Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 27/02/2006, 06:13 PM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default Re: VI?

This is my American college student that has a fairly limited social and romantic life perspective:

Proving something to someone else is different from proving something to yourself- but the best way to prove something to yourself is to think of how you'd prove it to someone else. When you teach yourself this way you have to put everything you know in front of you. You have to accumulate and cluster like information before you and label it.

Lets say I am attempting to prove that only Danes have blue eyelashes(which is obviously not true, because if it were then my roommate would have to be a Dane and she is an Italian) In order for me to do this I have to make my definition clear so that everyone can understand it. The most important thing I have to do is define what a Dane is. If I fail to do this I have no argument. In this construct the label of "Dane" is someone born in Denmark. Anyone born in Denmark is a Dane, no question about it.

Now I can do one of two things-

I can say that anyone with blue eyelashes is a Dane- this is deductive reasoning but it is also not necessarily grounded in reality. Now that works in their minds and I'll bet alot of people have taken this route in the past, but it isn't real.

The other thing that I can do is get a huge sample of people from all over the world with blue eyelashes and find out where they were born. See, this route is multidimensional and the label retains a meaning independent of the eyelashes but correlated with it. This is inductive reasoning. If I prove my point I am also adding another dimension to the definition of what a Dane is.
So lets say I have proven that all of the people with blue eyelashes were born somewhere in Denmark and nowhere else- when I have done this I have developed concrete objective and irrefutable truth. When I lay the information out before someone it is plain as day- "of thousands of randomly sampled people with blue eyelashes from all over the world they were all born in Denmark." See, this is easy, you can test it. But nothing is really that easy unfortunately.
I just think that the goal is not to pick two things that look alike in your own mind based on your own isolated experiences and act as though you are certain. I think alot of people use their confidence in their being right over sound logical thinking when they attempt to prove a point. You can say all sorts of things about what type a person is but in the end its all speculation. In this sense socionics is not a science. Unless you can prove to me that each function can be measured objectively in some way I will not be convinced. When I type someone it is based upon my own personal definitions which are so inuitive that they can't be rationalized as they are. It isn't a deductive thing, its all a personal hunch. So what do you all think? How do you think you can objectively measure each function?
This means you have to find objective and tangible characteristics of functions and prove that their presence interacts with the objective traces of other functions in the environment in the manner assumed by socionics. The Dual Nature of Man described the functions in terms of states of energy, such as kinetic and potential energy and variations upon these things. I think that something along those lines is the best way to find objective proof of type in a sound logical way.

maybe I should have posted this somewhere else, but basically what I am saying is that some people have to be less confident in how right they are. Im all for inuitive speculation but I have trouble taking anyone seriously that doesn't assembl some sort of logical construct.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 27/02/2006, 06:19 PM
Csaky Csaky is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20
Default Re: VI?

Jane you are human and thus prone to mistake by default. I suggest that you quit this foolishness. You are making a fool of yourself and getting no where. Right now you look to me a sick fetus grasping at nothing in the air, you will inevitably grow tired and slip away. You can’t catch a firefly in a jar if there is not one to be had now can you? Jane, Darling ,with all respect you do not know who I am. You see only my face. And it’s funny what that can hide.

Admit defeat, it is the most human thing to do for yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 27/02/2006, 06:56 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: VI?

Quote:
Originally posted by Epic:
So lets say I have proven that all of the people with blue eyelashes were born somewhere in Denmark and nowhere else- when I have done this I have developed concrete objective and irrefutable truth.
There is always exception to the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 27/02/2006, 07:18 PM
Jane's Avatar
Jane Jane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 46
Default Re: VI?

Csaky,

I am defeated not because of flawed logic, but by my respect for you. I'm sorry. I'm a real idiot.

I'm ashamed of my self. I'm really not my self nowadays.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 27/02/2006, 07:18 PM
rmcnew's Avatar
rmcnew rmcnew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 111
Default Re: VI?

I can not say with assurity that Csaky is an INTp, but if you get to know her she does come acrost very much as a female logical type [albeit, so does Joy] in the way that they view certain thing.

But I could be wrong, except they both come acrost more like how most men would think at times; it is an unusual phenomenon for girls to behave that way.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 28/02/2006, 03:05 AM
Joy Joy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 69
Default Re: VI?

oh??????????????
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 28/02/2006, 05:24 AM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default Re: VI?

Quote:
Originally posted by SG:
yeah, i know, that's why I quoted it all like "of the thousands of people sampled, all of them" or whatever.

I'd like read your interpretation of this, however. Name a few exceptions to the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 28/02/2006, 05:26 PM
Nyx's Avatar
Nyx Nyx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Default Re: VI?

Quote:
Originally posted by SG:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jane:

What I was saying is if you see a black guy you know instantly he is a black. There is nothing to work out.
Is that so?

If you see a black guy, how can you be so sure that it is not a white guy wearing make up? You can be pretty sure about yourself though. Does it make sense?
Holy metaphor battle.

Just as a side note, "race" is at times not that easy to determine, either.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 28/02/2006, 11:44 PM
Joy Joy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 69
Default Re: VI?

*grumbles about male and female stereotypes*
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01/03/2006, 01:09 AM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default Re: VI?

@ Joy
Gosh, what is it with women and grumbling?

@Sergei
Oh them Platys is so cute! And who said all birds can fly?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01/03/2006, 08:16 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: VI?

Quote:
Originally posted by Epic:
Name a few exceptions to the rule.
Platypus!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM.


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