School of Associative Socionics: "Butterfly" model of a human psyche

[Olga]

You are incorporating your beliefs into something that is supposedly science and then you urge people to disprove you.
I don't think you understand how ridiculous is that. Even if you were able to perform good experiments to prove or disprove your hypothesis I am pretty sure you'd use a leap of faith where necessary to keep believing in this shit.

Well, I believe that from your point of view it is extreamly ridiculous. But from the point of other people it is not. As I told earlier my article is not a scientific research but a concept. Take, for example, the work of Freud and Jung. They wrote about psychic energy as well.
if I would write an article about experiment, I would not mention chakras then because it would be irrelelvant. Do you understand my point?

Socionics is at the moment more qualititve in nature. Socionics is at the moment "a science of experts". There is not much work going on if none towards objective testing. Nobody cares as such about validity of the socionics tests.

What is not nice that you project on me the belief that I fail no matter what if i have those beliefs. This is a subjective judgement and gross generalization and this is unethical. It is not a crime of course and I appreciate that you express yourself freely. However, if you judge people as a failure based on their beliefs, you can expect them to judge you as well as being arrogant towards them. I am not sure that it is exactly what you ment. You should not judge me on the surface value, but rather treat me wirth respect as I treat you.

[Gravolez]

I don't judge you, I judge your beliefs. If you want people to praise you go to an esoteric forum or something.

[Olga]

Olga, I like your enthusiasm but you are not using the scientific method at all. You can't just come up with some nonsense based on other nonsense, which has not been proven scientifically and then say: "prove me wrong if you can" or "People will judge how they want to which is normal. ".
You might be on to something or maybe not. But this is not the right approach and it does not bring meaningful information.

Yes, it is philosophical more than scientific but it is normal for socionics. I am working on the tests and do typing on the basis of the theory so i see the proof in practice. The way forward I see in establishing what tests are valid and creating new tests based on the non-verbal approach to typing. I am not sure what do you mean by meaningful information...some logical report with statistics, something like that? Do not have it. As socionists write it is all based on observation - empirical research.

[Olga]

I don't judge you, I judge your beliefs. If you want people to praise you go to an esoteric forum or something.

I am not looking for praising. I do not need that. Understanding and collaboration would be nice.

[Gravolez]

Your theory is worthy neither of understanding nor of collaboration.

[tcaudilllg]

Jung and Freud used "psychic energy" as a placeholder for the neurological specifics of motivation, which they had no knowledge of.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

they used it to prepare the ground for the theosophically influenced New Age movement that basically promotes a global government and a global religion.or sth.you can ask BOB.

[Olga]

Jung and Freud used "psychic energy" as a placeholder for the neurological specifics of motivation, which they had no knowledge of.

I think it depends how people interpret ideas and concepts. I have read slightly different interpretation which I understood the way I did. And I do not see anything wrong about it but on the opposite. If you prefer this interpretation as motivation then I do not mind at all. Why should I? I am not here to convert you to any religion. It is the matter of personal choice.
I just want people to respect my views as I respect their views.
Logic does not bother much about personal preferences in what to believe or not as we can not prove it as such. However there is no need to be too categorical and presumptious if people think differently. Am I right or am I right?

[Korpsy Knievel]

No.

[tcaudilllg]

I think it depends how people interpret ideas and concepts. I have read slightly different interpretation which I understood the way I did. And I do not see anything wrong about it but on the opposite. If you prefer this interpretation as motivation then I do not mind at all. Why should I? I am not here to convert you to any religion. It is the matter of personal choice.
I just want people to respect my views as I respect their views.
Logic does not bother much about personal preferences in what to believe or not as we can not prove it as such. However there is no need to be too categorical and presumptious if people think differently. Am I right or am I right?

Olga, I don't have a problem with you writing about chakras; but there are a lot of people working in psychology today, and especially neuroscience, who do. Like as not, we can't fight these people and expect to be respected, and associating anything in psychology with chakras (or psychic energy in a mystical sense) is tantamount to picking a fight.

You actually hit it on the head though: psychic energy is motivation, both the catalyst and the drive. The question that remains unanswered is what biological processes are the correlates for motivation.

The color theory thing is easily disprovable by reference to Goths. There are goths of every type (I've known many), and all of them dress in black. I take it that means they like the color. You might do a study apprising the distribution of Goths per type. That would be very interesting.

[Korpsy Knievel]

The section on psychodynamic opposition is worth retaining but the remainder should be discarded for being wistful, over-written, and unsubstantiable.

[Olga]

Olga, I don't have a problem with you writing about chakras; but there are a lot of people working in psychology today, and especially neuroscience, who do. Like as not, we can't fight these people and expect to be respected, and associating anything in psychology with chakras (or psychic energy in a mystical sense) is tantamount to picking a fight.

Do we have to fight them and is it necessary?
A huge part of my work comes from the psychoanalytic side of psychology which is qualitative in nature. I do not see the need to transform all of this knowledge or to abandon it alltogether for the sake of experimental psychology. We need to be clear on this. What can be understood and proved by means of the experimental method can be taken on board and other part of the knowledge should remain as part of psychoanalysis and philosophy. I do treasure everything I have as I believe that associative theory could be explored further in alternative approaches in psychology and medicine: color - music-aroma- therapy and may be more.

Anyway, I understand what you mean. However, I would not be bothered much about it right now. And I advice you not to be bothered about it either. Everyone takes from the theory what suits him or her as with everything else. Not worthy to talk about, really. Move on.

You actually hit it on the head though: psychic energy is motivation, both the catalyst and the drive. The question that remains unanswered is what biological processes are the correlates for motivation.

Many questions remain unanswered. I am not to answer all of them. I can only express my views the way I see things. I am limited like anybody else. Do not have strong Ego at all. I am a Superego-type.

Did anybody answer these questions in socionics so far BTW? What is the main perspective in psychology about: what biological processes are the correlates for motivation?

The color theory thing is easily disprovable by reference to Goths. There are goths of every type (I've known many), and all of them dress in black. I take it that means they like the color. You might do a study apprising the distribution of Goths per type. That would be very interesting.

Ok. What is your type? I am asking because again and again you do not see relativity of your examples which aim to disprove my point but in fact they do not.

[Creepy-pokeball]

What is that supposed to mean?

You realize you're about to get laughed off the forum (and out of the community) I take it?

Olga has always had a place here, and I have no problem defending that place.

[Gravolez]

Anyway, I understand what you mean. However, I would not be bothered much about it right now. And I advice you not to be bothered about it either. Everyone takes from the theory what suits him or her as with everything else. Not worthy to talk about, really. Move on.

If there was a cult to ignorance, you'd be one of the high priestesses.

[tcaudilllg]

Olga has always had a place here, and I have no problem defending that place.

"defend"... lol. Use your "mind magic" to defend Olga's posting rights on this forum.

I don't care if she posts here or not, but if she keeps going with this crap sooner or later hkkmr's gonna lose patience with her regardless.

I find it amusing that with all her qualifications, she is here. Why is she not organizing other psychologists in London around her theory? I think she must be afraid. She should get on with going public and becoming a regular feature in the tabloids. :lmao:

[Creepy-pokeball]

"defend"... lol. Use your "mind magic" to defend Olga's posting rights on this forum.

I don't care if she posts here or not, but if she keeps going with this crap sooner or later hkkmr's gonna lose patience with her regardless.

I find it amusing that with all her qualifications, she is here. Why is she not organizing other psychologists in London around her theory? I think she must be afraid. She should get on with going public and becoming a regular feature in the tabloids. :lmao:

Why would Hk care, and why do you feel it is neccessary to bastardize her being that you take the position about her that you do?

[Gravolez]

@tcaudilllg, if posting bullshit was forbidden on the forum it wouldn't exist.
So it's not right to "threaten" Olga or to assume that someone has something against her just because her theory sucks.

[Olga]

Thanks to everyone, who is defending my place on this forum one way or the other
I am since 2005 chatting on the forums and have a good experience in defending my place and AT. I belong to the critics, so I take and give the criticism in return. I was banned from a couple of Russian forums not because I wrote about chakras but for criticism of other theories and approaches. On one of the forum I was reinstated, on another one -not. You can guess if you wish whose forum it is.

I do not have plans to criticise anybody on this forum as I simply do not have time for it. Just wanted to say "Hello, is it me you looking for....?" Usually I come and go as I am an introvert and have limited energy for chatting. But I am always pleased to get to know people and find socionists with similar interests, may be? God bless you all.

Does anybody know the type of Tcaudillig or is it a secret? I am asking because on the Russian forums people sometimes write not their real types.

[Olga]

"defend"... lol. Use your "mind magic" to defend Olga's posting rights on this forum.

I don't care if she posts here or not, but if she keeps going with this crap sooner or later hkkmr's gonna lose patience with her regardless.

The good point about you, Tcaudilllg, that you express your thoughts freely, that you are open in what you think. I appreciate that. You just need to be more tolerant with the people who has a different opinion and see things not as you do. In my first impression you stand out from some other critics because you have a knowledge and you make an effort to explain your point in more detail. That gives an opportunity to develop the discussion and bring some new information into it. I would understand you better if I would know your type for sure.

I find it amusing that with all her qualifications, she is here. Why is she not organizing other psychologists in London around her theory? I think she must be afraid. She should get on with going public and becoming a regular feature in the tabloids. :lmao:

If something does or does not happen it must be for a reason. I do not always know all the reasons why things happen the way they do, but I trust.

[Olga]

Hi Olga,


LII last I heard.

Hi, Ashton. Thanks for info.
Tcaudillg is a bit stiff and categorical in his opinions, so it can be associated with Ti - programm function. I also may think now that he is supporting the theories, which I criticise. If he would come, for example, from the supporting approaches like PR he would not bother much about AT.

However, I know that LII show sometimes very big interest in ethical questions. Socionics being scientific or not and what the other people may think about socionics - good enough topic for the role function.
I just hope that we shall move away from it and find the middle ground in discussing something more interesting than that.

[Olga]

The color theory thing is easily disprovable by reference to Goths. There are goths of every type (I've known many), and all of them dress in black. I take it that means they like the color. You might do a study apprising the distribution of Goths per type. That would be very interesting.

Oke, Tcaudillg. Assuming that you are LII type, can you explain to me, please, what is considered a general and a special case for your example-question? Did you limit the explanation of why people become Goth just by liking the colour? Surely, there may be many other reasons why diferent types join Goth.
We deal with tendencies and therefore we should expect that the majority of Goth will be the Superid-types or the TPE Superid will be as a compensation TPE.
The simple analogy is that we all have different temperaments within us and at the same time we consider ourselves as being just one type of temperament or two as more prominent. If somebody gets depressive and melancholic for a while - it does not mean that the person was born as melancholic and cannnot go back to his original temperament.

[Olga]

Unfortunately, his proposed solutions to the ethical woes of the world typically invoke killing off people he doesn't like.

Very typical for LII and most likely because of Ti + Se. I do get a bit different impression from Gulenko though, when I read his views.