If you were talking about theory, then don't end your conclusions with claiming crap like this is fact and no debate can be made about it.
There is such a thing about fact when it comes to discussing a theory.
One can be wrong, or right, according strictly to logic.
That's what my argument was based on, and it still holds true as
fact.
As I already mentioned, this is what I took issue with (beyond your original argument that I've seen so many times before and which is just empty speculation).
As simple as that.
You're still full of bullshit.
I can see someone won't be here long.
1) It wasn't just nitpicking. 2) Not meaningless, only to you.
It was irrelevant to the matter at hand, and not what was being discussed.
Hence, meaningless.
Now I at least see what your problem was with my style of writing.
Didn't see how horribly written and meaningless your sentence was til I pointed it out?
Now darling, I wasn't writing an academic paper here. Don't expect me to be all stuck up like that. You are obviously very pedantic but I'm personally not interested in that on a generic forum. I did care when necessary, e.g. at university.
You don't really have a place talking about being pedantic when you came in here with the post that you did.
I also wasn't requiring academic level writing.
Just, you know, try to make your sentences actually make some semblance of sense.
Oh you and your theoretical contradictions.
Yes, there are actually such things.
It's called internal consistency.
You may not be good at it, or prefer it, but it does actually matter.
I personally believe that theory needs to be based on empirical reality.
I prefer for theory to correspond to reality as well.
But sometimes the theoretical isn't necessarily testable or falsifiable.
And other times what can be tested and falsified, isn't really all that valuable or relevant.
There are plenty of other issues as well, but none of this means that we should not keep theorizing.
You can theorize all to your heart, no worries, as long as it stays connected with the tangible.
I actually don't need you to tell me how I can theorize and how I cannot.
And the meaning of "connected to the tangible" is just a sliding signifier anyway.
But anyway, I'll explain below why it did bring quite something to that table of yours.
I don't doubt you'll try.
I just doubt you'll be right.
Now you revealed lack of knowledge.
I'm sure you would like to think so.
Because you clearly have a
psychological fixation when it comes to this issue.
Socionics functions only have the same shorthand that MBTI ones do because western socionists made them. Socionics originates from Russia and there they used other symbols and even other names for the functions. The whole socionics theory doesn't even really just come from 'Psychological Types'. It incorporates some other theoretical frameworks. Even the definitions of things as basic as I or E are pretty different.
Apparently you don't realize that Lithuania is not Russia.
The internal contradictions in your argument are too obvious, blatant and boring to even cover.
Needless to say, nothing you've written is new to me.
Anyhow, I didn't write my original post to you to present new information (I suppose I did now though)...
No, actually, you didn't.
...I wrote it to point out where your reasoning was jumping to conclusions too fast. To show why it wasn't "fact" and why it *can* be up for debate.
And on this point you've failed.
Nothing you've said isn't something I already knew.
And nothing about your arguments have actually contradicted what I wrote.
The only thing you've done is tried to switch the frame of reference from theory to empiricism.
And, seeing as how I was not trying to be empirical, that part as well is really irrelevant to what I said.
The painter analogy proves nothing. Nice illustration, nothing more. And no, you cannot be sure it's still the same. How do you determine there is an unifying underlying concept for everything when you only have various function definitions, and just the definitions, no actual evidence how they exist in reality. Well, you don't.
Because they come from the same fundamental source, 'Psychological Types'.
It doesn't matter that other elements were added, and the theory took off in its own direction.
Conceptually, they come from the same primary well-source.
Introversion, Extroversion, Intuition, Sensing, Thinking, Feeling, Attitude of Consciousness, Cognitive Functions, Extroverted Intuition, Introverted Intuition, Extroverted Thinking, Introverted Thinking, Extroverted Sensing, Introverted Sensing, Extroverted Feeling, Introverted Feeling, Cognitive Functions, sixteen types, and plenty more: the use of these terms and concepts did not just happen randomly, as if they arose independently, out of nowhere, just happening to utilize so many of the same terms and concepts, but having no common ancestor.
These are not independent fields.
They are they same thing, different painters.
Yes, there is variation, just like when two one species starts evolving in two different locations, and grow apart from one another.
But there is still so much similarity, and to imagine that the Function Attitudes themselves, made some radical changes, such that a liver is no longer a liver, but is now a spleen, and a lung is no longer a lung, but is now a colon,
is fucking stupid.
I have already come to realize this, as I have worked through all the arguments, and discussed the matter with others who are just as, and likely more, knowledgeable on this matter, than you are.
You can belabor the point all you want -- I've already seen all your arguments -- but none of them trump what it is I have said.
Which is why, as I said, it is
fact that what I said above about the theory is 100% accurate and true.
It's not up for debate, but (ignorant) people will continue to debate it.
The logic for the other position simply does not hold up.
Can you for one second step outside this extremely narrow framework of 8 functions and consider that Ne in one system is something else in another system but this something else is not described by any of the 8 functions but by something else entirely?
I'm sorry, that was so general, unspecific, and poorly worded it was essentially meaningless.
I see why you stay out of the realm of abstraction and theorizing and conceptualizing.
If all you're trying to say is "consider that Ne from one system is not Ne, or any other function, in the other, that they're just completely different things", and this was just your poorly worded, or perhaps even intentionally vague and deceptive, way of saying that, then yes, I can take that step, and already have, and, ultimately, came to realize that doing so is absolutely fucking stupid, for the sound reasons I already laid out above.
Or say something less extreme, example, socionics Ne could be partially described by the MBTI Ne and partially by something else.
Wow.
Look.
You're back to my painter analogy.
Do you never ever feel it's such a narrow limiting framework trying to stick to whatever 8 functions all the time? Open your mind to more psychology! More science! (I'm not being sarcastic, honestly.)
You have no idea how I think, what else my mind is open to, etc.
And, as such, clearly all you're doing here is projecting, and likely projecting issues that you've faced yourself.
Guess what, bub, I'm not you, and that image you're projecting onto me is certainly not me.
So, no, I don't need your preaching that presumably you need yourself.
I've got my own opinions and notions about the limitations of Jungian typology (and plenty of other things).
I didn't actually even make that argument. I explain the alternative above.
In my laying out the alternative argument, I only expounded one example of it, the others are the ones you've expounded, and I was just as aware of those when I originally wrote what I wrote (and have been for years). I simply laid out the most extreme and idiotic of them. Regardless, I've heard all of them made, by various people, and considered all of them in their entirety, playing the devil's advocate with myself. And the fact of the matter is,
they still don't hold water to the position I have laid out. In fact, they are part of, and subsumed in, the position I have laid out. Which is why I said what I said about my position being fact. Those other positions simply don't hold water.
That now makes no sense honestly. Did you really think I was reasoning that way? Lol.
I do like empirical measurement but how on earth did my previous posts seem to indicate - to you - such a weird jump in logic to the second half of your sentence here???
Already explained above.
That's just one example of the same position that you have taken.
It is the most extreme example, but they all have the same underlying flaw.
That the primary source material for this is all Jung and 'Psychological Types'.
And, as such, the painter analogy is undeniably the most fitting explanation.
As is the Darwin's finches metaphor.
As are several others.
AND NOW... What's this "same function, Extroverted Intuition"? What's the ultimate definition, what's the scene the painters are trying to paint? Hello?
It's pointing to the purported underlying function that Jung was purportedly pointing to originally.
The label he coined for it, and that both systems now use, is Extroverted Intuition.
Here, try out this thread, so maybe you can actually be on topic:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37554
Honestly though, I wasn't even getting into this can of worms before. I was only arguing for there being only correlations instead of actual causal links.
Yes.
Once again, all you were doing was shifting the framework from the theoretical -- which we
were discussing -- to the empirical -- which we weren't.
I'm glad you're starting to realize what I've realized (and been saying) all along.
Now we are into that can though... and a big can.
And I really don't even feel like going into it with you, cuz you really haven't proven yourself to be a worthwhile interlocutor.
I've already examined these ideas thoroughly myself, and with other interlocutors better than yourself.
No need to mine the same material with a less worthwhile partner.
That "[t]o make any other argument is to make an argument that makes absolutely no conceptual, abstract, or theoretical sense."
I feel like someone should tell you to "check your preference".
It would seem you have an imbalanced preference for Te.
Try learning to accept that there are other kinds of and ways of arriving at truth than just Extroverted Thinking.
And praytell why cannot it make any theoretical sense to make an argument against your original argument? Again, we're back to how you stated it was fact and not up for debate.
Many of the reasons have been stated above.
It should be added that my language was not precise enough in what you were quoting, tho: it's not that it can't make any sense, at least not in the sense that one cannot attempt to make that argument, and do so within some semblance of reason; it's that, upon full evaluation of all the arguments that exist, that one ends up being false,
and then makes no sense (there's a temporal problem, or a Catch-22, in some sense, when it comes to its sense, in that you cannot understand why it does not indeed make sense, until you have actually tried to make the argument, make it make sense, and then evaluated the counterargument, and realized the counterargument actually undeniably makes way more sense, and so much so that the other argument, while understandable to have made in the first place, clearly must eventually be thrown out, as,
compared to its counterargument, it simply doesn't make good sense).
You're terribly deeply wrong in thinking that, though.
No, actually, I'm not.
You just have not realized yet why what I've stated is the winning argument in that debate.
Yes, I was responding directly to the point (=attacking it) that you were discussing.
No, you weren't.
You were shifting the frame of reference from the theoretical to the empirical.
Your arguments above, indeed, have addressed the point I was discussing, but they are indeed wrong.
No, however if you want to make a statement that something is fact, empirical evidence will HAVE TO be involved.
No, actually, it need not.
As I said before, once again, check your preference.
There are theoretical truths, things that, simply by the principles at hand, are true due to their internal consistency.
Perhaps they are not correspondentially true (which Te and empiricism are more concerned with), perhaps they are not pragmatically true (with Te also tends to be concerned with as well), but they are true simply from the fact that, according solely to the rules of logic, and well as the principles at hand, the linguistic and conceptual framework that is being dealt with, that they make sense, they are accurate, they are internally consistent.
Three different types of truth my man: correspondence, internal consistency, and pragmatic.
The theoretical deals,
at first, at least, with the second, and secondarily hopes to achieve the first. This is more Ti-inclined.
Te, and empiricism, which you decided to shift reference to, deals more with the third and the first (although sometimes, when it comes to the latter, as Jung said, in a shallow way).
Definitionally there are differences.
Yes.
The painters paint different pictures of Extroverted Intuition and Introverted Feeling.
But they are still attempting to point to the same underlying phenomena.
Which painters are more accurate, that's up for discussion.
Imo, each has their merits at times.
There's not even just one Socionics painter, nor one "MBTI" painter, so we can really talk about all different kinds of painters, and the different ways in which they see and paint the scene.
But the scene they are trying to paint is still Extroverted Intuition, in something akin to what is often called the dominant position, followed by Introverted Feeling, in something akin to what is often called the auxiliary, or backup, position.
Let's not mention empirical ones.
Unfortunately, that's how you started this whole thing.
Nope, I was talking about and/or implying a lot more than that. I wasn't changing frame of reference for some points, specifically the one about how functions are not the same; not even definitionally.
Blah blah blah I'm really getting bored and have better things to do.
Well as for the idea that theories should truly stand alone separate from reality, I would say that idea is simply psychotic.
That's not what I was saying, and I'm pretty sure everything else you wrote is going to be boring, pointless and unnecessary too.
Abstraction is all great but it does need to come from somewhere. The connection between concept and empirical observation may be really far/faint/indirect but it's still there. Unless one's psychotic, of course. No I'm not saying you are. I'm talking in general.
Hey look, I was right.
The underlying logic isn't necessarily correct.
Depends on what you mean by correct.
If you mean empirically, then no, it isn't necessarily.
If you mean by how Socionics' model is set up (i.e., theoretically), then actually you're wrong.
And, seeing as how that's what I was talking about, we have now come back full circle and can see why you were wrong.
Btw when you said in your original post that "one system simply emphasizes Jish qualities for individuals whose dominant function is a Judging function and Pish qualities for introverts whose dominant function is a Perceiving function (Socionics), while the other emphasizes Jish qualities for individuals whose first extroverted function is a judging function and Pish qualities for individuals whose first extroverted function is a Perceiving function (MBTI).".
I didn't dispute that part because it's pretty much true. This is obviously how these two systems define things.
Yes, I already knew this.
Hence it being the basis of what I was talking about.
My issue was not this, my issue was 1) you using the word "fact" wrong
Wrong.
As laid out above.
In short: check your preference.
(And,
actually, if you really get all the way down to it, considering everything I stated indeed follows from the principles of the systems, there's even a sound argument that what I said is, in a sense, empirically true, if what is being empirically tested is the truth of the statements I made about the systems, relative to the actuality of the systems [which there is].)
2) using the assumption that functions are the same in both systems.
I actually never said this.
As implied by the painter analogy, the functions are painted differently by different theorists (even
within Socionics, and within "MBTI").
What I will say is that one should have the same functions in each system, but that, if the descriptions of the functions, or the model for how the interrelate, are completely fucked up in one system, vs the other, then the one in which the descriptions are fucked up will be a far less useful system, and should basically be looked at as too divergent from reality.
The goal is to have the definitions of the functions, and the model defining how the functions interrelate, come as close to corresponding with reality as possible.
The latter was a problem because you brought this assumption into your reasoning without any real grounds to it.
False.
(As shown [repeatedly] above.)
And I can prove this without going far from the theoretical definitions.
False.
(As shown below.)
Simply, this test shows nowhere that it or socionics in general uses the exact same function definitions that MBTI uses. You just saw some INFP testing as INFp in the test and jumped to this conclusion. You picked one example and made up an explanation for it.
Honestly, this is too ridiculous to even respond to.
Thank you for showing, right near the end, the quality of your interlocution.
I will remember never to waste my time ever discussing anything with you again.
That's fine, explain things as you like, but don't call them fact and don't say it's not up for debate.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68486
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68750
Heh.