# Proper sources and proper study of Socionics



## bmxyszss (Nov 19, 2016)

Something @Entropic posted (the formatting is mine):



Entropic said:


> Actually, the main reason why scoionics is superior is because it's structurally superior; it's able to delineate between what is what and offers clearer descriptions overall as a result. It is much more difficult to confuse what Ne truly is in socionics and mistype based on that *(assuming you are read proper sources and studying it properly as opposed to simply learning from the online communities)* than it is in the MBTI, because the MBTI is never able to offer clear descriptions of the functions and how they work.


The text in bold stuck with me. I'd like to ask the opinion on the community regarding that: what would be the proper sources and way of learning about Socionics?


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Wikisocion is one of the more credible sources on Socionics information.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I think a better question is, "Why should I believe Socionics?" Not what is the best way to swallow it.

It's like asking, "what is the best way to learn about Jesus?" There is a question before that. Why?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think a better question is, "Why should I believe Socionics?" Not what is the best way to swallow it.
> 
> It's like asking, "what is the best way to learn about Jesus?" There is a question before that. Why?


Because why not.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> Because why not.



Because despite all the handwaving or claiming of sources it all comes down to anecdotes. Like, "My SLI brother in law does this." or "I am intuitive and this how intuitives think." It is anti intellectual for starters.

Otherwise I want to a see source for all claims instead of anecdotes. Because anecdotes rule in this forum. The homespun forum vernacular.

and it's rich to quote that poster in an OP as nobody has come up with more forum garbage than him.

"I know I am intuitive. It is obvious." lol. one of his better arguments.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because despite all the handwaving or claiming of sources it all comes down to anecdotes. Like, "My SLI brother in law does this." or "I am intuitive and this how intuitives think." It is anti intellectual for starters.
> 
> Otherwise I want to a see source for all claims instead of anecdotes. Because anecdotes rule in this forum. The homespun forum vernacular.


At least it gets people talking and perhaps try to figure things out. On their own or with others. If only people remained critical about it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> At least it gets people talking and perhaps try to figure things out. On their own or with others. If only people remained critical about it.


It is like delivering a baby backwards. Or something worse. 

That is precisely the problem on this forum. That people like him think they are being objective on all things. The delusion. I know I am subjective.

Anyone who thinks they are being objective and by the book in this subject is fucking fooling themselves.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

The original comment also said that it was easier to type in socionics also because everything is less vague. I maintain my statement of that not saying much, regardless of how well informed the poster thinks he is, heh.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is like delivering a baby backwards. Or something worse.
> 
> That is precisely the problem on this forum. That people like him think they are being objective on all things. The delusion. I know I am subjective.
> 
> Anyone who thinks they are being objective and by the book in this subject is fucking fooling themselves.


This EIE pseudo-scientific typology self-typing is like delivering a baby backwards.

Hi, there, hypocrisy.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sylas said:


> This EIE pseudo-scientific typology self-typing is like delivering a baby backwards.
> 
> Hi, there, hypocrisy.


Yes, is there a rebuttal somewhere in that mess?

lol. 

Ya, I'm a hypocrite. Along with many other things. Hurts so bad. I can barely walk. Nothing but pain from the shame lol. Trying to shame me. Please.

This stuff honestly cracks me up. Like to bring me in front of the class and spank me. lol. Shame me. Yes, put that spotlight on me, it burns so bad.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, is there a rebuttal somewhere in that mess?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Ya, I'm a hypocrite. Along with many other things. Hurts so bad. I can barely walk. Nothing but pain from the shame lol. Trying to shame me. Please.


You have stated nothing to validate your engagement, indoctrination, and self-typing in this russkie pseudo-science.

It turns out that you don't have anything to say for yourself.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sylas said:


> You have stated nothing to validate your engagement, indoctrination, and self-typing in this russkie pseudo-science.
> 
> It turns out that you don't have anything to say for yourself.


I don't need to validate anything. I have nothing to defend. I claim nothing. Socionics claims many things. 

I feel like I am on a Bigfoot forum or something where everybody believes in this shit and cannot be reached.

I have said before, post this stuff on the James Randi forums. Let those guys look at it. See if you can counter their criticism.

That shit would crack me up. About 100 people would jump on you so fast and you would have nothing.

I am serious. Start a thread on that forum. It is a skeptics forum. Defend your claims there.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't need to validate anything. I have nothing to defend. I claim nothing. Socionics claims many things.
> 
> *I feel like I am on a Bigfoot forum or something where everybody believes in this shit and cannot be reached.*
> 
> ...


How have you arrived at your EIE self-typing? If you truly feel this shit cannot be reached, then how have you reached it?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sylas said:


> How have you arrived at your EIE self-typing? If you truly feel this shit cannot be reached, then how have you reached it?



lol. are you a record player? 

same reason I use that photo. it is pretend honey. you really like that photo huh


oh, and why did I accept this type? Because a beautiful woman told me I was this type. Who I am to argue with a beautiful woman?


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> lol. are you a record player?
> 
> same reason I use that photo. it is pretend honey. you really like that photo huh


Nice cop-out answer. Every time you can't provide any proof just resort to actorship and deceit -- and hope it goes unnoticed.

You could not prove and justify your EIE self-typing and your pseudo-scientific engagements on this forum so far. 

What you were asked for is some substantiative answers instead of this imbecility.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sylas said:


> Nice cop-out answer. Every time you can't provide any proof just resort to this -- and hope it goes unnoticed.
> 
> You cannot prove and justify your EIE self-typing and your pseudo-scientific engagements on this forum so far. What I'm looking for is some substantiative answers instead of this imbicility.



lol. I like you. You attack people like I would. 

But seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see extraordinary claims with no evidence. We can flirt all night but nothing will change that.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> lol. I like you. You attack people like I would.


Well you're trying to smooth things out now, since you were asked a number of questions to which you had no response.

Ethical manipulation at it's finest.

I'd like you back--if, and that's a big IF, you had any answers to the questions I posed instead of trying to deflect to to the "I care too much about my security that I will (temporarily) play a puppy rolling on his back side." -- This doesn't warrant much respect.



FearAndTrembling said:


> But seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see extraordinary claims with no evidence. We can flirt all night but nothing will change that.


What evidence do you have for your EIE typing? 

Prove that your russkie pseudoscience engagement has any basis.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sylas said:


> Well you're trying to smooth things out now, since you were asked a number of questions to which you had no response.
> 
> Ethical manipulation at it's finest.
> 
> ...


I can make it smooth or rough. lol. I can back down or I can brawl. Whatever you got, I can take it. Either way. Either way. lol at me being a puppy. I love that vision. Arguing is like flirting to me. All you are communicating is your desire for me. I know I am much more interesting than your husband. 







I can do it you gently
I can do it with an animal's grace
I can do it with precision
I can do it with gormet taste
But either way
Either (way), either way
I want to kill you
I want to blow you...
Away
I can do it to your mind
I can do it to your face
I can do it with integrity
I can do it with disgrace


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

All - please consider this a thread warning to remain on topic. Feel free to chat casually, but any further disruptions to normal discussion will be handled in accordance with forum rules.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

No, but seriously, I don't think we have, or I have never come across to (and I did ask about it to a socionics group) original, complete writings of Augusta. Sure, there are articles translated and new work by Gulenko's team but I think it is greatly lacking a neat, organized source (which MBTI is all about - despite having flaws and being overly politically correct and just not good enough, it is a good attempt at standardization and statistics). I think the socionics fans are happy enough because the theory is much formulated so they like it that they don't need to read on and on personal opinions or pep talk that comes with MBTI.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because despite all the handwaving or claiming of sources it all comes down to anecdotes. Like, "My SLI brother in law does this." or "I am intuitive and this how intuitives think." It is anti intellectual for starters.
> 
> Otherwise I want to a see source for all claims instead of anecdotes. Because anecdotes rule in this forum. The homespun forum vernacular.
> 
> ...


Forums are like this, anecdotal and all that. You can go and read actual Socionics studies (Russian original for the most part...) - you may criticize their methods or something but it's not quite the same as random forum discussions. 

I don't really see why get upset over how forums are. This isn't a scientific research community and wasn't meant to be. If you look for that sort of stuff, don't come here for that. Set the expectations in a sensible way.


----------



## bmxyszss (Nov 19, 2016)

This is interesting. Lately I've been perusing Socionics forums, and I've noticed a tendency their users seem to have to derail from the discussed topics into infighting out of mutual accusations (are real or imagined). From 20 replies to this thread, 1 was a direct attempt of answering my question, then 1 questioning the motivation for the question, then a lot of focusing on minor details of seemingly anything at reach, until some jaguar shaman fellow called it enough, and finally @Myst91's indirect answer. Not that the debate wasn't anthropologically interesting, but how odd that different forums dedicated to the socionics theories or pseudo-scientific rambling—or whatever it is you guys ever decided it is—don't appear to be different, separated places in (the virtual) space, but rather discrete manifestations of the same warring archetypes stretched in time. Anyway, thank you.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

bmxyszss said:


> This is interesting. Lately I've been perusing Socionics forums, and I've noticed a tendency their users seem to have to derail from the discussed topics into infighting out of mutual accusations (are real or imagined). From 20 replies to this thread, 1 was a direct attempt of answering my question, then 1 questioning the motivation for the question, then a lot of focusing on minor details of seemingly anything at reach, until some jaguar shaman fellow called it enough, and finally @Myst91's indirect answer. Not that the debate wasn't anthropologically interesting, but how odd that different forums dedicated to the socionics theories or pseudo-scientific rambling—or whatever it is you guys ever decided it is—don't appear to be different, separated places in (the virtual) space, but rather discrete manifestations of the same warring archetypes stretched in time. Anyway, thank you.


Interesting observation, too. 

Btw, other than wikisocion (there should be pages on there pointing to other sources, Russian included), the16types.info articles section is good too, it also includes links as sources for the article translations - these are all Russian too. 
This (Russian language again) socionics school has an English version - School of System Socionics 
There was also an English version for SOCIONICS: Personality Types and Relationships but seems it's not updated much anymore.

Basically there are several schools dealing with things beyond the basic theory. Publications of studies (experimental studies included) etc... but again most of it is not translated. The translations are mostly available on the sites mentioned above and a few other sites here and there.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

bmxyszss said:


> This is interesting. Lately I've been perusing Socionics forums, and I've noticed a tendency their users seem to have to derail from the discussed topics into infighting out of mutual accusations (are real or imagined). From 20 replies to this thread, 1 was a direct attempt of answering my question, then 1 questioning the motivation for the question, then a lot of focusing on minor details of seemingly anything at reach, until some jaguar shaman fellow called it enough, and finally @Myst91's indirect answer. Not that the debate wasn't anthropologically interesting, but how odd that different forums dedicated to the socionics theories or pseudo-scientific rambling—or whatever it is you guys ever decided it is—don't appear to be different, separated places in (the virtual) space, but rather discrete manifestations of the same warring archetypes stretched in time. Anyway, thank you.


More "odd" that you're legitimately surprised by something like this. You only have to know that these forums have human occupants to figure out that this would happen, especially given the "sort" of person who would willingly join a forum like this in the first place.

Regarding your question, I'd not taken it as serious. Plainly you're going to get conflicting views on what is "proper" and from there, the "proper" way to interpret it. It's the sort of question I asked people on another forum, fully knowing that they wouldn't be able to adequately answer. Your only option in this case is to research and decide for yourself.


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

Whatever is read in the original, very well structured and detailed, is simplified by the readers and thrown into online communities. What do you expect? lol

Criticizing the nature of it is dumb. It's cool if you understand it, but you don't have to highlight that and kind of use it as a reason why for example nobody is as good, as you at socionics or whatever.

And obviously those theories are made up, no evidence that supports their existence. But that shit can lead you into discussions that could certainly give you benefit. In my case, I don't feel like it's like that anymore. That's why I quit it.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think a better question is, "Why should I believe Socionics?"


For someone who don't believe in socionics you sure spend a lot of time talking about it.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ya, I'm a hypocrite. Along with many other things. Hurts so bad. I can barely walk.


awww!


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Forums are like this, anecdotal and all that. You can go and read actual Socionics studies (Russian original for the most part...) - you may criticize their methods or something but it's not quite the same as random forum discussions.
> 
> I don't really see why get upset over how forums are. This isn't a scientific research community and wasn't meant to be. If you look for that sort of stuff, don't come here for that. Set the expectations in a sensible way.


So, nobody should come onto this forum expecting any form of truth. Thank you. Exactly what I said.


----------



## bmxyszss (Nov 19, 2016)

@myst91, thank you very much. Are there some Russian books you can indicate?

@Shiver: Point taken. Regarding the question, I was planing to sift through the different views. Can you tell me what you particularly would consider to be "proper" (you can go with "useful") sources for studying Socionics?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Shiver said:


> The original comment also said that it was easier to type in socionics also because everything is less vague. I maintain my statement of that not saying much, regardless of how well informed the poster thinks he is, heh.


And I did give you a clear explanation why: everything is more structured and better delineated. That does of course not mean that socionics is perfect but is it better when compared to say, the MBTI? Yes, it is. Especially in this regard.

It also makes the system more heavy-handed and more difficult to digest, but that's an aside. And no, I don't mean general type descriptions because I think they are bad regardless of what system we're talking about (and type descriptions are not structural entities, either, mind, though they can be laid out in a way that caters to the intrinsic structure of the system).


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

bmxyszss said:


> until some jaguar shaman fellow called it enough


This is just about the best description of a mod intervention I've ever seen - thank you for that!

As for sources, I think really it's good to read a lot of them, then use your own judgement on whether or not they're good (usually you can tell by how it's written, things like obvious stereotyping, how applicable they actually are, as well as some areas that sound too dated). You can always ask for clarification too.
@Lord Fenix Wulfheart did a great post a while back here, where he provided a huge range of sources for different aspects of Socionics.


----------



## bmxyszss (Nov 19, 2016)

Thank you very much, @owlet!


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Entropic said:


> And I did give you a clear explanation why: everything is more structured and better delineated. That does of course not mean that socionics is perfect but is it better when compared to say, the MBTI? Yes, it is. Especially in this regard.


If it doesn't actually work in practice, "better" is a fart in the wind. That was _my_ point.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shiver said:


> If it doesn't actually work in practice, "better" is a fart in the wind. That was _my_ point.


Yeah, I would like to know the metric used where one judges how Socionics descriptions are not valuable too. How does one arrive at that conclusion. Never hear any reasoning. Ever. 

It is circular logic that cannot be defended. We have asked for evidence in various threads and got none. We got this:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Shiver said:


> If it doesn't actually work in practice, "better" is a fart in the wind. That was _my_ point.


Doesn't work how so?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

bmxyszss said:


> The text in bold stuck with me. I'd like to ask the opinion on the community regarding that: what would be the proper sources and way of learning about Socionics?


When I'm confused about something (which happens a lot in typology) I like to go into the source, the origin and see which things were said first and which ones were added later and try to sort out what is the original theory and what is made up BS about people who mixed the original description with some other confabulation. Then, I will decide if I agree or not and why. Of course, if something that was added later has some sort of verifiable basis to it, I'll consider it, but it usually does not.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


>


said no one ever


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Entropic said:


> Doesn't work how so?


I'm not interested in this inversion trick. Prove that it _does_.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Shiver said:


> I'm not interested in this inversion trick. Prove that it _does_.


I'm confused. @Entropic said this:


> And I did give you a clear explanation why: everything is more structured and better delineated. That does of course not mean that socionics is perfect but is it better when compared to say, the MBTI? Yes, it is. Especially in this regard.


Which implies that because it comes from a more sound structure, it's going to work better in terms of application. If you have a weak structure to begin with, the application side of things is going to be extremely troublesome and inaccurate.

This isn't the place to be discussing this in the first place though. The topic is just which sources are best, not if Socionics is a good system to begin with. Why not take it to PM?


----------



## bmxyszss (Nov 19, 2016)

@Felipe, thank you for addressing the "how" in my question with a sound methodology.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

owlet said:


> I'm confused. @*Entropic* said this:
> 
> Which implies that because it comes from a more sound structure, it's going to work better in terms of application. If you have a weak structure to begin with, the application side of things is going to be extremely troublesome and inaccurate.
> 
> This isn't the place to be discussing this in the first place though. The topic is just which sources are best, not if Socionics is a good system to begin with. Why not take it to PM?


How is Socionics a strong or sound structure? On what basis? What can it withstand? 

I like how you address the topic but then say other people should stop talking about it. Like the conversation should end with your post. Shushing people up again.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

owlet said:


> I'm confused. @Entropic said this:
> 
> *quote*
> 
> Which implies that because it comes from a more sound structure, it's going to work better in terms of application. If you have a weak structure to begin with, the application side of things is going to be extremely troublesome and inaccurate.


Right, assuming it works at all. I'm not wholly convinced that it does, in practice.



> This isn't the place to be discussing this in the first place though. The topic is just which sources are best, not if Socionics is a good system to begin with. Why not take it to PM?


Sure. I do think that even if you get a general consensus as to what sources you ought to read that you'll find most people don't wholly agree on interpretation, however. I'd advise just to read _everything_ you can find and draw your own conclusions. You'll be on the same footing as everyone else, either way.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Shiver said:


> I'm not interested in this inversion trick. Prove that it _does_.


Shrug. I explained why I think it's superior. It's difficult to provide evidence why I think it works if you refuse to explain where your issue lies. How should it work? I don't see the system like work/not work, but I think it tries to explain differences between people and why they are different. I think it does a decent job at that. So whether someone thinks it works or not depends on what you are trying to get out of it and since you refuse to explain there's nothing to gain here.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Forums are like this, anecdotal and all that. You can go and read actual Socionics studies (Russian original for the most part...) - you may criticize their methods or something but it's not quite the same as random forum discussions.
> 
> I don't really see why get upset over how forums are. This isn't a scientific research community and wasn't meant to be. If you look for that sort of stuff, don't come here for that. Set the expectations in a sensible way.


An astute observation and reasonable response. +1


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> How is Socionics a strong or sound structure? On what basis? What can it withstand?
> 
> I like how you address the topic but then say other people should stop talking about it. Like the conversation should end with your post. Shushing people up again.


All right, you obviously want to fight. Need someone to punch you?

*punches weakly*

Oh, right, I'm not good at that, according to Socionics. Guess I better not even try then, right?

Oh, wait, that'd be a pretty big error wouldn't it? That'd be letting someone else's work define who and what I am and what I am capable of.

Maybe, just maybe, we should all use the system as a way to observe what may or may not be true about reality in an effort to gain our own knowledge. If it is about observation, about testing, about results and interpretations, then we don't make the mistake of believing it is The Raw, Hard Truth Of All Things. When really, it is more like the general idea of how we are and why, and gets at some really interesting questions to ask. It's a tool to use for a guideline, not The Answer. 

/sarcastic rant

Nah, but seriously, some people take this shit too seriously. That's one thing I can't say about FearAndTrembling. He doesn't take this shit too seriously. It isn't the Reason He Exists, you know? You're cool in my book, FaT.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Sylas said:


> You have stated nothing to validate your engagement, indoctrination, and self-typing in this russkie pseudo-science.
> 
> It turns out that you don't have anything to say for yourself.



Lithuanian. Not Russkie. :tongue:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> All right, you obviously want to fight. Need someone to punch you?
> 
> *punches weakly*
> 
> ...



Myst said the girl in this cartoon is me. lol. It's funny cuz it is true:


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

bmxyszss said:


> @myst91, thank you very much. Are there some Russian books you can indicate?


No titles off the top of my head; the sites I linked to should point to quite some of them.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Myst said the girl in this cartoon is me. lol. It's funny cuz it is true:


I can see it. XD


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Entropic said:


> Shrug. I explained why I think it's superior. It's difficult to provide evidence why I think it works if you refuse to explain where your issue lies. How should it work? I don't see the system like work/not work, but I think it tries to explain differences between people and why they are different. I think it does a decent job at that. So whether someone thinks it works or not depends on what you are trying to get out of it and since you refuse to explain there's nothing to gain here.


Since a number of tryhards liked the post but didn't have anything useful to add in words of their own, I said PROVE that it works. My opinion is not necessary for such a proof and in this case would only serve as a target for you to attack as a diversion from providing required evidence. The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim, not on whatever you're trying to bait me into saying.

Something working subjectively and doing a "decent job" for some vague purpose doesn't really say much of anything, especially supported by "I think". Moreover if it's entirely based on what someone is trying to get out of it, how can your claim of "superior" be objectively true?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Shiver said:


> Since a number of tryhards liked the post but didn't have anything useful to add in words of their own, I said PROVE that it works. My opinion is not necessary for such a proof and in this case would only serve as a target for you to attack as a diversion from providing required evidence. The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim, not on whatever you're trying to bait me into saying.
> 
> Something working subjectively and doing a "decent job" for some vague purpose doesn't really say much of anything, especially supported by "I think". Moreover if it's entirely based on what someone is trying to get out of it, how can your claim of "superior" be objectively true?


I'm sorry, but you're honestly the one sounding like a tryhard by suggesting it to be something more than it's not, so I don't take kindly to the implication that you seem to think I am just because I cannot seemingly offer you what it is you want when you additionally refuse to explain what it is what you actually want. I mean, really, to me this system is just one of many systems that try to explain some aspects of human nature and personality. It's kinda fun but I don't take it that seriously; it's definitely not supposed to be a theory of everything. A word of advice: perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider _why_ people thanked the post but they didn't thank yours. There's a very valid reason behind that. 

So again, whether you think it works or not depends on what you think it should be doing which is clearly different from what I think it should be doing. So really, you're conflict-seeking attitude isn't cool. Either you play on the terms laid out to you or you don't but if you don't don't expect your demands to be catered to because they won't; if you want an explanation you need to first explain what kind of explanation it is that you want. I'm fairly good at reading into things but I'm not a mind reader where I can magically tell what answer you seek without you even first telling me where you want me to look. 

So yeah, you can keep tell me to "prove" it, but really, what am I supposed to prove? That I can use socionics to build a space rocket? That's certainly one way socionics doesn't work at doing. If you are so incapable of telling people of your intents, then don't expect them to be met. It's that simple. It's not my issue at the end of the day but it's yours and that's my final post on the matter.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Shiver said:


> Since a number of tryhards liked the post but didn't have anything useful to add in words of their own, I said PROVE that it works. My opinion is not necessary for such a proof and in this case would only serve as a target for you to attack as a diversion from providing required evidence. The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim, not on whatever you're trying to bait me into saying.
> 
> Something working subjectively and doing a "decent job" for some vague purpose doesn't really say much of anything, especially supported by "I think". Moreover if it's entirely based on what someone is trying to get out of it, how can your claim of "superior" be objectively true?


He asked you to specify what counts to you as "working". Set the conditions and let's see. 

Btw. He already said, it works for showing certain differences between people. I would agree with him on that.


PS: Note for future interactions, if you try to turn the direction to my (or anyone else's) person, I'll just report that instead of responding to such things. I really am not interested in getting into that again. I am ok with discussing impersonal topics otherwise, such as this one about whether something works in Socionics or not.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Entropic said:


> I'm sorry, but you're honestly the one sounding like a tryhard by suggesting it to be something more than it's not, so I don't take kindly to the implication that you seem to think I am just because I cannot seemingly offer you what it is you want when you additionally refuse to explain what it is what you actually want.


Hilariously, you already gave a statement for something you believe the system works for...yet refuse to offer any sort of evidence that it truly works for the purpose that you said? Moreover your original comment claims that it is superior to MBTI and I offered a valid criticism of that (both in reference to your holding it to a subjective standard and that the comparison isn't meaningful if neither are better than a third option). I didn't see you address that at all.



> I mean, really, to me this system is just one of many systems that try to explain some aspects of human nature and personality. It's kinda fun but I don't take it that seriously; it's definitely not supposed to be a theory of everything.


Oh, so now you fall back on the idea that you don't take it seriously. Typical.



> A word of advice: perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider _why_ people thanked the post but they didn't thank yours. There's a very valid reason behind that.


_Ad populum_, is it? I think you'll find that I won't fall for some pathetic argumentative tactics.



> So again, whether you think it works or not depends on what you think it should be doing which is clearly different from what I think it should be doing. So really, you're conflict-seeking attitude isn't cool.


If you don't want someone calling you out on your pretentious attitude, maybe give your posts a different "tone" and stop stating certain things as fact when they're ultimately just your opinion.



> Either you play on the terms laid out to you or you don't but if you don't don't expect your demands to be catered to because they won't;


Funny - I'm under no obligation to follow _your_ terms when the burden of proof lies with you.



> if you want an explanation you need to first explain what kind of explanation it is that you want. I'm fairly good at reading into things but I'm not a mind reader where I can magically tell what answer you seek without you even first telling me where you want me to look.
> 
> So yeah, you can keep tell me to "prove" it, but really, what am I supposed to prove? That I can use socionics to build a space rocket? That's certainly one way socionics doesn't work at doing. If you are so incapable of telling people of your intents, then don't expect them to be met. It's that simple.


You stated rather clearly that socionics is superior to MBTI and at the time did not clarify that it was by a subjective measure. How is it supposed to be superior to me or anyone else, objectively, when I don't find either system fully compelling?



> It's not my issue at the end of the day but it's yours and that's my final post on the matter.


lol, we'll see.



myst91 said:


> He asked you to specify what counts to you as "working". Set the conditions and let's see.
> 
> Btw. He already said, it works for showing certain differences between people. I would agree with him on that.


It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not - that in itself doesn't prove squat towards this claim. "Certain differences" is laughably vague on its own, just like nearly every application of either of these theories. What end does either offer me for "showing certain differences between people" that I could not have arrived at without engaging in typology in the first place? It's just trying to shove things in boxes and not once have I seen people apply either system to make useful predictions.



> PS: Note for future interactions, if you try to turn the direction to my (or anyone else's) person, I'll just report that instead of responding to such things. I really am not interested in getting into that again. I am ok with discussing impersonal topics otherwise, such as this one about whether something works in Socionics or not.


So to this end you choose to make a personal _threat_ to report me - how are you not a colossal hypocrite here? And what part of "I don't want to interact with you" is difficult for you to understand? If you want to do something fucking useful, go provide something in my typing thread, rather than try to piggyback onto another user's issue with me.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Shiver said:


> (the comparison isn't meaningful if neither are better than a third option).


Is there a third option?




> You stated rather clearly that socionics is superior to MBTI and at the time did not clarify that it was by a subjective measure. How is it supposed to be superior to me or anyone else, objectively, when I don't find either system fully compelling?


No model is "fully compelling" or perfect ever. Yet, models can still be compared. 




> It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not - that in itself doesn't prove squat towards this claim.


You misunderstood the point of what I wrote there about agreeing with him - the point was simply that I think it works for that. Happens to be the same opinion as what he says, that part had no significance and I never claimed it did.




> "Certain differences" is laughably vague on its own, just like nearly every application of either of these theories. What end does either offer me for "showing certain differences between people" that I could not have arrived at without engaging in typology in the first place? It's just trying to shove things in boxes and not once have I seen people apply either system to make useful predictions.


It definitely offered me a lot on differences between people that I did not see before engaging in typology. If you can see all of them without these theories then I'm not sure what you want to get out of them here.

Specifically, I found things in Jung's theory and in Socionics that are not dealt with in other psychological theories and that I found valid and useful. I can elaborate on this - if there is genuine interest in that.

I do not expect these systems to make specific predictions on their own. Other systems are needed, along with other factors to be taken into account that these do not cover. The kind of prediction Socionics could offer is only on a general trend level. And that's fine. This is largely the case with psychology theories in general.




> So to this end you choose to make a personal _threat_ to report me - how are you not a colossal hypocrite here? And what part of "I don't want to interact with you" is difficult for you to understand? If you want to do something fucking useful, go provide something in my typing thread, rather than try to piggyback onto another user's issue with me.


It's not a threat, it's simply setting limits for interaction. I would say that's sensible. What I said is, I'm willing to discuss but only impersonally and telling you I don't want you to go past that limit. 

And, nah, I was not piggybacking, I am stating my own opinions on an impersonal topic. It's simply that you are again failing to keep this impersonal. I don't know why I thought you could keep it impersonal. 

You are also not clear on whether you want interaction or not. If you don't, don't demand my help in your type thread, especially not in this childish entitled style. Don't expect me to want to spend my time on your typing thread anyway after your attempts at insulting me here.

One last time, I ask you:

1) to be clear on whether you want to interact (impersonally), if not, I'll just post my comments on the topic, including your posts, without quoting/mentioning you.
2) to refrain from this personal bs, whether you want to interact or not.


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

*final thread warning for this thread. 
please stay on topic people. Please reread the OP if you need a reminder and please take your debate elsewhere if it has nothing to do with the OP and most definitely quit bickering. Thank you*


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

EDIT: birdsintrees must have posted as I was composing my message. Apologies. Having gone through the bother of typing it, I'm not going to delete it, but I can spoiler it at least. >_>


* *






myst91 said:


> It definitely offered me a lot on differences between people that I did not see before engaging in typology. If you can see all of them without these theories then I'm not sure what you want to get out of them here.
> 
> Specifically, I found things in Jung's theory and in Socionics that are not dealt with in other psychological theories and that I found valid and useful. I can elaborate on this - if there is genuine interest in that.


All that it offers me is a vague framework to discuss abstract concepts that I already had and that much is rendered partially ineffective due to the simple fact that nobody can manage to agree on those concepts anyway. Good for you for thinking of something new, I guess? I didn't find the theory necessary to do that.



> I do not expect these systems to make specific predictions on their own, use of other systems taking into other factors are required for that. The kind of prediction Socionics could offer is only on a general trend level. And that's fine.


It doesn't offer me anything I couldn't already do before.



> It's not a threat, it's simply setting limits for interaction. I would say that's sensible. What I said is, I'm willing to discuss but only impersonally and telling you I don't want you to go past that limit.


I'd say it's redundant considering the forum already has a set of rules and you are not a moderator. There was then no reason for you to make this statement at all unless it carried an underlying message (in before cries of "Ne").



> And, nah, I was not piggybacking, I am stating my own opinions on an impersonal topic. It's simply that you are again failing to keep this impersonal. I don't know why I thought you could keep it impersonal.


lol, no. "I don't know why I thought you could keep it impersonal" is very clearly a personal dig on its own. If you wanted to avoid a personal conflict, you'd have been smarter to not engage me at all with your little threats of reporting, _especially_ considering I've told you multiple times prior to leave my posts be. I believe you're fully aware of this, as well.



> You are also not clear on whether you want interaction or not. If you don't, don't demand my help in your type thread. especially not in this childish entitled style. Also, don't expect me to want to spend my time on your typing thread after your attempts at insulting me here.


Are you kidding me? Seriously, what part of "I don't want to interact with you" don't you understand? The reference to my type thread was an obvious example of something you could have done constructive instead of choosing to engage me _here_ of all threads. It's plain as day that you're here to fight or else you would have done something more along the lines of what I suggested.



> One last time, I ask you:
> 
> 1) to be clear on whether you want to interact (impersonally), if not, I'll just post my comments on the topic without quoting/mentioning you.


Oh, so that you can make belittling comments in reference to me under the pretense of it being "neutral", right? One could even construct your liking of Entropic's posts as subtle digs, considering this action is prohibited in detailing cases of separation orders on this forum - clearly the mods recognize this sort of behavior when they see it.



> 2) to refrain from this personal bs, whether you want to interact or not.


Nice effort to try to pin something on me again. Christ you're terrible at this.


----------

