Can you explain, Socionically, why a person got angry, or why two people got into a conflict?
You might say yes, but we'll get to that later.
We can say that the reason why we get deeper into the "fundamentals" of something, is so that we can explain and predict things with greater precision and accuracy.
For example, we might discover that if we look into the microscopic level of things, there are such thing as "cells". And if we look even deeper, then we might discover that there are such thing as "atoms", which are governed by the laws of chemistry. And if we look even further, there are such things as "particles" which are governed by the laws of physics. And so on. And maybe we can say that since laws of physics are the most fundamental, therefore physics is the most important part of the equation. This is called reductionism.
Well, maybe not so. It is true that cells are governed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't necessarily explain how cells were made, which is presumably through evolution. And it also doesn't explain how in the larger scheme of things, like how when a bunch of cells cluster up together, it creates these things called "organs", such as the heart, which performs a completely different function than an individual cell would. It is true that the pumping of the heart and the circulation of the blood are governed by the laws of physics, such as the gravity, but it would require a completely different explanation than the laws of physics can if we were to explain what this heart does or what it even is, which is why it is rather explained by the laws of biology, and not physics.
And if we go up even further, then we might say that there are such things as persons, organizations or emotions and concepts such as "anger" or "honor", which are psychological and sociological phenomenons that require even different explanations than the laws of biology can. It is true, that all of those things are intimately and logically connected to the laws of biology, the laws of physics, but it still require further explanations, if we were to even begin understanding what those things even mean.
So the "layers of explanations" might look something like this:
![]()
--
Socionics may also have these "layers of explanations". The "functions" are the most fundamental part, like the laws of physics. The "types" are an emergent phenomenon, like psychology. And "quadras" and "ITR" are like sociology.
But just as the laws of physics or the laws of biology are too fundamental of explanations to be able to explain why a person got angry, or why two people conflict, those Socionics explanations may also be too fundamental of explanations for us to be able to gain any new information out of it.
Just think about why that is.
You might say yes, but we'll get to that later.
We can say that the reason why we get deeper into the "fundamentals" of something, is so that we can explain and predict things with greater precision and accuracy.
For example, we might discover that if we look into the microscopic level of things, there are such thing as "cells". And if we look even deeper, then we might discover that there are such thing as "atoms", which are governed by the laws of chemistry. And if we look even further, there are such things as "particles" which are governed by the laws of physics. And so on. And maybe we can say that since laws of physics are the most fundamental, therefore physics is the most important part of the equation. This is called reductionism.
Well, maybe not so. It is true that cells are governed by the laws of physics, but that doesn't necessarily explain how cells were made, which is presumably through evolution. And it also doesn't explain how in the larger scheme of things, like how when a bunch of cells cluster up together, it creates these things called "organs", such as the heart, which performs a completely different function than an individual cell would. It is true that the pumping of the heart and the circulation of the blood are governed by the laws of physics, such as the gravity, but it would require a completely different explanation than the laws of physics can if we were to explain what this heart does or what it even is, which is why it is rather explained by the laws of biology, and not physics.
And if we go up even further, then we might say that there are such things as persons, organizations or emotions and concepts such as "anger" or "honor", which are psychological and sociological phenomenons that require even different explanations than the laws of biology can. It is true, that all of those things are intimately and logically connected to the laws of biology, the laws of physics, but it still require further explanations, if we were to even begin understanding what those things even mean.
So the "layers of explanations" might look something like this:
--
Socionics may also have these "layers of explanations". The "functions" are the most fundamental part, like the laws of physics. The "types" are an emergent phenomenon, like psychology. And "quadras" and "ITR" are like sociology.
But just as the laws of physics or the laws of biology are too fundamental of explanations to be able to explain why a person got angry, or why two people conflict, those Socionics explanations may also be too fundamental of explanations for us to be able to gain any new information out of it.
Just think about why that is.