Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Typology from scratch

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typology from scratch.

    Suppose you did not have any knowledge of socionics, but you did have the vague intuitive idea that people differ in terms of personality in fundamental ways to the point where dividing them into sepparate groups is meaningful. How would you then go about discovering exactly how many groups there are, what the commonalities of the people in the groups are, and how they should be named?

    Another way to formulate the question: if socionics turns out to be bull-shit, but we stick to the idea that people can be meaningfully classified; how could a theory of personality be formulated and tested in a way that precludes us from making the mistakes that were made during the previous attempts?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Typology from scratch.

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Another way to formulate the question: if socionics turns out to be bull-shit, but we stick to the idea that people can be meaningfully classified; how could a theory of personality be formulated and tested in a way that precludes us from making the mistakes that were made during the previous attempts?

    establish observable patterns, possibly through brain scans.

  3. #3
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What mistakes are you talking about?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Typology from scratch.

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Another way to formulate the question: if socionics turns out to be bull-shit, but we stick to the idea that people can be meaningfully classified; how could a theory of personality be formulated and tested in a way that precludes us from making the mistakes that were made during the previous attempts?
    Have you checked the history of how the Big Five Theory was developed? I haven't investigated it much, but I think there were several different theories around until psychologists finally agreed that probably all of people's differences in personality can be described in terms of those five dimensions (four of which are very similar if not identical to the four scales in Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey's model).

  5. #5
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You will eventuelly end up with a sort of Big Five personality category. As most of the people who tried did.

  6. #6
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Relationships.

    It's the only thing that gives socionics meaning at all. Might as well use favorite colors otherwise. Of course, any classification has to be evaluated within the criteria that were responsible for it, but I can't think of anything else that would be a suitable means of cross-reference, if we're limited to psychology.

  7. #7
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just one thing, b is indentical to a, just notation used to compile the matrix, right?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  8. #8
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Relationships.

    It's the only thing that gives socionics meaning at all. Might as well use favorite colors otherwise. Of course, any classification has to be evaluated within the criteria that were responsible for it, but I can't think of anything else that would be a suitable means of cross-reference, if we're limited to psychology.
    Yes.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •