Well it doesn’t present itself as scientific or as really having any methodology in the first place.Originally Posted by Singu
Well it doesn’t present itself as scientific or as really having any methodology in the first place.
Well that's just the typical excuses, "It's not supposed to be science" "It's not supposed to be objective".
It doesn't matter if it claims that it's not based on any methodology, because that's what it's doing nonetheless. I don't think you'll disagree that Socionics is about categorization of observations. And I have clearly stated the limitations of such an observational approach. Explanatory approach also has "cons" in that it's risky and it can be wrong. But it's also the only way to know anything about reality.
Also the claim that it's supposed to be subjective or subjectivity should be considered more than objectivity. The problem is that the "reality" consists of both the subjective and the objective. So if we really want to understand "reality" then we'd have to consider the subjective and the objective.
I totally agree.
I don't know copyright law in Russia, but in the USA, you cannot copyright a theory, only a specific inventory (test). That's why the MBTI test is copyrighted and it's statistics are not available to the general scientific community. I'm also not sure what school of socionics is most popular in Russia. There is an annual socionics conference, but I don't know who runs it.
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 11-15-2018 at 06:34 AM.
It’s different because it presents itself as a philosophy or an art. You’re interpreting it in a way it wasn’t intended to be, and criticizing it by holding it up to standards unrelated to its origins or the goal of its creation. It’s like barking up the wrong tree.
Cool. Well would be interesting hearing your plans on that side of things too as things progress.
Well whatever it's supposed to be, suppose that some people want to make it "scientific". How should they go about doing it?
...
Read the posts made in this thread other than your own. Might give you some idea...
Don’t rely on me or others to break up ideas that deviate from your monotonous pre-recorded paradigm into pre-digested Ti animal crackers for you.
Well the problem is that your suggestions are crap, and those problems have already been incorporated into my suggestions.
Your suggestions are the typical suggestions, such as "How do we know that it's real or it 'exists'?" "How can we make it objective?" "How can we define it and measure it?".
All of those thing will require an underlining theory that can explain why it's supposed to be objective or how we might measure something using an instrument of some kind and what method we should use to interpret that data.
Which is something that I've always been saying. Socionics will need a foundational theory. Which is something that no one is willing to come up with, because they keep making the same old lame excuses that you've been giving.
The bottom line is that if Socionics doesn't have a theory, then it's not science.
Can we use the typical theories and methods that already exist in current scientific psychology? Yes, but then it would no longer be Socionics, it would just be psychology. Socionics will have nothing new to offer.
Either someone can come up with a new theory from Socionics that can offer something new to science, or it doesn't.
I’ve said this before but it doesn’t necessarily need an explanation to be absorbed into the scientific community even though science is traditionally or formally officially used as a way to explain things. There are plenty of things being studied and given attention to by the scientific community that don’t have clear origins, and aspects of life that science has yet to form definitive opinions on yet. Another aspect of science is that it is constantly developing as new things are discovered. In that sense even currently accepted scientific explanations are always only ever in “beta” mode.
Technically speaking Socionics does have a default explanation available which is, that it’s assumed that Socionics theory features (e.g. the IEs and Model A) occur as a part of the natural order of things and are abstractly derived. Theories on the origins of the universe can be easily woven in with it and are similarly indeterminate currently anyway.
Socionics can be turned into a mere statistical data-crunching machine, and it pretty much is currently. But that also has the problem of simply expecting the previous observation to stay the same. You can say that there's a certain statistical trend that supposedly continue into the future, but if you can't explain how that trend continues, then you have shown nothing. Statistics can't tell you anything about the future.
It will eventually face the exact same problem that Big Five faces, which is this:
And in fact, Socionics is currently facing those problems. The only solution to that problem is to come up with a theory.Jack Block's final published work before his death in January 2010 drew together his lifetime perspective on the five-factor model.
He summarized his critique of the model in terms of:
- the atheoretical nature of the five-factors.
- their "cloudy" measurement.
- the model's inappropriateness for studying early childhood.
- the use of factor analysis as the exclusive paradigm for conceptualizing personality.
- the continuing non-consensual understandings of the five-factors.
- the existence of unrecognized but successful efforts to specify aspects of character not subsumed by the five-factors.
Did you read my post
You really don't understand what I'm saying, you're too slow.
Cognitive science is focused on AI atm.
I know how to do this, and it starts by clarifying the definitions, and loosening upon restrictions. For example, it is understood currently that a person will stay their type for their life, however I argue that is an assumptiom, and thus not valid. Indeed, I have a hypothesis that behavoralism still holds true, and effects personality. As such, a person can potentially switch types upon demand. I have seen it in that my face litterally looks alien to me after a while, and while it could be that I'm just staged differently, but when you generally consider yourself stable as a primary characteristic, it is quite odd. I like to joke, that when people say I have a good pokerface, it's not a pokerface.
But yeah, I've also considered the necessity of socionics for communicating to particularly dense people. As a thing, these people of whom I am reffering, example being flat earthers, might respond better to debate if Socionics was applied. As such, we can do science on this. It would be very useful, as I can generally understand most people, but not communicate to them, as they seem not to want or be able to listen. I don't know. However, I have noticed that the same people group together. I've considered them to be socially agreeable to each other, which frustrates conversation, as when you are talking to one person who disagrees with you it is hard enough, but two people who are in a sort of bubble, it is insanely impossible. It then expands outwards, as your credibility gets shot to pieces. More or less, although the latter person is very strange anyways. When you tend to not answer any questions asked, but give random information that is not useful or relavent, and puts me as liable, yes, I see, you trust me, but please, just answer the damned question. I tell him exactly how it works. If he doesn't act as I ask, I apply more pressure. If he does, I stop. Yet he has consistently refused to even budge. The worst thing is that it's incredibly detrimental for him, as often I'm trying to get him to do something that would be commonplace for a normal person, but hey, colleagues, am I right? But yeah, I came here for an application to solve that problem. Nope. None found. That would help, if you may, make it mainstream.
I have considered changing my attitude, however if I do, I don't get what I want anyways, so yeah. Sadly, I enjoy getting what I want for free some of the time, and he generally only does what he wants. Appologies for the biography, but I just have developed my own method of free association.
Last edited by Alomoes; 11-20-2018 at 03:56 AM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
@ajsindri Based on what I know of you, I think your best bet would be to make some ties with people in the field of cognitive, personality or other related research in psychology. Befriend someone with a lab at a university, and convince them and the department through a pitch and make sure that you have your own funding for the research. Before this, develop your own career as a teacher or researcher and create a solid plan on how to move Socionics up in the system. Good luck.
Whatever you do, dont charge people more than the minimum (ideally nothing), and be humble. Don’t make an ass out of yourself like Dario Nardi did.
Thinking about this further.
I do think my hypothesis that types that have ego functions in the same dichotomy, such as F/T, share preferences for particular regions of the brain corresponds to Model A's theory of dimensionalities. For example, EII and IEI share function dimensionalities and all the NF types have dimensionalities that are close to each other presumably because their amygdalas and right ventral hemispheric networks operate with roughly the same levels of sophistication.
I think this hypothesis still begs the question: if an IEI and EII have the same dimensionalities, what parts of the brain govern what's valued and conscious? What differentiates an IEI and an EII, neurologically speaking?
It's probably easy to sort out the consciousness aspect since it probably boils down to whichever neural pathways possess the strongest relationship to each other. It's a matter of general circuitry.
But what determines what functions are valued or unvalued? What does "valued" even mean, neurologically speaking?
Anyway, here's a study about intuition's relationship to the right hemisphere. Factor this in with what I posted about introverts and extraverts and you get an explanation for Ne and Ni.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218761/
If you want to make socionics scientific, look for articles like this and do the math. You could probably patch it together. I expect you'll wind up with a messier theory than Model A, since "scientific socionics" is an oxymoron. By Gulenko's admission, part of the practice of socionics consists of art, as opposed to science. But yeah, if you view socionics as a hypothesis, then test it through research, you could find what parts of the hypothesis fit. New neurological research emerges every day.
Yeah, the question of what's valued will be tricky, though. I don't even know if the neurological community has an analogous term for what's "valued"; if they don't, they won't even be attempting to research it. If they don't, data revealed about such a thing is likely to be revealed accidentally. I also figure that, in reality, it's probably a catch all for general aspects of neurological makeup.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 11-21-2018 at 07:23 AM.
Link to Dario Nardi arguing with someone who criticized his methods on Personality Cafe and getting destroyed:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive...o-nardi-5.html
Reddit thread on this: https://amp.reddit.com/r/mbti/commen...t_introverted/
@echidna1000 Your new video that you posted the other day showed up on my Youtube feed and I liked it. Posting here for posterity.
Btw I’m guessing based on your mug that Socionics symbols are unlicensed?
Lol.
@echidna1000 Do you ask your gf to check your video editing too? Some of it makes me cringe, please ask SEI woman to make it more visually appealing thx. Make it look fresher, it’s 2018.
Awesome. That’s probably the simplest way to do it. Question is if you can find enough studies to support different aspects of the theory and create a manifesto linking it all together like you said already. I think you could find enough, and pitch it to the head of a research department at some university while partnering with a researcher already. @ajsindri
@Singu Thanks for being obnoxious enough and making me want to engage SeTe just to oversee this happening solely to prove you wrong
What does any of this discussion has to do with "Se Te" or the "exchange of Information Elements"? The fact is, no discussion has anything to do with those things. The things that I'm saying simply cannot be described by Socionics, because they're not in any of the Socionics literature. What I'm saying is completely unfamiliar to Socionics because it's something completely new that's outside of the Socionics domain.@Singu Thanks for being obnoxious enough and making me want to engage SeTe just to oversee this happening solely to prove you wrong
Socionics doesn't say anything about explanatory approach. It's simply not any of the "functions". It's a completely new approach that's indescribable by Socionics.
It's just no wonder that people can't even begin to understand what I'm saying, because it's not in the framework of Socionics.
*inhuman screeching intensifies*
Aestrivex used to be on my Diagnostics team. He's a smart guy and I learned a good lot about Socionics from him, although we disagree in some aspects of the theory.
I usually let her look at it while editing to see if she laughs. She hasn't offered to edit it better, but then again she doesn't know how. She's good with the camera though.
I think that trying to turn Socionics into a "science" is a laudable act in of itself, and I think one should be commended for that.
But first, we should be asking ourselves, what is "science", and what makes something "scientific"?
I think we can mostly agree that "science" is actually something very simple. Broadly speaking, science is about:
- Coming up with a hypothesis or a theory (on how something works in the physical world).
- And then testing that hypothesis or theory with an experiment that can be performed in the physical world.
That's so uncontroversial that almost no one would disagree with that. That's basically how anyone "does" science. It's very simple.
But what's so significant about coming up with a theory, and then testing it via an experiment? What's the meaning behind it, other than that's just something one "does" in science? Or "just because"?
Well they are significant, because:
- Science is about creating new knowledge. For instance, science makes predictions about the future, which is by definition something that nobody has ever experienced before. And in order to do that, one has to come up with a theory explaining the mechanism of how something can lead to that prediction, using nothing other than his/her imagination which he/she uses to come up with a new theory. And this theory can obviously, be either right or wrong, there's just no guarantee.
- Science is a special case of knowledge created to explain the phenomena that occur in the physical world. And since we're trying to explain the physical world, the experiments need to be done in the physical world. And the purpose of testing a theory is to make sure whether our theories are actually describing what really goes on in the physical world, or not.
So to summarize, we must come up with hypotheses and theories, because there's no other way to create new knowledge (if there is, then I'd like to know). And we perform experiments that can be performed in the physical world, because science is about making claims about the physical world.
So the question is, what claims about the physical world do Socionics make? If you were to make Socionics scientific, that is.
I generally agree, except with your emphasis on the 'physical world'. For example, computer science is more focused on information theory. Even though algorithms are executed on physical computer chips, the physical hardware is beside the point of effective data structure. Socionics, being a cybernetic psychology theory, is way closer to computer science than it is to physics. I think a better definition is Popper's criteria of falsifiability.
I don't know what you mean "the future." Are we talking about the result of manipulating independent variables, or how people and society will evolve in the future? There are tons of things socionics predicts that can be tested, here are a list of things socionics claims I can think of off the top of my head:
- The intertype relations in terms of stress, communication and long term satisfaction
- Reinin style small groups, such as- A ring of supervision is extremely and immediately stressful- An environment of people of the same temperament exacerbates psychosomatic disorders- the stability of corporations (in terms of partners starting a business venture)
- a group of people who all have the same base quadra value is relaxing
- ect.
- dimension of function and ability to master novel problems
- type in terms of motivation and reaction to stimulus
- higher dimensional correlation of personality traits
I assume you know about these and other claims make by various socionist and are wanting something else since you are harping on that point so much. What you are after, I have no idea. How are these not sufficiently rigorous hypotheses, especially for the field of psychology, which often studies correlation?
By Jung the weakest functions are role and suggestive.
What is not by Jung or Augustinavichiute is not Socionics alike bs "An environment of people of the same temperament exacerbates psychosomatic disorders". And where Augustinavichiute contradicts to Jung without objective basis is doubtful to relate to normal Socionics.
There is a lot of baseless bs you may find on Socionics sites. To check it there is much lesser sense than what has far more base in theory, reason and easy practice.
The 1st thing to check is duality! Are people with such IR feel better in the communication and create better marriages.
While to check the evident bs would be the best way to get nothing and then to reject all the useful what exists.
There is no single thing to check first — everyone has their opinion about what aspect of socionics and which authors are the best. If dual marriages are what interests you, that's what you should investigate, but not everyone will agree. That's why we need to be able to process all possible approaches to socionics at once. Individual researches need to be able to explore whatever they are passionate about, while still being able to compare their findings against each other. Hopefully the result is an integration of all correct approaches, elimination of ideas that don't work, and clear boundaries of divergent theories.
Well, there are two answers to this if we dig further. The short answer is that science is a special case of knowledge that's applied to the physical world. Else, it becomes a matter of philosophy or mathematics. And the significance of philosophy is that it tells science how to gather knowledge (like Popperian, etc., that are not testable, scientific theories. They're untestable philosophical theories. What makes something a "science" is that it's testable. During tests, reality gives us an answer in the form of either aligning to our predictions of what we think will happen if our theories are true, or giving us the wrong result which proves our theories false). The significance of mathematics is that it helps science find explanations for physical phenomena.
The long answer is that information theory is based on the idea that information is an instantiation of the consequences of laws of physics, namely, how we come up with universal computation by manipulating atoms inside of a CPU. So the laws of physics and the universality of computation are actually intimately connected. It shows that there's something in this physical world that allows us to use logic, either in a computer or in our brains.
Well the problem with this is that... it only makes claims about how people observe other people. It doesn't make any claims about the things being observed "themselves", about how they work, how they came to be, what rules govern them, etc.
For example, an insane person believes that he could fly, and therefore he jumps off of a building and falls to his death. His behavior could be explained by the fact that he really did believe that he could fly. However, it says nothing about the objective laws of physics stating that he could not actually fly. So we are talking about two separate things, his personal belief on one hand that caused his particular behavior, and on the other the objective laws of physics of what one must do in order to fly.
In the same way, we could say that a person who believes in the correctness of ITR will act as if the ITR is correct, and therefore will expect other people to act in the way dictated by the laws of ITR. And yet this says nothing about ITR "in itself", of how that actually works in the physical world.
I think Socionics is slightly different from typical psychology in that it doesn't really make any claims about our subjective beliefs, etc. It makes the claim that there really are 16 types of people existing in the "physical world". And yet it is still remaining in the realm of our subjective beliefs, as in our observations (and this must be circular, because our observations are always true to us). And so in order for it to become "science" (which is to make claims about physical reality), it must become something greater than merely describing our observations. We must come up with an objective explanation that could explain why there must be 16 types of people in this world, and not any other number (because then we could prefer other numbers, there's no good reason why we should stick with 16).
Again, why this emphasis on the physical world? Are you going to model information exchange during a social interaction from a physics model of the brain when we don't understand what consciousness is? No you're not, so stop bringing it up.
A proper test of the intertype relations is between people who don't know about socionics so you don't introduce bias into the experiment. I think a good test would be Reinin's ring of social control - 4 people who make a supervision ring. Type a group of people, and then divide the participants into random groups, positive groups like square or quadra, and social control rings. Then put the different groups into a high pressure teamwork situation, like an escape room, and see if there is a difference between the groups in terms of stress and performance after the activity. I don't think you'd even need to do a double blind if the stress evaluation was something like a self reported questionnaire at the end of the experiment. How is that not scientific?
Finally, something constructive @Dingu.
I’ll get back to you bitchez when I get home.
Simple. Health groups.
“According to medical studies after 1.5 – 2 hours of interaction all members of these groups feel better and demonstrate normalization of objective characteristics such as blood pressure, pulse rate and breathing rates.”
Source: https://socionicsdemystified.wordpre.../small-groups/
Lots of info on concrete claims Socionics makes in that link, particularly what I just quoted. Original Socionics texts/“studies” are referenced at the bottom. We do the escape room idea and measure this stuff after. You’re welcome hunny bunnies.
Well the cliche of this is to bring up something like "evolutionary psychology". The theory of evolution is an emergent property of the consequences of laws of physics. We can say that evolution is something that "really happens" in the physical world, and it's what can explain why there's so much diversity, and it can explain how our psychology was shaped by evolution by natural selection up to a certain point.
I'm only bringing it up because that's simply what science is, it's a special case of knowledge that's limited to the physical world:
So "falsificationism" is another way of saying that it needs to be testable in the physical world. Else, it's untestable.
Well even if a bunch of people could miraculously come to the same conclusion (which I kind of doubt, since people could hardly agree on a type, but that's besides the point), that only makes a claim about how people observe other people.
So the psychological study of this would be, "Why do people see 16 types of ITR?". You can say, "Well the reason is because there really is 16 types of ITR, that's what's objectively true", but you don't know that, until you can actually came up with an objective explanation for why there must be 16 types of ITR, and not anything else. In the same way that we come up with an objective explanation for the laws of physics stating you must fall if you jump from a building or what you must do in order to fly.
What people observe and what's objectively real are two separate things. So the answer isn't "more observations", because that only means "more circularity".
All this shit become almost parodical. I ask myself why exactly Socionic attract that much scientific. It's as if they are trying to turn around everything but the original model is still okay. I recognize Model A was still a good addition. I don't see the goal. I feel like scientific interested into socionic are stuck somewhere never ending to modify stuff wich are already final.
The goal is to test all the different approaches to socionics to find out what works, so we can establish a standardized methodology and improve it with the scientific process.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
