You can make any job fun if you can, if you are boring person it will be boring job as well. And then also not very productive, not really inventive and not very successful.
You can make any job fun if you can, if you are boring person it will be boring job as well. And then also not very productive, not really inventive and not very successful.
I should also note that there's no possible way that the Socionics theory CAN ever explain things such as the ITR.
Any explanatory theory for a particular relational conflict or accord requires the entire contextual and wider (historical) understanding of the relationship. That cannot be explained by any general theory about relationships.
You can describe for instance, how during a conflict, how the heart rate is increasing, how the amygdala, the part of the brain that is responsible for detecting fear etc., gets activated, and you can get into any amount of arbitrary details about such things. But this does not explain the why of how the conflict had started.
For instance, why are the states of Israel and Palestine conflicting? Because for one, they have irreconcilable religious differences. A particular historical progress that unraveled in complex ways had led them to fight over the same land. They were double-dealt by Britain and other Western nations. There are fundamentalist and nationalist people and movements that are unwilling to resolve the conflict peacefully. And so on and so forth.
Even if there could be a general explanation for why and how conflicts start in general, you cannot ever explain it in the context of Model A and information metabolisms, or quadra differences. And even if, there was an explanation for why the conflict starts or had started, that cannot predict how the relationship will end, because that depends entirely on where each parties of the relationship want the relation to lead to.
Well, science is our understanding of the Universe, so if it uses metaphors, metaphors are part of that. But the part about rocks made me actually LOL.
Also, a lot of the original Zionists and Palestinians got along. Some today still get along, but not the official State of Israel. If you think no Jews and Muslims get along, that’s a No True Scotsman fallacy. A lot of people who identify as Jews and Muslims say they get along themselves. So, I think they should reconcile. Which side do you support? Palestinians probably? That’s the easy one, you mentioned Chomsky yourself so you should know better.
Well I hope that you got my point, that it's not even remotely true to say that "They're conflicting because they're Beta and Gamma", or even something like "It's in the nature of humans to conflict", because that's not explaining the why of why they conflicted, which likely require a mix of psychological, sociological and historical explanation. It's like saying the reason why people evolved is because of God, when what we are asking of is the mechanics of how evolution works.
Well I for one think that the one of the most beautiful thing about science is conjectures and refutations, that of coming up with an idea, and have that idea be open to criticisms. And it's the matter of admitting when that idea happens to be wrong, and giving up that idea with grace, no matter how much emotionally attached that you were to the idea or a theory.
That's why I would recommend everyone to read the book "Conjectures and Refutations", which is a seriously brilliant book that not only teaches you things about science, but you'll also learn a whole history of philosophy (and why most of them are wrong). The book will tell you exactly why and how Socionics doesn't work.
That last post sounds like something a dad would say if they were an undergraduate science professor.
We could just rename the thread "Singu loves science, but not socionics, and thinks you should too" and it would be more descriptive...
good bye
Well no one is talking about the methodology or the epistemology of science, which is what the thread was really about.
You can study Socionics for 50 years, 100 years, and still you won't ever find anything new, because the entire methodology of Socionics was wrong. It's like banging your head against the wall, and wondering why you're not enlightened yet, as in why you're not coming up with any new information. That's because it can't, and it doesn't work that way.
So more accurately, it's "Why Socionics doesn't work, and if you don't want to waste your time, then you should study how science works, because at least science has figured that problem out..."
I’m wondering how Singu managed to think socionics was super sciencey for 9 years. The name “socionics” doesn’t sound very sciency lol.
Short comment:
How can this question be answered in a generally vaild way?
This is a question everyone needs to find an answer for themselves.
For me it's the opposite. Without science life would be boring. But that is my personal answer.
the criticism lies not in you being part of a cult, which we all are to some extent, its your lack of self awareness. thus I don't consider myself a hypocrite for belonging to a cult, quite the contrary, my point has always been that one ought to pick their cults head on--this idea that they're not subjective choices is bad faith itself and the object of criticism. its funny because if all you said was "I really like science" no one could object, its the aggression in overstepping that boundary that people push back on. in the final analysis, you protest too much, which evinces the reverse of intended effect, you come across as inherently doubtful and make a poor missionary, because you embody the idea that things are only true inasmuch as people believe them, even though the content of the words purports to say the opposite. anyone who catches this contradiction is left cold by your words. fanaticism is always the result of overcompensating for doubts. rather than double down you ought to just acknowledge your own doubts, if you continue to be fanatical you are like a motor who's speed regulation system has become unbalanced to the point of self injury. eventually fanaticism doesn't cure doubt, it simply causes harm
Oh cool, so you admit that Socionics is a cult. But you're still in denial, by saying that "Okay, maybe I AM in a cult. But so what? Aren't you also in a cult?". But that still doesn't solve the problem, Bertrand. You need to be in a problem-solving mindset! Not in a sophistic-denialism mindset.
Everything kind of is a cult though.
“A belief is like a guillotine: just as heavy, just as light.” — Franz Kafka
the point is trying to gain traction on the angle that cults are bad is a lost cause, its framing things as cult/not cult and then trying to oust anything labeled cultish that is bad faith when your entire approach is cult like to both sides. I'm saying you obviously embody a cult like approach that no matter how many declarations you make to the contrary it only digs things deeper. its like you think people can only understand the most literal interpretation of words and not see past that to what's really going on, therefore they're somehow bound to buy these empty constructions you push off at every turn, as if they don't possess their own perceptions to turn to and assess your position against. someone would have to be incredibly empty headed to find your stuff convincing, like only someone born yesterday wouldn't see the open and obvious problems with what you're saying, and even if they struggled to articulate them it would still rub them the wrong way and that's good enough to reject your unhealthiness. I don't eat a shit sandwich just because I can't articulate the precise theoretical mechanism as to why poop is bad to ingest, if it smells bad that is enough. you call it "thinking fast" and therefore want to throw it out. its like fair enough you first, I'll watch you and see what happens. this is what is meant by some people live to be examples to others, in both its positive and negative forms. if you're willing to gamble on your ideology then a part of me can respect that, but you don't get paid up front. it seems like you're looking for employees but that's not how this works. no one wants to be the test subject of a person they suspect is really an idiot
you're saying nothing is true without an explanation then go on to say falsification is the principle that makes possible truth claims, without realizing the implication is that requires experimentation into the unknown because you can't explain the truly unknown only by recourse to already existing data and rationalization. at some point someone had to eat the sandwich. eat the sandwich singu, go on, I want to see what happens. if you're in the possession of the truth on the basis of positive and reliable determinations you've already made there's no reason not to
Well technically, you can't prove anything to be true per se. But having an explanation, makes a much better argument. You may infer that since you have gotten sick after eating a rotten sandwich, the rotten sandwich must make you sick. Fair enough. But that would mean nothing if say, you didn't wash your hands before eating it, which was the real cause for making you sick, which was the germs and the microbes. Which was also the main cause of deaths before they discovered germs.
People infer causality like this all the time when they see something happening after it, even if they aren't related. People see a black cat and then they see an accident, they infer that the black cat must have caused it. People type people X and Y, and see X and Y conflicting, and they infer that it must be due to Conflictor relations.
But having an explanation for them, makes it all so much clear, and makes you see the actual difference between real causality, and simply coincidences.
Yeah, but you don't need the scientific method to know that you don't want to eat literal shit, lol.
What? It was science that discovered why that makes you sick. Answering the why's of these things is important, because we will eventually find something important: the universality of something. It's not just a particular rotten sandwich with a particular smell that made you sick, it was the germs and the microbes that made you sick. And we can also explain why those germs entering your body and multiplying might make you sick. That could not have been done with just observations and rules-of-thumb. It required explanations to reach that conclusion. If there were no explanations, then we'd have to catalog hundreds and thousands of different things that might make you sick, with no obvious pattern or connection. But now we have a simple, unified, coherent theory: that it's the germs that make you sick.
^ Yeah...well we didn't "need" science to "know" not to "eat shit". So your point is ridiculous.
good bye
I said science explained why that is the case. Maybe you'd be content living in ignorance of things, so you'd die from lack of sanitation.
I mean really? Are people these days so retarded, that they'd have to "rebel" against science? I mean what for? What could they possibly have against this evil science that is making everyone more miserable?
No one has anything against science. They have things against you ranting and raving about how great science is and how awful socionics is and just coming in out of the blue on threads where no one is even thinking about socionics and going like BUT WHAT ABOUT SOCIONICS? For a while, I was having these arguments with @Tearsofaclown and I said that he was more obsessed with Goethe than I was. That was probably an exaggeration, but you being more obsessed with socionics than the rest of the forum definitely isn't.
I sure am glad I have """"science"""" prosthelytizers so I can remember not to eat da poopoo like those deviant Socionists.
Uh buddy, thehotelambush brought up Socionics, not me (and no one was even talking about Socionics, until ironically you brought it up).
While I was talking about how science is about explaining things, YOU came out of the blue and said "but we don't NEED science for that!".
And then I explained it again, and strangeling said "But you still don't need science for that!" when all I was doing, was explaining how science is about explaining things.
So quite frankly, you and strangeling are retards. I said nothing whatsoever about Socionics. So who's the retard now Pallas? You.
Last edited by Singu; 04-30-2018 at 05:24 AM.
I wasn't even talking about Socionics, until ironically Pallas brought it up in that post.
I didn't even call @Singu a retard, lol. I just said his "science" proselytizing was getting annoying. And yes, Singu, you do bring up socionics out of the blue, like in the Interesting Articles Thread. Me bringing up you bringing up socionics out of the blue in a discussion about your science proselytizing getting annoying isn't out of the blue.