[Extremely Important] Re-posting the Principle of Sample Supremacy: Priority is Real-Life Samples >>>> Theory
Our own theories have become quite complex recently.
absorb Jung x MBTI x Enneagram x Neo-Jungian x Socionics.
Well, Kuupippi-san's theory is mostly summarized as of today, lol.
That said, the increasing complexity of the theory is a bottleneck for spreading it.
So, once again,
“How should we approach theory in the first place?”
I, Nco, will talk about the important attitude toward that again.
Main points:
・Persona detection diagnosis
・Observing groups
・Natural science-based ← This is the cause of the heavy modification.
Psychology is, in the first place, an inductive social science... I've been saying this over and over.
First, a word:
“I wish you would do your masturbation in a locked room.”
Seeing the stupidity of people endlessly spouting theories and logic in an inductive discipline like psychology, which relies on feedback from reality through verification and clinical practice, I constantly realize that there are people who truly do not understand what a discipline is.
Since psychology is inherently an inductive discipline, it is not a field where you should be deducing this and that.
Originally, psychology is a discipline that identifies trends and laws based on vast amounts of data and samples through statistics and the like.
Identifying trends and laws, and organizing them into simple principles through generalization.
This is what I feel is lacking in Socionics.
(Relationship theories are too complex and too numerous. It's an Unlimited Void of information.)
That is why it is extremely difficult to understand and use.
If Kuupippi-san hadn't researched it, corresponded it with reality, and broken it down, Socionics wouldn't have been able to take a usable form like this table...
That said, even this table is complex, so you only need to be aware of the basic mechanisms.
Without concrete evidence, it's just empty theory.
This will be on the test, you know.
I've talked about this in the past, too.
In other words, if you want to research or talk about psychology, you must perform qualitative and quantitative research. In short,
“Sample Supremacy” is the only correct attitude.However, I don't think you should do incredibly foolish things like “applying stereotypical models from guidebooks as they are,” “arbitrarily distorting the interpretation of each function,” or “starting to give incomprehensible explanations while having a shallow understanding.” In other words, the attitudes you should take at a policy level are:
Induce trends from reality
Deduce from each psychological function, form hypotheses, and verify. That is all.
This is the alignment of the concrete and the theoretical.
A good example of analysis accompanied by concreteness is like this.
I'm writing a good article again. This is great.
Other than that, articles introduced here, etc.
Oh, there is a wonderful sentence at the end of the text.
As expected, I am convinced that in psychology, the quantity and quality of samples are what make the difference.
I reaffirmed that in psychology, experience and the realization gained from experience are far more essential than logic or reasoning.
Those who play with MBTI or Jungian psychology, why not start by reading this person's article and questioning your own way of being?
Read the linked article and Yu-kun's article 100 times.
And, if possible, I would like to refrain from using technical terms.
Because no one will read it lol
If you use it, you should follow precedents or choose 'words that everyone understands'
The conditions for good terminology are probably like this
Postscript ↓
And what are the more specific points to grasp?
Read this for Tier
The summary is ultimately this, isn't it
Psychology is sample supremacy
People who don't understand this will fail the test