Socionics Forums

Socionics Forums (http://www.socionics.com/forums/index.php)
-   Ramble Mumble (http://www.socionics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   How do you interpret raw data? (http://www.socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=879)

IntjWurm 04/06/2008 01:33 PM

How do you interpret raw data?
 
Specifically, how do you document an ontology epistemologically?
:stick: :poke:

SG 04/06/2008 02:00 PM

Can't you have multiple choices?

IntjWurm 04/06/2008 02:35 PM

The More The Merrier
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SG (Post 10451)
Can't you have multiple choices?

In retrospect, that does seem like a good idea. You can change it if you want.

I was originally trying to determine the only most fundamental inclination.

SG 04/06/2008 04:03 PM

Nah, can't simply change it to multiple select option without redoing the whole thing over.

IntjWurm 04/06/2008 09:25 PM

The Truth Will Hunt You Down
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SG (Post 10462)
Nah, can't simply change it to multiple select option without redoing the whole thing over.

It's still good, just try to pick either the one that most characterizes your motives or the one that you think is most likely to be reliable for picking the truth out of thin air. Some of them (like 'Etiological') also imply the same rational basis as others (like 'Fatalist') but are more conditionally specific to the process.

shadowpuppet 07/06/2008 04:32 AM

This poll needs a bump too.

shadowpuppet 15/09/2008 01:24 AM

Specifically, how do you come to believe what you do?

Common methods of justifying novel premises epistemologically tend to favor one of two ideologies:
  • Fatalist - believes that future/past can be deduced from knowledge of present circumstances
  • Stochastic - likes to interpret according to high recurrence and correlativity
These are the two ideological premises from which the six poll methods (with the exception of inconclusive) can be derived: Ætiological, Nomothetic, and Solipsist arguments can be seen primarily as assertions of determinism, whereas Bayesian, Frequentist, and Pyrrhonian frames of reference always adhere to a statistical approach. There is also another undercurrent running in this poll: Frequentist and Ætiological justifications tend to employ an exclusively empirical underpinning; Nomothetic and Bayesian inferences depend heavily on a priori convictions (solipsism is also usually defended using the a priori because a posteriori attempts at verification are not widely credited; Pyrrhonism may seem like an analytic proposition at first but it actually only indoctrinates an inductive negation of premises, including the self-negation of any premise that might eventually support a rationalist Pyrrhonian criterion, and so is actually an [anti-] empirical enterprise - I have taken great pains to clarify this in the past click here). I have been contemplating the effects of metaphysical beliefs on the use of information elements in Model A. I also specifically believe that sensors are most likely to be empiricists by nature, even logical sensors. This is a very interesting quote from one of the architects of socionics that could be quite relevant:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor Gulenko
Dichotomies in Socionics and Philosophy

The close connection and parallelism of the basic socionic concepts - the theory of mental information metabolism - with a series of philosophical categories and systems is demonstrated. The use of quadruple socionic system of knowledge structuring, which covers all the information aspects, allows to expand and to complete many of these philosophical knowledge systems. The process of evolution of ideas in philosophy from antiquity up to the present days is considered from socionic positions.


shadowpuppet 23/09/2008 12:34 AM

I have done it! I have broken the link!

My model for epistemological inference corresponds exactly to Gulenko's 'Thought Styles'!

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12939

Cause-Effect (analytical/positive/deductive) => Ætiologic
Holographic (analytical/negative/inductive) => Nomothetic
Synergistic (synthetic/positive/inductive) => Bayesian
Dialectic (synthetic/negative/deductive) => Frequentist

Bayesian methods combine probabilities a priori:

Synergistic - The behavior of this flow cannot be predicted. At its basis lies [ispytatelnost] - advance to the purpose through the tests and the errors. It it is possible to in a sense compare with the experiment in the laboratory, which is the brain of man. Synergists do not confuse temporary failures and current errors. They undertake attempt after the attempt, until success finally comes to them.

Nomothetic taxonomies implement inductive categorization systems:

Holographic - Code name of this intellectual style - holographic, or [polnoopisatelnoe] thinking. Term originates from the Ancient Greek words of holos - entire, whole and grapho - I write. As the base of this designation served the capability of holographers for the very tight packing of information according to the method “similar in similar”.

Ætiology is the deductive analysis of cause and effect.

Cause-effect - Cause-effect intellect is known under the synonymous names formal logical, or deterministic thinking. In both cases its rigid nature is emphasized. Speech during this thinking takes shape with the aid of the bonds (unions of reason) “since”, “because”, “consequently”. Mental process itself consists in the construction of the chains of cause and effect. They reduce the explanation to the indication of generating reason.

Frequentism only accepts probabilities a posteriori:

Dialectic - The quantum- probabilistic picture of peace, manufactured by nonclassical physics, corresponds to dialectical thinking. According to this paradigm, there are no rigid laws, are only tendencies probabilities. Absolutizing dynamic pole, it entertained idea itself that “into one river it cannot be entered twice”, because to entering second time flow already other waters.

shadowpuppet 23/09/2008 03:19 AM

*thanks again to jxrtes for giving me the link

Vibration 25/09/2008 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowpuppet (Post 14973)
I have done it! I have broken the link!

My model for epistemological inference corresponds exactly to Gulenko's 'Thought Styles'!

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12939

Cause-Effect (analytical/positive/deductive) => Ætiologic
Holographic (analytical/negative/inductive) => Nomothetic
Synergistic (synthetic/positive/inductive) => Bayesian
Dialectic (synthetic/negative/deductive) => Frequentist

Bayesian methods combine probabilities a priori:

Synergistic - The behavior of this flow cannot be predicted. At its basis lies [ispytatelnost] - advance to the purpose through the tests and the errors. It it is possible to in a sense compare with the experiment in the laboratory, which is the brain of man. Synergists do not confuse temporary failures and current errors. They undertake attempt after the attempt, until success finally comes to them.

Nomothetic taxonomies implement inductive categorization systems:

Holographic - Code name of this intellectual style - holographic, or [polnoopisatelnoe] thinking. Term originates from the Ancient Greek words of holos - entire, whole and grapho - I write. As the base of this designation served the capability of holographers for the very tight packing of information according to the method “similar in similar”.

Ætiology is the deductive analysis of cause and effect.

Cause-effect - Cause-effect intellect is known under the synonymous names formal logical, or deterministic thinking. In both cases its rigid nature is emphasized. Speech during this thinking takes shape with the aid of the bonds (unions of reason) “since”, “because”, “consequently”. Mental process itself consists in the construction of the chains of cause and effect. They reduce the explanation to the indication of generating reason.

Frequentism only accepts probabilities a posteriori:

Dialectic - The quantum- probabilistic picture of peace, manufactured by nonclassical physics, corresponds to dialectical thinking. According to this paradigm, there are no rigid laws, are only tendencies probabilities. Absolutizing dynamic pole, it entertained idea itself that “into one river it cannot be entered twice”, because to entering second time flow already other waters.

Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.

shadowpuppet 26/09/2008 01:23 AM

Update:

Correlation of Inferential Patterns to Rings of Supervision

ENTphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ISTjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ESFphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > INFjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif >
Ætiological study is deductive because it is supported with the logical relation of pre-existing counterfactual claims. It is analytic because the claims are defined a priori and assessed mechanically allowing no room for ambiguity and thus it cannot be negated. The application may involve the induction of empirical conditions relevant to the premises and conclusion, but the relation itself is still deduced and does not require induction. It is positivist because it can be formulated a priori, it does not need working examples to support the validity of cause and effect.

INTjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ENFphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ISFjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ESTphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif >
Nomothetic classification is inductive because it represents the induction of empirical discoveries into definitive categories. It is analytic because the classes are separated using arbitrarily distinguishable threshholds that cannot be refuted in themselves. Applications require inductions of empirical specimens to support most significant distinctions between classes, however deductive analysis is not necessary as the premises of distinction will suffice for categorization. It is negativist because it cannot be formulated a priori, it needs classified examples to have any relevance as a system of order.

ISFphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ENFjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > INTphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ESTjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif >
Frequency probability is deductive because it applies to unambiguous syllogistic relations between possibilities that are exactly defined. It is synthetic because it predicts synthetic correlations that may or may not be disproved a posteriori. It is negativist because it cannot be formulated a priori, only a posteriori probabilities are accepted.

ESFjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ISTphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > ENTjhttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif > INFphttp://www.socionics.com/forums/../r...aph/q-mark.gif >
Bayesian inference is inductive because it refers to the degree of belief in a subjectively defined possibility that is inducted rather than axiomized. It is synthetic because it predicts synthetic correlations that may or may not be disproved a posteriori. It is positivist because stochastic predictions can be made with regard to conditions that only exist a priori.

shadowpuppet 26/09/2008 01:21 PM

*thanks to RSV3 for clarifying induction and deduction in the thought patterns of INTp and INTj

shadowpuppet 01/10/2008 04:12 PM

Analysis
(Static)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
Ji - Internalized Tendencies
Pe - Exclusive Conceptualization
Specified Determinism decided
by Relation of Unchanging Dimensions

Synthesis
(Dynamic)
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Je - Externalized Circumstances
Pi - Inclusive Representation
Holistic Stochasticism decided
by Changing of Unrelated Measurements

Deduction
(Process)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
Autocratic Rationals - Top-Down Judgment
Democratic Irrationals - Bottom-Up Perception
N>T>S - A Priori defines Relevance
S>F>N - A Posteriori defines Significance

Induction
(Result)
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Democratic Rationals - Bottom-Up Judgment
Autocratic Irrationals - Top-Down Perception
S>T>N - A Posteriori defines Relevance
N>F>S - A Priori defines Significance

Reliabilism
(Optimist)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Introverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Top
Extroverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Bottom
Information Metabolism is Augmented by Reactants

Skepticism
(Pessimist)
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
Extroverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Bottom
Introverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Top
Information Metabolism is Diminished by Products

ILE/SEE (Æ)
Deterministic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception
Static: Positivist: Extroverted: Democratic: Process

LII/ESI (N)
Deterministic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment
Static: Negativist: Introverted: Democratic: Result

SEI/ILI (F)
Probabilistic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception
Dynamic: Negativist: Introverted: Democratic: Process

ESE/LIE (B)
Probabilistic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment
Dynamic: Positivist: Extroverted: Democratic: Result

LSI/EII (Æ)
Deterministic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Judgment
Static: Positivist: Introverted: Autocratic: Process

SLE/IEE (N)
Deterministic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Perception
Static: Negativist: Extroverted: Autocratic: Result

EIE/LSE (F)
Probabilistic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Judgment
Dynamic: Negativist: Extroverted: Autocratic: Process

IEI/SLI (B)
Probabilistic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Perception
Dynamic: Positivist: Introverted: Autocratic: Result

Cyclops 02/10/2008 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowpuppet (Post 15126)
Analysis
(Static)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
Ji - Internalized Tendencies
Pe - Exclusive Conceptualization
Specified Determinism decided
by Relation of Unchanging Dimensions

Synthesis
(Dynamic)
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Je - Externalized Circumstances
Pi - Inclusive Representation
Holistic Stochasticism decided
by Changing of Unrelated Measurements

Deduction
(Process)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
Autocratic Rationals - Top-Down Judgment
Democratic Irrationals - Bottom-Up Perception
N>T>S - A Priori defines Relevance
S>F>N - A Posteriori defines Significance

Induction
(Result)
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Democratic Rationals - Bottom-Up Judgment
Autocratic Irrationals - Top-Down Perception
S>T>N - A Posteriori defines Relevance
N>F>S - A Priori defines Significance

Reliabilism
(Optimist)
Æ: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
Introverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Top
Extroverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Bottom
Information Metabolism is Augmented by Reactants

Skepticism
(Pessimist)
N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
Extroverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Bottom
Introverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Top
Information Metabolism is Diminished by Products

ILE/SEE (Æ)
Deterministic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception
Static: Positivist: Extroverted: Democratic: Process

LII/ESI (N)
Deterministic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment
Static: Negativist: Introverted: Democratic: Result

SEI/ILI (F)
Probabilistic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception
Dynamic: Negativist: Introverted: Democratic: Process

ESE/LIE (B)
Probabilistic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment
Dynamic: Positivist: Extroverted: Democratic: Result

LSI/EII (Æ)
Deterministic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Judgment
Static: Positivist: Introverted: Autocratic: Process

SLE/IEE (N)
Deterministic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Perception
Static: Negativist: Extroverted: Autocratic: Result

EIE/LSE (F)
Probabilistic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Judgment
Dynamic: Negativist: Extroverted: Autocratic: Process

IEI/SLI (B)
Probabilistic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Perception
Dynamic: Positivist: Introverted: Autocratic: Result

Is this supposed to make sense to anyone but yourself?

Why would an ISTj do this?

shadowpuppet 02/10/2008 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclops (Post 15146)
Is this supposed to make sense to anyone but yourself?

Why would an ISTj do this?

Why would an ISTj care about what you think an ISTj should do? Is there not enough :Sis:/:Tes: for you?

This is not a typing discussion so if you plan to contest mine then please do it in an appropriate thread.

Cyclops 02/10/2008 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowpuppet (Post 15158)
Why would an ISTj care about what you think an ISTj should do? Is there not enough :Sis:/:Tes: for you?

This is not a typing discussion so if you plan to contest mine then please do it in an appropriate thread.

Did I question you're type here? No. I was asking why an ISTj would do this.

shadowpuppet 02/10/2008 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclops (Post 15168)
Did I question you're type here? No. I was asking why an ISTj would do this.

Please do not post any more type related issues or anything else that does not directly correlate to the epistemological underpinnings of socionics. The type of the author is certainly not relevant to this talk.

Cyclops 02/10/2008 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowpuppet (Post 15170)
Please do not post any more type related issues or anything else that does not directly correlate to the epistemological underpinnings of socionics. The type of the author is certainly not relevant to this talk.

Do you not listen to me? I said I wasn't questioning your type. I repeat.. I am asking why an ISTj would do this. And in regards to your epistemological underpinnings, I've already asked you what it's all about. Who knows what you want.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM