Yeah I can see you being xSE. You want to jump to this 1D Se’s defense, in spite of his long, documented history of being a complete, utter chode to everybody on here.Originally Posted by Pano Lou
Yeah I can see you being xSE. You want to jump to this 1D Se’s defense, in spite of his long, documented history of being a complete, utter chode to everybody on here.
same old story:I just don't understand why Socionists are so resistant to criticism. The worst theory of all is a theory that can't be criticized. And that theory is usually called a cult or a religion.
7 world-changing inventions people thought were dumb fads
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/201...-changed-world
Beta's start noticing socionic,they the one who make Alpha prototypes solid. but who know , "Sometimes it's genuinely difficult to know whether new inventions will be duds or hits"
Last edited by karas; 11-24-2018 at 09:03 AM.
I just don't want this to keep continuing. It's completely destroyed this thread. It's not fair to the OP either.
Also, what makes you think this is 4D unvlaed Se? How is it different from having Se as a base function?
Ok. If you wanted it to not continue, why defend Dingu? As if that would help with that lol.
Well you’re clearly Si valuing, and this “making up for duals’ weaknesses” behaviour is descriptive of the demonstrative function; quite literally in the case of demonstrative Se and polr Se. I could go into it more but I don’t think it’s needed wrt your typing.
I didn't really think I was making up for anything lol I can't really figure out between ESE and LSE. Hmm
I think ESE works very well for you. Even just in what you said here... LSEs don’t really verbalize their thought processes bc not Ti valuing. I don’t really feel a Te vibe from you either.
This is false equivalence. It is not like there are a bunch of competing theories setting the benchmark for science. Science is about investigating the natural world and finding objective relationships between objects and events. If x causes y, then it should be demonstratable. If it cannot be observed, a relationship cannot be established. How else will you know a relationship exists? Science evolves toward truth through a combination of empirical observations, experimentation, and sound logic. What other means do you have that even come close to establishing relationships that actually exist in this world? Your infallible intuition? According to whom?
Socionics is pseudoscience because it makes claims about people without any convincing data. For the most dogmatic socionicists, merely looking at a photo tells you their "true" type, which is supposedly fixed for life. It goes on to make predictions about what sort of people you should hang out with, who your magical dual is. All of this without data, without rigorous peer reviewed experimentation. People have every right to be skeptical and criticize a theory that tries to take advantage of people in such a way. All skeptics ask is provide the evidence. It's true that socionics investigates cognition, which is very difficult to test, which is why we ought to be cautious how much of it we should regard as fact.
Holy fucking shit. Did you just get baited by Singu of all people?
Your first paragraph had potential but then you proceeded to argue against a position I never held. I don’t mind people criticizing Socionics. I literally said Socionics is not real. Go ahead tell me I’m wrong. Did you read my posts? Or did you just read Singu’s posts? Because I’m not sure you want my honest opinion of you right now. I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not as dishonest as you come across. I swear some people are just asking to be humiliated.
ILI suits you both better btw.
Lol
lol, okay buddy, just relax. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong about Popper being "just another theory". To be able to falsify a theory is still a qualifier used to determine science from non-science. It is one way to build a consensus, which is important when dealing with an agreed upon reality.
Added: Try to reframe the argument by making into an argument about one's type is just a diversion form addressing the actual problems, which truly is more dishonest.
Last edited by Skepsis; 11-24-2018 at 03:47 PM.
You are all being nerds and also missing Singu's point.
Some people on here are some of the most manipulative people I have ever interacted with. They want you to post pictures and videos of your vulnerable self, and want to know as much about you as possible, so they can use it to manipulate you into their socionics worldview. Here you will find con artists, sociopaths, and narcissists. You will not find many genuinely interested in objective reality.
LOL at trying to find camaraderie with that guy. Rip.
I don't disagree with that. I'm saying it's not the only way, it's not even always applicable in every case. I'm sure you can find the Wikipedia entry and find the relevant counter points to the theory.
I just get the impression that Singu doesn't see it that way from reading his previous discussions/threads. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I wouldn't have bothered with him if I knew what he was arguing for. It's a pointless discussion that is irrelevant to socionics from the way I see it. I have no idea why he keeps trying to make it relevant. Probably because no one would care otherwise? I mean no one comes here to discuss philosophy at an academic level, I would hope not.
Yeah, I was just trolling.Added: Try to reframe the argument by making into an argument about one's type is just a diversion form addressing the actual problems, which truly is more dishonest.
It's actually funny to me when the proponents of objective reality are usually with a leading perceptive function.
Well, you're probably right. I'm not sure most even understand what I'm saying. I'm sure only very few do. But it is kind of interesting, I wonder if I'm ever able to convince these people, or not. If not, then at least I've learned a lot in the process. It's a good way to test my knowledge.
I just don't understand why people react so hysterically and can't simply have an impersonal and detached analysis of Socionics. And these people are the supposed "Thinker" types... who are supposedly very objective and detached from emotions. It's like they don't even see the irony of the whole thing.
Well you must've missed the post where I was criticizing the entirety of Empiricism.
Popper is a philosophy, therefore it is non-scientific. No one is claiming that it is. Science, roughly speaking, is a kind of a philosophy. I also have clearly said that falsification isn't everything.
Criticizing a philosophy on the ground that it's "unscientific" misses the point, it's like criticizing mathematics for being unfalsifiable and unscientific. The three major pillars of knowing things about reality are science, philosophy (epistemology) and mathematics. And they all look at different things from different perspectives.
How do you think science is done or should be done, in your opinion?
By definition, what is "correct" is what hasn't been proven wrong yet. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, but the problem is to never admit that something is or could be wrong.
And you assume that Socionics is correct or incorrect, because...?
You'll need to have these discussion in order to know whether something is correct or incorrect in the first place.
Says who? That is your hypothesis. It's nowhere near to the formal definition of knowledge. You love to pass your hypotheses as facts, don't you?
There is no proper way of "doing" science, and by that I mean scientific discovery was never bound to a process. We can only judge the result.
Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, these actions are better considered as general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always done in the same order.
–Gauch, Hugh G., Jr. (2003), Scientific Method in PracticeYou do realize people contradict each other for the hell of it, right? I don't know what you are whining about now.
I don't care if it's correct or incorrect.
Socionics makes broad claims that if or when solved if that is even possible (not necessarily through socionics) would address things such as conciseness that is beyond our current scientific understanding. I know for a fact that socionics is a made up subject. Whether it's a true representation of reality (or close to it) or not is not my concern right now. For all I care, we would be dead already when science would have made any substantial progress in this field. I study it for my own enjoyment.
I can literally hear Singu getting horny from this Se attack from across the planet.
Okay, so instead of offering arguments or counter-arguments, you say "Show me the authority who approves of this". That, is by the way, the exact opposite of science - to rely on authority for knowledge. We don't rely on anyone for knowledge, we can only rely on ourselves, our rationality. That is why scientists say "Show me how it can be reproduced", not "Show me the facts" or "Show me the authority or holy scripture who says this".
Then what questions are we supposed to be asking in science? What is even the "result" supposed to be? How do we judge that result, and how do we know it's correct, how do we know whether it's "objective" or not, whether it's something real or just some nonsense? You can't answer that question, because it's not even made clear to you in the first place.
All science starts with a problem, and we'll need to know what that problem is, and how that problem can be solved.
Then what is it that you're even arguing about? How do you think that progress can be made in this field?
Basically, all it shows that you haven't really thought through much about anything at all, and comes across as rather shallow and superficial.
Last edited by Singu; 11-25-2018 at 06:12 AM.
My condolences.
IRLOL
The level of maturity of this community, folks... It's like why would anyone think that this community has anything to offer? Why would Socionics?
It's time to admit that the whole thing is a joke and no one would ever take it seriously outside of this small corner of the Internet. You might sheepishly admit that you didn't really take it seriously in the first place (pfft!), but you probably did until it was pointed out that the whole thing was actually a joke.
So you'll need to treat it as a joke that it really is, and it's nothing more than that.
Except what you said is not a fact, it's your own opinion. I applaud you for thinking for yourself, but if you are going to make claims to being objective then I'm going to hold you to a higher standard. I don't care who came up with the idea. If you can't make it a case for it or refer me to someone who can, then I'm going to dismiss it. You are used to people running with whatever bullshit claims you make that you don't even attempt to fact check yourself. That is you being lazy. You are also used to talking past people, as if what you are saying is gospel. I don't care if you think what you are saying makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense to me, I won't entertain it unless you give me a good reason.
I don't have time for your random philosophical rants. People have been doing science for centuries now. Why do you need such strict guidelines?
You have demonstrated that you incapable of being objective. You want someone to hold your hands and debate you on your own terms.Then what is it that you're even arguing about? How do you think that progress can be made in this field?
Basically, all it shows that you haven't really thought through much about anything at all, and comes across as rather shallow and superficial.
Then why do you rely on authority? How do you define the criteria for what makes something objective or not, what makes something correct or not, what makes something real or not? If you don't know these things for yourself, then who would tell it for you? An authority figure?
You are free to offer counter-arguments to my claims. You just haven't done so, so how am I supposed to respond to that? For all I know, you have basically said nothing at all.
I am merely describing *how* people do science, that's what philosophy of science is.
My view of "objective" is not merely something like "data" or "statistics", because even those data is open to interpretations.
So roughly speaking, what is considered "objective" are:
1. Something that is reproducible.
2. An explanation that can explain more than what the explanation was initially meant to solve, to the problem being asked.
So if you want to *create* data, then first it would need to fit those criteria. You'd need an explanation that can create those data using a scientific instrument of some kind, which would also require explanations.
The beauty of science really is coming up with new ideas to explain what is going on underneath the surface. We should be able to approach it any way your creativity allows. It also allows us to creatively criticize ideas. It is an evolving process without limits. There is much about socionics to be skeptical about, especially with its methods to identify the hierarchy of information elements within a person, and how those shape a person's behavior in real life. Much if it is interesting, but lacks predictive power. I say, use what works within the system and rebuild it. It is dead as is with its quadra theory and intertype relation theories. They just don't work in practice, and there is no reliable way to know who is correct about what. It's a goddam mess of a theory. Try to say more about the individual and less in terms of quadrant and dual relations.
Anyways, there is the non-testable aspects of science, during theory creation. We need an open mind during this phase. Then we test it and look at results. Then we modify theory if the data doesn't fit. You rework until the theory aligns with reality. When a theory fails to reproduce its prediction, it could be a bad experiment, or a bad theory. Sometimes you have to scrap everything and go back to the drawing board.
I told you to make a case for your claims. I'm not going to play the devil's advocate when you are incapable of making a sound argument. You have just outlined the pillars of knowledge. No one asked you to. You restricted and put limits on yourself. You proceeded to create a narrative out of no where. Like I said, most people probably won't notice and they may run with your idea. I don't. Either do this properly or do your due diligence before making these claims.
Doesn't make your ideas any less dumb.I am merely describing *how* people do science, that's what philosophy of science is.
Buddy, I don't care about your views. We operate differently. You don't look like someone who is fully developed yet, nor do you make an excellent conversationalist. If you want to bounce ideas off someone be more humble.My view of "objective" is not merely something like "data" or "statistics", because even those data is open to interpretations.
So roughly speaking, what is considered "objective" are:
1. Something that is reproducible.
2. An explanation that can explain more than what the explanation was initially meant to solve, to the problem being asked.
So if you want to *create* data, then first it would need to fit those criteria. You'd need an explanation that can create those data using a scientific instrument of some kind, which would also require explanations.
I'm surprised Singu marked your post as constructive. Did he have a change of heart? Or was I misunderstanding him? This is essentially what I'm saying.
I'm done anyway. This was a huge waste time for me, lol.
Does anyone actually take this "COOL AND MANLY" guy seriously? Jesus Christ, it indeed was a waste of time.
At the least, he’d be a much better bromance target than Bertrand was.
I make 160k annually. Plenty of people do take me seriously.
Singu is prob taking off his pants atm
You have no idea how condescending you come off as, do you? Whatever point you have to make is lost in your attitude.
"The level of maturity of this community, folks... "
"You might sheepishly admit that you didn't really take it seriously in the first place (pfft!), but you probably did until it was pointed out that the whole thing was actually a joke."
It doesn't matter how stupid you think your audience is, you won't get anywhere by disrespecting them. You want to take the high road, yet I'm having to explain the basics of human interaction to you. How pathetic.
Your attempts at putting down your opponent are cringeworthy to watch. To answer your question:
I take him seriously and so do a lot of people.Does anyone actually take this "COOL AND MANLY" guy seriously? Jesus Christ, it indeed was a waste of time.
In case you still don't get it, allow me to bulletpoint it so that you can try to understand.
1) Don't patronize your audience.
2) Don't talk down to them
3) Don't tell someone what they're thinking (Ohh I know you take Socionics seriously even though you say you don't. I know what you're thinking)
4) Don't try to exert your intellectual superiority.
5) Don't close yourself off to alternate points of view and expect other people to accept yours.
I suggest you now stop this and reevaluate your life priorities.
I thought @COOL AND MANLY was a woman?
I assumed they were cuz of the user name, and no gender displayed. My bad ^_^'
Lol no, what gave you that idea?
I’m not actually sure. I assumed it was ironic. Also something about the way he/she communicates.
Really?????!?!??????????????????
Are you actually a guy?!!!!
It's ironic. BnD called me "COOL AND MANLY" in a heated debate years ago, and I ran with it. It's seemed funny at the time. My old user name was "Ryan".
Yeah. How can you think otherwise? I would think it was obvious.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote