Continued Debate Between Jack and Binyamin Timecodes

(0:40) Te being a tribe function is claimed by OP, Dave and Shannon are both using Te, Jack isn’t using it in a valued spot, they could be a better authority on Te, Te is not necessarily tribe focused but objective focused from what I’ve seen, so other Te users will see the same thing because of the fact that it’s objective and because it’s all seeing the same kind of extroverted logic, one thing I’ve seen Te users do that they are getting everyone on board with a plan before executing it, for them it’s not the best thing unless everyone is on board, there is a tribe element but not necessarily as strong as OP says and since they are using Te we should learn it from them rather than from Jack or from some theory someone cooked up in their basement from looking at their spouse

---(Jack’s Response) But I do know people who use Te in a valued spot like Peter and Rita, and I’ve learned a lot from talking to them.  Te is my demonstrative function and strongest non-valued elment.  I don’t buy into the idea that only certain types are qualified to talk about certain functions, any type can talk to people and learn at least academically what different IM elements are, vulnerable function may have more a difficulty but not demonstrative, in Socionics do we suggest someone with Te suggestive knows more than Te demonstrative, I think it’s more about knowledge of IMs from seeing it play out in other people.  It’s good that you can adjust Te to objective, but Dave and Shannon say it’s tribe so have those authorities changed their mind?  Since you type them as tribe thinking, it makes sense that they are consulting with other people before making a decision, not Te in most other typologies theories.  Is it just Te in OP?  Monica was pushed on to accept the tribe Te interpretation but actually talked about applicability.  Yet others who do talk about tribe oriented Te don’t seem like extroverted logic types in Socionics at all, so there might be something further to explore.  If you are in a team, of course it makes objective to consult with them but if you had a Te user alone on an island like Robin Crusoe.  I’d say he’d use Te but he didn’t consult anyone else, he had build treehouses and devices to get buy and working it out, but it has nothing to do with Te.  If it’s really about Tribe thinking, then you shouldn’t be able to detach the use of thinking from the consultation of the tribe, if Tribe is an extrinsic aspect of Te then that shouldn’t have the same weight as tribe for Fe which seems intrinsic.  You could say it is they are both objective, but that’s not what Dave and Shannon or the theory say.  Aushra was a sociologist and academic, she knew how to collect data and do research, but hasn’t Dave worked on his theory in his house and had no psychological training.  It seems unfair to put Aushra on a lesser footing than Dave.

(2:30) socionics has good things to bring to the table so I’m not trashing it, but they need to accountable to something as well.  Dave and Shannon aren’t publishing peer reviewed papers as Jack says, but peer review is not the ultimate authority on truth, the academic world has dropped the ball and is not publishing peer reviewed papers on typology so it comes out on YouTube, they are all in Big 5 but it’s a self-testing method, eventually OP might come up with peer review but the fact they haven’t doesn’t mean they’re wrong and open discourse is more dynamic and natural than peer review, peer review works with things like physics/chemistry where people can do the same kinds of tests, until they checking it against DNA or brain scans (MRI or EEG) there is no way to produce peer review, we have to trust that Dave and Shannon were not able to type and by adding more coins they were able to agree better and better

---(Jack’s Response) It sounds like you’re trashing Socionics a bit, but peer review is a bit criteria to be recognized as scientific, Socionics isn’t calling itself objective like OP, it’s a just a theory that understands personality from certain principles and observations, it has objective and subjective interpretive aspects to it, it’s not a perfect methodology but only as good as we can make it.  You are asserting not just no biases in the methodology but the creation of the theory and how the concepts are defined, I see no evidence that these concepts as defined came from empirical studies, Aushra found patterns just like OP did so why is OP better, academia moved towards Big 5 and other personality theories, why don’t we pull together our resources and get academic journals published, Dario Nardi has the means to publish peer reviewed articles but don’t actually do so and avoid peer review, I’d like to fund say a psychological asymmetry experiment but I lack the funds using operationalized methods to determine IM element strength in certain tasks and comparing Z scores, why is OP suggesting that it doesn’t have these gaps and flaws and using the self-created moniker of objective to put down other typologies that it doesn’t know much about.  The Five Factor framework can tested through a variety of methods and isn’t usually considered a method, there seems to be a difficultly distinguishing between a methodology for working something out an a theory.  Even if YouTube is more dynamic and natural, you have to submit to the scientific process to call yourself objective.

(4:15) and that they aren’t trying to define the functions, we don’t have to learn the definitions from OP, instead you learn how to type people and get the same type, so once you have an assortment of 50 people you can ask them and get the data.  You have to let reality tell you what it is, not telling reality what it is.  You can’t say: this is what it is, and I’m going to go look for what it is and find my confirmation bias.  What you have to do is be open and not bring your biases to the table.

---(Jack’s Response) I watched an interview with Dave in which he said after having typed people well he found other coins to introduce which accounted for certain differences within the types.  If you are typing someone using coins that aren’t working and you have to use new coins to compensate, then how do you know your first coin is even right?  Maybe you should discard the first coin.  The first should be reliable to begin with in iteratively building a system.  If you don’t know the functions, then how are you typing people to begin with, you can’t pick out one thing from another.  Just picking out a pattern like warm wizard hands and squee is not necessarily a personality type.  Or you may have just hit a small part of personality.  You have to define what you’re trying to look for, otherwise there’s going to be all sorts of chaos and patterns that might not be relevant.  How do you know they are using if you haven’t define what Te is.  Unless you exploratory factor analysis, you are not going to be able to find what you’re looking for if you don’t know what it looks like.  If you go into the woods looking for a hefalump, and go ah that rabbit must be the hefalumps, gather a lot of rabbit and ask them to tell you what it is like to be a hefalump.  That doesn’t work.  You need a schema to look through the noise to find a signal.  Jung had a schema, he got it from philosophy going way back.  You can’t just chuck all that a way and just find your hefalumps.  You’ll just find the first thing that suits your intuitions.

(5:10) What he was saying is flavored using his own functions, so facts aren’t thinking they just are, thinking might use facts, but for him and Si users facts hold a lot more weight because that’s their takeaway, I’m not using Si and facts are what I take in and I would like an abundance of facts and I don’t trust facts until I can see the pattern behind them, maybe the pattern is wrong, maybe the facts are wrong, and this is being a double observer, testing my sensing and intuition against one another, and throw out and assign weight to which one’s are more and less accurate and Ti does this comparing things for contradictions and find what is true between the two.  I don’t like his interpretation at all of bringing facts being “thinking”, thinking might use facts but it’s what it is, thinking might use logic but it isn’t the same thing.

-(Jack’s response) If my points are good then they’ll change people’s minds, if they are bad points then critique then, but my type seems to have no relevance, even seems ad hominem.  In Jung’s psychological types he uses facts in Te and Se.  In what context are facts either one?  For Se it is the observation.  Te is more about how we handle the facts, build our knowledge bases, whether that is accumulating all these data points piecemeal and doing what seems to work from those, or finding a form or structure that best explains the data points, most elegantly and coherently.  I wouldn’t mull over different possibilities and come to a fact, rather I’d remain open to different possibilities.

(7:10) He was against similarities, such as between Te and Fe, they are both EJ functions so there has to be similarity there, he’s against similarities because he is using Ne and thus not valuing similarities in things, he likes the variance rather than narrowing down of intuition and he puts the emphasis on this.  He knows about the functions like this but is still biased and lets them influence his picture of reality.

-(Jack’s Response) I wasn’t angry I just made a point.  But what are the similarities?  Why does it have to be Tribe? Doesn’t seem to apply to Te and the examples are all situational.  In Socionics they are both about the adaptive accumulation of oughts, which is quite academic and not used much, the real meaning is in the cognitive functions and IM’s.  Rationality/Irrational, Extroversion/Introversion, Dynamic/Static are good at explaining their approach, but to what: Logic/Ethics/Sensing/Intuition.  Maybe the approach is Tribeness, but we still haven’t found a way in which Te is fundamentally about the tribe. I do value similarities, just the right kind of similarities.  Fe and Ti are clarity-seeking for example, digitizing information, and I like these similarities.  I don’t like forced similarities, they need to apply similarly in equal respects.  Te tribe only works in rather constructed and forced examples, Fe is about moods and responses to reactions to people and you can’t really take people out of Fe like you can with Te. The idea that I’m biased due to my type is an ad hominem, I’d like to find out how things could work, I like similarities and contrasts which seems Ne and Ti to me, and you’re using this ad hominem to reduce the strength of my argument.

(8:00) Jack is against Si as meaning, that is something I recently learned and not something OP holds, and I learned it from a few people who were using Si who identified Si that way, this learning about Si from people is the way I go about it, I think Si is misunderstood across the type community because we don’t have many Si users, it comes across as shallow and simple and basic and people disrespect it, but they are very special and deep people, they say that there is a lot of meaning behind what they see in the physical world and they are stacking and adding more meaning, this is not what OP says, it says we’re going to catch them by seeing them organize the sensory, I’m dumbing it down and they understand it more than they let on or teach people, but they really just want to teach people how to type.  What the functions are and how to catch them are not the same thing, they might get people wrong this way because people can act in diverse ways, they get a lot of feminine Fe wrong since they can speak in the language of another person and be a chameleon but it makes it harder to type them

-(Jack’s Response) I’m skeptical that Jami Wilson told that you that Si is about meaning, so I’d like to investigate that, and what came up with her is her desire for positive experiences in life to reduce awkwardness and uncomfortableness and taking the most satisfaction which is what life offers, rather than meaning which is about dissatisfaction or a higher more important thing behind what the day to day has to offer.  Binyamin you have a habit of pushing what you want to hear, and then they go oh yeah, maybe.  That’s not a good approach to interview people.  I had to learn this too, I do interview people for my job and they tell you not to lead people with your questions.  Usually the interviewee doesn’t want to upset the person, so they’ll be more suggestible and agreeable.  I agree that Si is a very misunderstood function, and that it can be disrespected.  What do you mean by depth on the sensory information?  It shouldn’t be going away from the concrete into the abstract.  I’d say refining the quality of the sensation, richness of the experience.  If it’s like the fundamental nature of the universe, then that’s more Ni.  If someone gives you interesting word like meaning, you should ask what meaning means to them, they can give some details and examples.  You can’t type people unless you know what you are looking for.  On getting feminine people wrong (did Binyamin say Jack was typing feminine Fe people wrong, or OP?): is it because they are a feminine type in your system?  If so we have to look at how each system describes the phenomenon, and see which provides a better explanation.  No point in saying you’ve typed it wrong in your system, it’s discourteous and there are different parameters, the question is how well to the parameters explain type, and it seems like you think your way is the only way of looking at typology, it remains to be seen whether the Socionics is a good way to type but it can’t be criticized with the parameters of another system. OP types Obama and ESTP, in Socionics he is IEI, you have to question it from each system’s parameters.  We think he’s IEI because he is not good at taking decisive actions, he’s more of a strategist than day to day tactician, etc.  But I won’t assume you got him wrong in OP, it’s discourteous.

(10:30) works of art and literature are not real people, you can’t learn about functions from works of art and characters in them, maybe the author has a certain type and describes a character as the same type, but learning from reality is better, take fiction with a grain of salt, can you imagine learning physics from Jules Verne or Star Trek, you can learn from fiction but it has to be really well written and reality takes priority

-(Jack’s Response) The archetypes are not about single creators and authors, it’s about tropes, recurring themes, stock characters, you can’t just ignore that, it’s a distillation of reality, many authors of different types see this characters and use them in their stories, that is something meaningful.  It’s not about using to derive your cognitive functions, but when you’re putting together the functions from observations of people, you should look at the most thematic elements of information and treat it as a guiding star, if it doesn’t resemble the archetypes at all then maybe you should pause and maybe you are heading down the wrong direction.  This is meaningful, and Carl Jung also recognized it in the collective unconscious.  We talk about them in understanding the human journey and consciousness.  You can just throw it away and start afresh, but it can be foolhardy.  In physics people didn’t have much experience, but they had lots of experience interacting with and describing people, because that’s been happening for thousands and thousands of years, physics has much less history and the last few hundred years so Jules Verne (a single author) it is not a good analogy, they are not real but they are distillations and stock types and sorts of people, and if you are missing this then you are going astray.  You have an idea of what I’m saying, but you are getting worked up and strawmanning a little, think more about it.

(12:00) making sense doesn’t make it real, QM doesn’t make sense but they still use it because it is accurate and works, don’t say: this makes sense that’s why it’s true and this doesn’t make sense, it’s bad Ti and bad logic

-(Jack’s Response) When people say it makes sense, it fits in patterns and coherence in their head, that is Ti.  My arguments aren’t just that it makes sense, I’m making points and saying those seem to make sense, it’s a statement on the argument not the argument itself.

(12:30) Jack didn’t mention that we are starting to explore this a little deeper, we’re looking at people he types the same in Socionics as in OP and we’re going to derive our own function understanding from those people, start fresh and figure out new definitions, so we’re not projecting onto reality

-(Jack’s Response) There are some risks of what we’re doing though, we need people who are typology naïve, if people are used to describe themselves in terms of OP then that will be how they think of themselves, same problem with describing in Socionics terms.  We should focus on typology naïve people.  We could try with typology knowledgeable people if we have a balance of people between each theories.