socionics axioms

[reyn_til_runa]

does socionics lend itself to a set of axioms?

if so, what do you think they are?

i'm not talking about the basic information that makes up the theory, but a simpler set of truths that you do not question, upon which the theory can be built.

list format would be fine, and some other format may be fine too, as long as it's concise.

it's ok, too, if these are guesses. i believe that guessing at axioms, then testing their substance through theory, is more valuable than pretending to know the right (rigid) answers.

[snegledmaca]

These are the only ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Relationships between people form instantly (Could take time to fully show) and are stable.
Relationships between people always take up one of the 16 forms.


Basically, there is no possibility that after say three years with no problems at all a relationship suddenly disintegrates caused solely by people information metabolism. There is also no switching between relations, there is no, say, a three year period cycle through which couples go through switching through at least two different relations. There are also no transitory states between relations.

[tcaudilllg]

If only the rest of the world knew this.

[Exodus]

These are the only ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Relationships between people form instantly (Could take time to fully show) and are stable.
Relationships between people always take up one of the 16 forms.


Basically, there is no possibility that after say three years with no problems at all a relationship suddenly disintegrates caused solely by people information metabolism. There is also no switching between relations, there is no, say, a three year period cycle through which couples go through switching through at least two different relations. There are also no transitory states between relations.

Interesting...

I'd say,

1. Type does not change (is stable).
2. Same types implies same relationships.

You could add

3. There are 16 types.

but subtypes contradict this.

As for the stability of relationships,

Smilexian socionics eliminates 1. Really there isn't much left in the way of axioms. All you have is #2, and that relationships and people follow certain patterns - and that is pretty much necessary for any (pseudo)-empirical study. What patterns they are, exactly, is essentially left to observation, no?

IMO, #2 is really the basis of socionic's value - although what the types are is not obvious at all.

[machintruc]

does socionics lend itself to a set of axioms?

if so, what do you think they are?

i'm not talking about the basic information that makes up the theory, but a simpler set of truths that you do not question, upon which the theory can be built.

list format would be fine, and some other format may be fine too, as long as it's concise.

it's ok, too, if these are guesses. i believe that guessing at axioms, then testing their substance through theory, is more valuable than pretending to know the right (rigid) answers.

http://wikisocion.org/~wikisoci/en/i...s_of_socionics