's no functional reason to prefer this over that.

Bolded: wrong. The definitions of the IEs that were made based on certain justifications (you can argue about whether those make sense but this is what the model has) do determine such functional preferences.

[Singu]

Sure, 99.999999% likelihood is not a guarantee. But it's close enough in practice.

You can't even assign probabilities to it, because probabilities is the likelihood of being 1, as in "true". We don't even know if it's true or not. You can keep observing white swans, but that doesn't mean that all swans are white. But we can know that perhaps, black swans are genetically possible.

So the only hope for this approach, as in the inductivist approach, is to hope that things will stay the same forever.

Bolded: wrong. The definitions of the IEs that were made based on certain justifications (you can argue about whether those make sense but this is what the model has) do determine such functional preferences.

I didn't mean "functional" as in Socionics functions. I meant, what is the rationale for preferring one over the other? What DOES make Ti Ne "Alpha values" and not say, Beta or Gamma values? Why does preference for seeing alternatives make you naive, and preference for sensory perceptions "gritty realism"? It could easily be argued for the opposite. Perhaps you could say that Se is really about naivety. You could say that Elvis was a very naive and happy-go-lucky sort of a person. You can make up any kinds of arguments.

[idontgiveaf]

What if you're super mbti user?

[Myst]

You can't even assign probabilities to it, because probabilities is the likelihood of being 1, as in "true". We don't even know if it's true or not. You can keep observing white swans, but that doesn't mean that all swans are white. But we can know that perhaps, black swans are genetically possible.

So the only hope for this approach, as in the inductivist approach, is to hope that things will stay the same forever.

From an analytical point of view, this observation on swans is valid as far as, what mechanisms are behind the observed regularities?

The general trends I spoke of also arise from mechanisms of such regularities, but the concrete mechanisms themselves have to be analyzed beyond noticing the general trend.

And what I was saying is, Socionics's model is not meant to offer the latter. It works for trends on a general level but how exactly those trends work in reality is going to have to be explained by more detailed models.

I do find it bad practice to try and jump to detailed models and their explanations directly from that general one. But it doesn't invalidate the general one, and the existence of the general model doesn't invalidate the need for the detailed ones either.

I didn't mean "functional" as in Socionics functions. I meant, what is the rationale for preferring one over the other? What DOES make Ti Ne "Alpha values" and not say, Beta or Gamma values? Why does preference for seeing alternatives make you naive, and preference for sensory perceptions "gritty realism"? It could easily be argued for the opposite. Perhaps you could say that Se is really about naivety. You could say that Elvis was a very naive and happy-go-lucky sort of a person. You can make up any kinds of arguments.

No, you can't make up any kind of argument as you please.

So, gritty realism presupposes a focus on materialistic views in the tangible world, while Ne has its focus in idea-land.

Anyone who's unexperienced can be naive in some things, even an Se base type, doesn't mean Se suddenly becomes the function of naivety.

[Singu]

From an analytical point of view, this observation on swans is valid as far as, what mechanisms are behind the observed regularities?

The general trends I spoke of also arise from mechanisms of such regularities, but the concrete mechanisms themselves have to be analyzed beyond noticing the general trend.

And what I was saying is, Socionics's model is not meant to offer the latter. It works for trends on a general level but how exactly those trends work in reality is going to have to be explained by more detailed models.

I do find it bad practice to try and jump to detailed models and their explanations directly from that general one. But it doesn't invalidate the general one, and the existence of the general model doesn't invalidate the need for the detailed ones either.

Let's recapitulate things a little, to avoid the confusion. The question being raised is whether Socionics is an explanatory model, or simply an observational model. You say that it's an observational model. We agree.

Then what do we make of the functions, Model A, etc? I would say that they're descriptions of certain observed regularities in people. They're not explanations for the causes of people's behaviors or regularities.

No, you can't make up any kind of argument as you please.

So, gritty realism presupposes a focus on materialistic views in the tangible world, while Ne has its focus in idea-land.

Again, this raises the question of are the functions explanations, or simply the description of regularities?

Are we saying that Ne causes naivety, or is Ne merely the description of the regularity of observed naivety in people?

The point is, the focus on ideas doesn't necessarily lead to naivety. In fact, I don't even think the description of Ne contained stuff about naivety. I think that's just some extra stuff added by people like Gulenko. I think that's where the whole confusion comes from.

Or are we saying that focusing on ideas and naivety go hand-in-hand? Even if that were the case, there are people who don't focus on ideas, but are still naive. So this idea of focusing on ideas and naivety need to be discussed separately, because they're separate ideas.

Anyone who's unexperienced can be naive in some things, even an Se base type, doesn't mean Se suddenly becomes the function of naivety.

We're defining Se as not being naive. But if we were to have "Se types", then the reality is going to be more complex than that, since people can be realistic about certain things, and naive about certain others.

[domr]

Does anyone really think Gulenko made the equivalent of a 3rd grade error, essentially making a nonsense system right at the start? Obviously an interpretation where they are compatible is necessary. If you reject such an interpretation you may as well reject DCNH entirely. Otherwise you're saying you know more than the guy who made it, but also less because you didn't make it, and furthermore it was made by essentially an idiot.

Yes. Gulenko loves speculation.

So if you're LIE N, you're an Exxj type with an artificial Ixxj temperament. ENTj is the unchanging core, but because of circumstances you've adapted to act more like an Ixxj. This explains un-stereotypical people and differences between people of the same type. D is the "pure" subtype for LIE, because that's the subtype that resonates with their type, and I believe that people are born with their pure subtype. Gulenko says that subtype can change through much effort and change of environment. This is all official DCNH theory, except for the part that you are born with your pure subtype, as far as I know.

DCHN theory is junk.

This is a really bad intuitive logic explanation to an intuitive ethical problem. Not everyone is self-actualized. A lot of people have baggage, i.e. their damaged goods. Instead of recogning that the explanation is intuitive ethics, i.e. psychology, Gulenko is trying to brute force an intuitive logic solution.

The only subtype theory I subscribe to is leading vs. creative. I have observed LIE-Te vs LIE-Ni, SLI-Te vs. SLI-Si, ESE-Fe vs. ESE-Si, etc.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yes. Gulenko loves speculation.



DCHN theory is junk.

This is a really bad intuitive logic explanation to an intuitive ethical problem. Not everyone is self-actualized. A lot of people have baggage, i.e. their damaged goods. Instead of recogning that the explanation is intuitive ethics, i.e. psychology, Gulenko is trying to brute force an intuitive logic solution.

Well, Gulenko has himself done some real experiments and talked with people. This is beyond pure observation from distance. Apparently there are very different people who still prefer to think about information similarly but behave differently and most would type them under different type. Attributing singular reason to explain it is utter nonsense when you should know several different things that can make you behave in different ways.

You should not fit your own view reality to support theory unless you want to be psychotic. Is it your goal? Probably not.


One should ask: Can you give examples of those people? Do they seem to process information similarly but they behave differently. OK, there is? Now you should ask: What is the reason?
Would they become similar after same environmental exposure? Probably not. So... it looks like their temperament (as in every case) is a blend. Let's use it as approximation.
The underlying differences can be due to: hormonal, nutritional, background, physiology,... or just blend of those all or some.


Furthermore, think some whole as sum of it's parts but the parts are not evenly sized and maybe they are even dynamic. How many parts we have to know in order to get accurate enough presentation to our subjective liking? It is up to a individual. Some of us might like to calculate with pi that has 100 digit accuracy some just use two (although this itself is a multidimensional thing that tries to close the gap from up to bottom approach). Obviously this is not going to give us the exact why. So we must be happy to see it as some sort good enough thing... anything else would be just madness.

So boosted stuff is just having generally more of following behavior (not in thinking per se):
Ej: ,
Ep: ,
Ij: ,
Ip: ,

[Bertrand]

you have all these people passing judgement on socionics, jung, gulenko, etc, I'm still just trying to understand it. I guess that makes me an idiot but I suspect its the other way around; still it hardly matters what a bunch of loudmouths say because the system is not really for them to begin with. do we really think domr idongiveaf or singu are really anything more than ethical promoters of one idea or another. all they can do is talk about the system they can't meaningfully interact with it, and maybe thats not the point, but my whole thing is these ethical types need follow their own advice and move the fuck on if its all so flawed. people combine enneagram with jungian psychology because they superficially go together but have nothing in common except they purport to describe features of personality. I get the feeling if you think they can be profitably mixed you don't understand anything about either and its a lot like mixing dirt into your meal and rationalizing it as getting more of your food groups (its a superficial to the point of asinine rationale rooted in ignorance). as an aside Jung does talk about IQ life experience and hormone levels. you would know this if you actually read him (you essentially substitute your stereotyped reduction of what jung represents to you, and talk about that, instead of what the truth of the matter is in reality). no I won't cite this because that would be rewarding your bleating with information you should already know to justify popping off to begin with. once again you got the time factor twisted as to how this is supposed to work

[Bertrand]

yeah new information like that you're an idiot

[The Reality Denialist]

Jung's theory is limited to The Psyche.

Socionics deals with information metabolism elements. It classifies information which in itself sounds quite impossible the level it does it.

[Singu]

you have all these people passing judgement on socionics, jung, gulenko, etc, I'm still just trying to understand it. I guess that makes me an idiot but I suspect its the other way around; still it hardly matters what a bunch of loudmouths say because the system is not really for them to begin with. do we really think domr idongiveaf or singu are really anything more than ethical promoters of one idea or another. all they can do is talk about the system they can't meaningfully interact with it, and maybe thats not the point, but my whole thing is these ethical types need follow their own advice and move the fuck on if its all so flawed.

And you're still only able to see reality exclusively through the lens of Socionics, as if your version of reality is correct. It's like you can't even imagine a world where your version is possibly incorrect, or see an alternative. And you also invent terms like "ethical promoters", as if that means anything, as you can attribute anything to terms such as "ethicals" however you see fit, and there would be no contradiction.

There's nothing to "interact" with the system, because as I have been saying, Socionics is an observational model and not an explanatory model. There's simply no logical system involved. It's a completely ridiculous thing that people act as if Socionics is a logical system, with clear logical, mechanistic structure and rationale behind it. When they do that, it just turns into a kind of pretension or masturbation, a "cargo cult science", where they think they're being all science-y, and that impresses shallow and superficial people like Bertrand.

The fact that you don't see problem with any of this, is because you're an irrationalist or an intuitionist, and like Jung, think that your version of "intuition" (not in the Socionics sense of the word) is the correct one, and hence your views become incredibly subjectivist and just a kind of one-sided prejudice without any input from the outside world. You're just a kind of a solipsist at this point.

[Bertrand]

You have almost 5000 posts. 10 posts per day. How much value have you created?

I know you're insecure domr, but its not a competition, just try to be better than you were yesterday, instead of comparing yourself to me

[FDG]

Socionics deals with information metabolism elements. It classifies information which in itself sounds quite impossible the level it does it.

Yeah but in practice it´s the same thing as Jung just more refined.

[The Reality Denialist]

...and practically there is lots of stuff that deals with pure information in different interpretation layers. DCNH is one of those.

[FDG]

...and practically there is lots of stuff that deals with pure information in different interpretation layers. DCNH is one of those.

Yeah but DCNH is not socionics

[Myst]

Let's recapitulate things a little, to avoid the confusion. The question being raised is whether Socionics is an explanatory model, or simply an observational model. You say that it's an observational model. We agree.

No, I never said that.

I said: "The general trends I spoke of also arise from mechanisms of such regularities, but the concrete mechanisms themselves have to be analyzed beyond noticing the general trend."

Then what do we make of the functions, Model A, etc? I would say that they're descriptions of certain observed regularities in people. They're not explanations for the causes of people's behaviors or regularities.

Again, this raises the question of are the functions explanations, or simply the description of regularities?

They are part of the explanation. Insufficient on its own to explain everything.

Are we saying that Ne causes naivety, or is Ne merely the description of the regularity of observed naivety in people?

Ne isn't defined as naivety. It doesn't directly cause anything on its own, either.

The point is, the focus on ideas doesn't necessarily lead to naivety. In fact, I don't even think the description of Ne contained stuff about naivety. I think that's just some extra stuff added by people like Gulenko. I think that's where the whole confusion comes from.

Your confusion?

Or are we saying that focusing on ideas and naivety go hand-in-hand? Even if that were the case, there are people who don't focus on ideas, but are still naive. So this idea of focusing on ideas and naivety need to be discussed separately, because they're separate ideas.

No one ever said they are not separate things.

We're defining Se as not being naive. But if we were to have "Se types", then the reality is going to be more complex than that, since people can be realistic about certain things, and naive about certain others.

Did you ever expect reality to be less complex than that?

There's nothing to "interact" with the system, because as I have been saying, Socionics is an observational model and not an explanatory model. There's simply no logical system involved. It's a completely ridiculous thing that people act as if Socionics is a logical system, with clear logical, mechanistic structure and rationale behind it. When they do that, it just turns into a kind of pretension or masturbation, a "cargo cult science", where they think they're being all science-y, and that impresses shallow and superficial people like Bertrand.

It's just not a detailed system of detailed mechanisms. If you tried to use it like that then yes of course you'd get upset and confused.

I think you are not fully convinced yourself yet as to the logic of your statements, or you'd not have to go around here repeating this stuff. You are trying to throw all this out the window without first stopping and deciding what actually does make sense and then remove the rest. If you want to throw it all out in one you will have a problem with having to let go of what did make sense too. IMO.

[Singu]

No, I never said that.

I said: "The general trends I spoke of also arise from mechanisms of such regularities, but the concrete mechanisms themselves have to be analyzed beyond noticing the general trend."

What is the mechanism? I thought you were implying that these mechanisms exist, but they haven't been discovered yet.

"General trends" and "regularities" are the same thing. If we don't explain the mechanism behind it, then we can't tell that if the regularities are law-like or not. As in, we don't know if this "general trend" will continue into the future. It may change or it may simply stop. Type behaviors may change, because people change over time.

They are part of the explanation. Insufficient on its own to explain everything.

Again, what is it explaining, or what is the mechanism?

Ne isn't defined as naivety. It doesn't directly cause anything on its own, either.

So we don't know what causes naivety, or at least it's not something that can be explained Socionically. If we observe a Ne type who is naive, then that is only a correlation, and it's not that Ne is causing the naivety.

Again, by this logic, what makes Ti Ne Fe Si "Alpha values", or supposed naivety?

It's just not a detailed system of detailed mechanisms. If you tried to use it like that then yes of course you'd get upset and confused.

I think you are not fully convinced yourself yet as to the logic of your statements, or you'd not have to go around here repeating this stuff. You are trying to throw all this out the window without first stopping and deciding what actually does make sense and then remove the rest. If you want to throw it all out in one you will have a problem with having to let go of what did make sense too. IMO.

See above. What makes Ti Ne Fe Si "Alpha values", for example, without detailed mechanisms or explanations?

[Myst]

What is the mechanism? I thought you were implying that these mechanisms exist, but they haven't been discovered yet.

Which mechanism are you asking about now? The general trend shows there are systems that we can say process separate types of information. A few properties of these systems and on how these systems interact with each other are valid parts of the model in my opinion. The concretely detailed mechanisms beyond these, e.g. how exactly the interactions happen regarding certain details of them, are not going to be explained just by using these principles.

"General trends" and "regularities" are the same thing. If we don't explain the mechanism behind it, then we can't tell that if the regularities are law-like or not. As in, we don't know if this "general trend" will continue into the future. It may change or it may simply stop. Type behaviors may change, because people change over time.

The brain doesn't just randomly change like that.

Again, what is it explaining, or what is the mechanism?

See above.

So we don't know what causes naivety, or at least it's not something that can be explained Socionically. If we observe a Ne type who is naive, then that is only a correlation, and it's not that Ne is causing the naivety.

Never claimed otherwise.

Again, by this logic, what makes Ti Ne Fe Si "Alpha values", or supposed naivety?

See above. What makes Ti Ne Fe Si "Alpha values", for example, without detailed mechanisms or explanations?

Alpha values != naivety. These principles specify more than just equating Ne/Ti/etc with this generic word "naivety". It would be wrong to equate the two with each other.