Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Socionics types and suicide

  1. #1
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics types and suicide

    Quote Originally Posted by waddles
    I wonder what the suicide rates are for each type.

    I'll add

    I'm not saying chemical or anatomical things don't play a part in depression, but i think that most of it is environmental and that the brain could make itself "sick" if it is constantly exposed to negative stimuli.
    Do you know about this book: "On suicide" by Emile Durkheim?

    It's a sociology approach on it

    There are a few interesting ideas. Firstly, he aims to demostrate the exterior source of suicide.

    -the hereditar influence is reduced to a very general and indefinite predisposition. Therefore, the individual propensity is not a determinant cause
    -it is demonstrated the link between the social rhythmes and the extent of this phenomenon:
    ***the suicides occur more often during the day, than at night;
    ***their number is growing along with the daylight lenght throughout a year, as the statistics show the following order of the biased seasons: summer, spring, autumn and winter;
    ***they occur more frequent at the beginning of the week than in the weekend

    -the proportion is greater with ageing
    -it is related with religion, more frequent among protestants than chatolics, and among chatolics than Jewish
    -also related with the dimensions of the home living


    The conclusion of the entire study is that suicide is inverse proportional with the social integration in the community of which the individuals make part of

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I read the book a few months ago, actually. It more or less confirmed everything I had believed about suicide up until now. I think, the selfsame exterior and interior influences on suicidal behavior will at least (in part) play a role in determining one's type. It would thus make sense that there would in part be some correlation between type ad suicide rates. However, the same problems with verifying theories like this will emerge - it would require us to type a large quantity of people, accurately and follow them over the course of their lifetimes in a controled atmosphere.

  3. #3
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But Durkheim looks at it as a phenomenon, not even related with some specific individuals.

    He tries to show this is a sociological trend rather than a psychology related problem, as he observed the consistency in number during a determined period of time and several determined countries across Europe

    For example, the number and proportion men/women of suicides in France are constant on a short period of time. On a larger period of time, suicides have the same form for all the examined countries

    Another observation is that, on average, there is 1 woman at 4 men who commits suicide.

  4. #4
    Creepy-Baby too lazy to log in

    Default

    Regardless of how Durkheim chooses to look at suicide in his thesis, it certainly is a very personal thing. I think his end argument is a part of the equation, but there is no doubt in my mind that there are indeed more personal motivations that are at least as important in one's decision to commit suicide.

  5. #5
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is an interesting topic.

    Now I am going to jump a little far out here and it may sound vague.

    There are trends or "collective needs" by society which seem to serve a role which is too large for the individual to comprehend but which suits a purpose.

    Like holidays such as thanksgiving. Rather than being an empty celebration its existence depends upon a collective need by society to either vent something or maintain something that only the collective whole can comprehend. We celebrate these events and they make us happy, but we don't know why, we can't fully know why. Only humanity as a whole, only the information and how it manifests in the end can really tell what the purpose of these ceremonies are. Its sort of like ants. You look at a colony and it seems like they know their roles, but they just do it because of some primitive internal mechanism which makes them carry the tasks out. The acts of celebration in society could very well serve similar roles.

    What I am getting at is that there are larger needs that must be met in order for a person to be happy. We are social creatures and rely upon others in order to survive- we have evolved that way. So although problems are specific to the individual, the fluctuations in the society in which the individual depends upon can alter a persons outlook. I would assume that alot of problems related to suicide deal with a persons sense of failure or dependency.

    In Freud's theory it was the super-ego/ego ideal, the external demands upon the individual, which led to suicide. A lack of actualization in society can lead, for whatever reason, to self destruction.

    Perhaps the structure that human beings have generated out of their reality has fluctuations. Systems of time, like calendars and dates and mealtimes, holidays, religions and festivities, these are all abstract and synthetic things. When you think about days of the week you probably imagine in your mind a calendar, perhaps the one you looked at in kindergarten when you learned the days of the week. For whatever reason in someones mind, perhaps when they fail to develop an abstract system in their consciousness(like ethics and rules related to it)due to a functional weakness or a lag or obstruction in their education, perhaps they fall into despair. But if you ask a generation what they imagine when they think of the term "week" they might tell you they picture a calenday. When you ask one generatio nwhat they think when they think of "entertainment" they might say "television". We have collective agreements, or "labels" we put on things. These exist as abstractions and visual cues, symbols or imagery in out minds.

    Gosh, how to make this clear? Well, there is a collective awareness which manifests in small practices with bigger meanings than the individual can comprehend. Like the meaning of sunday, or the duties typically(although unconsciously performed or taught on monday without us knowing it and which vary from region to region) or anything of that sort. When someone fails to adequately grasp an element of this type they may fall into despair at certain times. like perhaps there is a trend where men, for some reason, have failed to pick up something or cannot adapt to something at the beginning of the week. they suffer most in this part of the cycle because they cannot live up to the expectations that are there but they cannot fully comprehend. when this time passes they sort of forget about it, but when the "cycle" repeats(its all in cycles based on seasons) they re-enter these demands.

    So there are collective depressive states which come from an inability to serve a social role in a given part of the cycle. If you fail to live up to that role the cycle may spiral inward or outward since its oscillation is off cue, so to speak. leading to a person digging themself into a negative state of being and inevitably a destructive state they cannot get themself out of and must end their lives since shame is one of the worst and most early learned collective labels we have. You spiral into an infantile state of dependency because you cannot live up to the social demands.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    First of all, social demands have very little bearing on introverts. Although your case could be made accurately for naturally social individuals (e.g. extroverts), for introverts the situation gets a little more complicated.

    Introverts can become depressed by factors that seem out of their control. If they repeatedly try to detatch themselves from these factors and attain some sense of freedom from them, but are repeatedly denied such by their environment (their friends, their family, their work, etc.) then they may lose hope. Loss of hope appears to be the deepest cause of suicide, because why go on to the next day when you know already that you will have not have a chance then at fulfilling your dreams? Psychotic influences (pathological friends and family) and drugs go a long way to making one feel they should hold out no hope for the future.

    The best way to diminish the likelyhood of suicide in people you know is to encourage them to take heart for tomorrow, even if there is no reason for it. Reasons have a way, in our random world, of presenting themselves seemingly from nothing. It's impossible for us to know everything, so why not look at the glass as half-full, as opposed to half-empty?

  7. #7
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    I wonder if the suicide rate increases for personalities which are in conflict with an integral type. For instance, in the US do ISFP's (the conflicting type to the US ENTJ intrgral) have an increased suicide rate?

    My thinking is that when a persons individual type conflicts with the type they're expected to be through social norms they would have a difficult time reconciling themselves to societies expectations. From my US example the ISFP feels a constant pressure to "mimic" an ENTJ in courting, relationships, buisness, etc... I imagine the results would either be a perminant masking of the ISFP's "true" type or ever increasing distancing from society. In either case the end result would be a mean mental disorder cocktail.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    First of all, social demands have very little bearing on introverts. Although your case could be made accurately for naturally social individuals (e.g. extroverts), for introverts the situation gets a little more complicated.
    You know, I think you might be on to something. I think Jung himself developed his personality theories in order to take into account that different types of people will react differently to the same stimulus. Thus, and INFp will more likely be driven to suicide for different reasons that an ENTj. Suicide becomes an option only when the individual believes that life cannot get any worse (or couldn't be any worse than death) - usually when all that he cares about is lost to him. The best way to go about dealing with suicidal behavior is to find out what is important to the individual at hand and to reintroduce them into his life.

    I also see the validity in Waddles' viewpoint:

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    What I am getting at is that there are larger needs that must be met in order for a person to be happy. We are social creatures and rely upon others in order to survive- we have evolved that way. So although problems are specific to the individual, the fluctuations in the society in which the individual depends upon can alter a persons outlook. I would assume that alot of problems related to suicide deal with a persons sense of failure or dependency.
    I think this is a very intelligent way to look at it. Many psychologist believe that the focus on "I" as an individual entity in current times, as opposed to the "I" as part of my community (as in past times) has contributed to the spike in depression lately. While I'm not so sure this is indeed the whole picture, I do not doubt that it is at least part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    Well, there is a collective awareness which manifests in small practices with bigger meanings than the individual can comprehend.
    I think I know what you are saying. The collective habits/conventions/traditions/customs that have developed in our society (be they religious, political, or cultural) developed as a result of some larger human need. The individual partakes in the collective habits/traditions/customs, but does not always comprehend their true value. When the individual, thus, estranges himself from these habits/conventions/traditions/customs he is thereby preventing himself from expressing and fulfilling those larger human needs and thus is more prone to becoming depressed. Is that what you meant?

  9. #9

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    Well, there is a collective awareness which manifests in small practices with bigger meanings than the individual can comprehend. Like the meaning of sunday, or the duties typically(although unconsciously performed or taught on monday without us knowing it and which vary from region to region) or anything of that sort. When someone fails to adequately grasp an element of this type they may fall into despair at certain times. like perhaps there is a trend where men, for some reason, have failed to pick up something or cannot adapt to something at the beginning of the week. they suffer most in this part of the cycle because they cannot live up to the expectations that are there but they cannot fully comprehend. when this time passes they sort of forget about it, but when the "cycle" repeats(its all in cycles based on seasons) they re-enter these demands.
    If a person "dissented" from society, as if it was a failure, then the person self destructs?

  10. #10
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I put things such as free will aside. The dissent is sort of a natural process all subject to the laws of cause and effect, just like a potential alienation of a person. the more people being alienated the more likely there are to be changes since we are all socially dependent creatures.

  11. #11
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby too lazy to log in
    Regardless of how Durkheim chooses to look at suicide in his thesis, it certainly is a very personal thing. I think his end argument is a part of the equation, but there is no doubt in my mind that there are indeed more personal motivations that are at least as important in one's decision to commit suicide.
    Yes, Baby, I agree that for Durkheim is more important the quantitative method, rather the interpretative. Maybe both methods should be considered in the attempt to explain it


    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Quote Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
    What I am getting at is that there are larger needs that must be met in order for a person to be happy. We are social creatures and rely upon others in order to survive- we have evolved that way. So although problems are specific to the individual, the fluctuations in the society in which the individual depends upon can alter a persons outlook. I would assume that alot of problems related to suicide deal with a persons sense of failure or dependency
    I think this is a very intelligent way to look at it. Many psychologist believe that the focus on "I" as an individual entity in current times, as opposed to the "I" as part of my community (as in past times) has contributed to the spike in depression lately. While I'm not so sure this is indeed the whole picture, I do not doubt that it is at least part of it.
    I guess this would be the egoist type of suicide, when the individual is self-centered and has no responsabilities within the community. Than life has no motivation. The more detached we are from the society, the more detached we are from life. It mostly happens like this in modern times, where the accent is on the individual, and he, the individual acts to fulfill his own interests first, and loses sight of the general interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Quote Originally Posted by Wadllesworth
    Well, there is a collective awareness which manifests in small practices with bigger meanings than the individual can comprehend.

    I think I know what you are saying. The collective habits/conventions/traditions/customs that have developed in our society (be they religious, political, or cultural) developed as a result of some larger human need. The individual partakes in the collective habits/traditions/customs, but does not always comprehend their true value. When the individual, thus, estranges himself from these habits/conventions/traditions/customs he is thereby preventing himself from expressing and fulfilling those larger human needs and thus is more prone to becoming depressed. Is that what you meant?
    That would be an anomic type of suicide, when the individual confronts himself with a lack at a level of values, standards and ideals. He has to settle to a set of norms to go by, that are also approved, at some moment, in the community he lives. By this time he/she might feel disorientated, alienated and also might experience a feeling of purposelessness.
    I think our modern, restless societies, that are constanly and rapidly changing are likely to create such anomic situations

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu_ baba
    Yes, Baby, I agree that for Durkheim is more important the quantitative method, rather the interpretative. Maybe both methods should be considered in the attempt to explain it
    I agree. Human behavior is such a complicated thing. There are so many influences around us that are both external and internal that to view something like suicide in just the external sense would be too simplistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu_baba
    I guess this would be the egoist type of suicide, when the individual is self-centered and has no responsabilities within the community. Than life has no motivation. The more detached we are from the society, the more detached we are from life. It mostly happens like this in modern times, where the accent is on the individual, and he, the individual acts to fulfill his own interests first, and loses sight of the general interest.
    I agree. The individual is defined by the group - by the role he plays within that group, and the ways in which he affects the general interest. If one were to become estranged from that, it would possibly lead to depression in those predisposed to it, and eventually possibly suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu_baba
    That would be an anomic type of suicide, when the individual confronts himself with a lack at a level of values, standards and ideals. He has to settle to a set of norms to go by, that are also approved, at some moment, in the community he lives. By this time he/she might feel disorientated, alienated and also might experience a feeling of purposelessness.
    I think our modern, restless societies, that are constanly and rapidly changing are likely to create such anomic situations
    True. Interesting that you differentiate between different types of suicide. I like the way you think. I think there are also threads within these different influences; specifically a feeling of alienation or estrangement from some sort of aprobation or validation - whether it be from the community, in a moral sense, or in the internal sense.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If a person(INTj ?) struggles constantly with the meaninglessness of life and thinks why bother, I am going to die soon enough anyway. Why struggle in the mean time and get old and die in undignified way when I can just kill myself now. Life has always been relentlessly dull for me even though I am not depressed.

    What arguments could I put to such a person against suicide? Should I in fact try to talk them out of it?

  14. #14
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan.
    If a person(INTj ?) struggles constantly with the meaninglessness of life and thinks why bother, I am going to die soon enough anyway. Why struggle in the mean time and get old and die in undignified way when I can just kill myself now. Life has always been relentlessly dull for me even though I am not depressed.

    What arguments could I put to such a person against suicide? Should I in fact try to talk them out of it?
    I think it sounds like depression.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  15. #15
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The body rules the mind. Remember that if you want to talk him out of it.

    I know that was horribly vague, but all that I can come up with right now is visionary stuff.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  16. #16
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I frequently get thoughts like that. This is how I talk myself out of it:

    If its all going to end anyway, why not just do what you want? what's there to be afraid of? If you are going to die anyway, what do you have to lose? So try to do everything you can. Go cross country, run away. Ask that special crush out. Do anything you want.

    The reason you want to kill yourself is you're too afraid to face your problems because you either never truly have, or because you don't know who you really are and are barking up the wrong tree all along.

    So my advice to these people is to realize that they are really just too chicken to face their problems so they try and make an excuse by saying there is "no point"

    I've done it.

    So far from the truth! if there was no point we wouldnt be here to make points up. There is an aim, and if you can't find one its because you're just hiding from yourself. You have to face that there is suffering, eternally. That humanity is a bloody mass of chaos and the ideal is just an illusion you can never live up to.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kim

    I thought the individual might be depressed at first but on when I spoke to the person in question about this they almost convinced me otherwise. What if the person just sees life as like being on a slow moving train heading towards death and decay(my analogy). I suppose you can look out the window at the scenery and create some meaning out of it all. On the other hand you could just bypass all the joys, sorrows and other experiences along the way, save yourself the hassle, the joys are rather fleeting and meaningless anyway, and get off at the next stop so to speak. I am not saying I see things this way myself but I understand that perspective.

    I hate to admit it but my morals are somewhat unconventional and I do not really know why anyone else would really prefer living to death. I want to live because I am curious about how my life will progress and the experiences I will create. This person did not buy into the curiousity/creativity angle as a good reason for wanting to live so I do not know what other reason to give.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan.
    Kim

    I thought the individual might be depressed at first but on when I spoke to the person in question about this they almost convinced me otherwise. What if the person just sees life as like being on a slow moving train heading towards death and decay(my analogy). I suppose you can look out the window at the scenery and create some meaning out of it all. On the other hand you could just bypass all the joys, sorrows and other experiences along the way, save yourself the hassle, the joys are rather fleeting and meaningless anyway, and get off at the next stop so to speak. I am not saying I see things this way myself but I understand that perspective.

    I hate to admit it but my morals are somewhat unconventional and I do not really know why anyone else would really prefer living to death. I want to live because I am curious about how my life will progress and the experiences I will create. This person did not buy into the curiousity/creativity angle as a good reason for wanting to live so I do not know what other reason to give.
    Sounds like this person feels like an outside observer in life. In other words, alienated. If someone does not feel a part of and sees no way of becoming a part of, they see no point.

    In a weird way, feeling or being at the outskirts, is being a part of. That's the person's part. There are always people playing this part. In the distant view, the person on the outside is still a part of.

    The thing the person may not like is feeling like they don't have a choice, either because of their perception that others won't let them in to the mainstream or because they feel that they don't have the skills to get into and adequately adjust to the mainstream. Everybody has choices though, even if they can't see them.

    We need to find ways of seeing that everyone is a part of, even people who don't feel a part of. Incorporating the point of view of people who don't feel a part of is key in our evolutionary process, for it is they who truly drive innovation and change.

    EDIT/ More precisely, when we listen to people who don't feel a part of, they draw our attention and help us to reflect on the nature of our process, because they stand at the fringes and can see us more clearly than we can see ourselves.
    Entp
    ILE

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Blaze your insights were spot on. I think alienation sounds about right as the explanation for the situation.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks, Megan. I loved the train analogy, too!
    Entp
    ILE

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know exactly, Kim. I mean, getting people to see that they are connected or a part of is tough when they are stuck in their own perspective; that they are standing at the outside or fringes of things. I guess the first step is seeing that even if you are at the fringes you really are still a part of.

    Looking at the costs AND benefits of that position, because there are benefits: you see things that others can't see, you think that you are different and that's good, you don't have to negotiate with others. Do the benefits offset the costs? Deciding whether you want to continue in that position or not.

    If the person decides they don't want to maintain their stance or position, do they have what it takes to move out of it? Big question. People need the skills and resources to make and maintain changes.

    Some people feel as though they are not living a life that's worth living and that their life cannot be changed for whatever reason. Most people want to live a life that's worth living, though, as least when they look honestly.

    I don't know if this makes any sense. Maybe this helps?
    Entp
    ILE

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SW Pennsylvania
    Posts
    993
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've read very little of this thread . . . and I'm sorry . . . I don't understand suicide or thoughts of suicide. I really think I am too narcisistic to even contemplate it. I do know what it is to be down and out and feel low about yourself . . . physical and mental abuse as a child. And I have lived on the street for a short time. I know what it's like to humiliate myself just for a warm place to sleep and a bath and some food. But I never ever thought of suicide. I thank my lucky stars and may your God bless and keep you that have been and are in this situation. Love, Artemis
    <--- Me pouring out all my love on you!

    Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.

  23. #23
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Good thread. I would encourage anyone here to look at sociological perspectives in contrast and interrelation with temperament theory(s). Although Durkheim is my least fave (I often say Dorkheim...) there are a lot of interesting thoughts with this sociologist concerning structural functionalism that contrast and interrelate with other sociological perspectives. One of the flaws with temperament thery, I believe, is the heavy reliance for explaination from it. There are many, many other perspectives in the social sciences to consider as well.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    One of the flaws with temperament thery, I believe, is the heavy reliance for explaination from it. There are many, many other perspectives in the social sciences to consider as well.

    I think I have to agree that there is too much reliance on temperament theory for explanations. I am pleased that someone else is thinking this way.

    I have concluded that type indentification says a lot less about the actual individual than I first assumed. In particular, I have often read of types being linked with intelligence, morality, aggresiveness, submissiveness or whatever but when I have meet a person of this type in reality, they have many dimensions to them that cannot be readily be explained by type theory.

    I think socialization, socio-economic background, experiences, values and other factors may be more important than type in deciding who a person is at final analysis. How can the unassertive ESTp be explained for instance? Or the very happy and successful marriage between conflicting types? Or the INTj who is stereotypical of that type except that he is romantic and writes poetry for his girlfriend? If this person was to appear on this forum and confess to engaging in such activities somone would immediately suggest that his type is INFp or interpret the hidden agenda in such a way that it provides an explanation.

    In this way type theory is somewhat like astrology because in astrology, if the person is not behaving like the sun sign dictates that they should, then some astrologers would argue that it must be the influence of the rather nebulous ascendant sign that is causing the deviation from type.


    @Jadae, I not sure when you came back but I am very happy that you have. Also, on Durkheim, what are your specific criticisms of his theory of suicide?

  25. #25
    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 Megan
    In this way type theory is somewhat like astrology because in astrology, if the person is not behaving like the sun sign dictates that they should, then some astrologers would argue that it must be the influence of the rather nebulous ascendant sign that is causing the deviation from type.
    I think the analogy/comparison to astrology is not helpful. Astrology starts from an untenable proposition - that the time of a person's birth deeply influences that person's psychology and even fate. So it's no wonder that astrology has to resort to tricks to justify why someone born in a certain month does not have the personality it "should" have.

    Socionics starts with people as they are, and then tries to analyse their strong/weak functions; and how they make them behave and interact with others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    I think socialization, socio-economic background, experiences, values and other factors may be more important than type in deciding who a person is at final analysis. How can the unassertive ESTp be explained for instance? Or the very happy and successful marriage between conflicting types? Or the INTj who is stereotypical of that type except that he is romantic and writes poetry for his girlfriend? If this person was to appear on this forum and confess to engaging in such activities somone would immediately suggest that his type is INFp or interpret the hidden agenda in such a way that it provides an explanation.
    There are certainly other factors deciding what a person is, or perceived to be, and there was a thread where I mentioned that, for instance, an ENFp from a country like Switzerland might be typed as an ISTj upon first arriving in, say, southern Italy.

    I don't think that any of this reduces the relevance of socionics however. To take your example of an "unassertive ESTp". An ESTP in a situation where s/he is subjected to iron discipline - whether in an authoritarian family environment, or in a very disciplined army, or perhaps as a female under the Taliban - would certainly not seem very assertive to us, but his/her strong / would still be visible in other respects, and might even still be seen as "assertive" in relation to other individuals in the same position.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I think the analogy/comparison to astrology is not helpful. Astrology starts from an untenable proposition - that the time of a person's birth deeply influences that person's psychology and even fate.

    @ Expat

    I hate to split hairs but if you re-read what I have written above, then I believe that it can be seen that I was only pointing out one way in which astrology and socionics can be seen to be similiar; which is that unreliable and often subjective interpretations are often applied by adherrants of both systems to explain type anomalies. I was by no means comparing socionics with astrology in a general way, nor arguing as to the scientific validity of either, nor was I debating the rightness or wrongness of applying subjectivity to either disciplines.

    On a separate but related point, even though I believe that both astrology and socionics can be seen as typing systems, I will not attempt to go further with comparisons and argue that socionics' methodology is "right" and astrologys' is "wrong" at this time. Like I have said previously elsewhere, I have not seen any real irrefutable evidence to convince me that either socionics and worst astrology, are reliable systems for typing, forecasting or explaining all or most human behaviors.



    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    To take your example of an "unassertive ESTp". An ESTP in a situation where s/he is subjected to iron discipline - whether in an authoritarian family environment, or in a very disciplined army, or perhaps as a female under the Taliban - would certainly not seem very assertive to us, but his/her strong / would still be visible in other respects, and might even still be seen as "assertive" in relation to other individuals in the same position.
    How can you be certain that the outlined covert resistance of the ESTp female living under the Taliban would actually happen?

  27. #27
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan

    @Jadae, I not sure when you came back but I am very happy that you have. Also, on Durkheim, what are your specific criticisms of his theory of suicide?
    I'll get back to you on that. After this week it's back to the slave mill so I'll be gone again but you can be sure that I will think about it.

  28. #28
    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 Megan
    I hate to split hairs but if you re-read what I have written above, then I believe that it can be seen that I was only pointing out one way in which astrology and socionics can be seen to be similiar; which is that unreliable and often subjective interpretations are often applied by adherrants of both systems to explain type anomalies. I was by no means comparing socionics with astrology in a general way, nor arguing as to the scientific validity of either, nor was I debating the rightness or wrongness of applying subjectivity to either disciplines.
    Megan,

    I think I did get what you meant, but I also think the comparison made by you - to illustrate your point, as I understood - is misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan

    How can you be certain that the outlined covert resistance of the ESTp female living under the Taliban would actually happen?
    I did not say, nor even mean, anything about "covert resistance".

    What I did say is that her strong would still be visible in other respects - such as the sensorial ones not related to assertiveness - and that she might still be seen as relatively assertive - towards, say, other females in the same social position and the like. I certainly do not think it would be easy for a female to exercise covert resistance under the Taliban.

    Moreover, I'm not certain of anything.

    It is also possible that a female ESTp under the Taliban would have her spirit so crushed that she would not be an ESTp anymore - what would she then be? That's an interesting question.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I think I did get what you meant, but I also think the comparison made by you - to illustrate your point, as I understood - is misleading.
    The point restated is that it could be argued that subjective bias could be introduced to both astrology and socionics by its adherents during their attempts at providing explanations for deviations from type norms. Do you disagree that this could and has been done? If so, how then is the comparison misleading? Especially since as far as I know, there is no irrefutable evidence to fully support the reliability and consistency of either system's methodologies and premises.
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Moreover, I'm not certain of anything.
    Your observations above of the inherent uncertainty in forecasting human behavior even with knowledge of socionics theory supports the previously made point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    It is also possible that a female ESTp under the Taliban would have her spirit so crushed that she would not be an ESTp anymore -what would she then be? That's an interesting question.
    It is indeed an interesting question. I admit I have no answer either. However, if a person's type is genetically determined, then I would presume that she would still be an ESTp.


    Thanks for clarifying your point on resistance, I misunderstood when I assumed you were speaking of covert resistance rather than finding forms of whatever kind to resist.
    Also, Expat I was feeling bored and wicked when I made the one specific comparison between astrology and socionics . I am sure you have several precise reasons that you will share as to why certain aspects of both typing systems should not or cannot be compared in any legitimate way.

  30. #30
    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 Megan
    The point restated is that it could be argued that subjective bias could be introduced to both astrology and socionics by its adherents during their attempts at providing explanations for deviations from type norms. Do you disagree that this could and has been done? If so, how then is the comparison misleading? Especially since as far as I know, there is no irrefutable evidence to fully support the reliability and consistency of either system's methodologies and premises.
    I'm probably the one splitting hairs now, but I do not disagree with your point - and yet I find this comparison misleading in a way- not wrong.

    Subjective bias is present in all sciences - even hard sciences. I work in hard-science R&D, and it happens very often that people will find excuses to explain why an experiment did not turn out "the way it should have", and feel inclined to emphasize the one attempt that did work, rather than the other three that didn't.

    Of course, in hard science, eventually the experimental evidence will be irrefutable but, until then, there may be a lot of self-dellusion. A good example was the cold-fusion fiasco some 15 years ago.

    Having said that - and agreed that there will be bias in socionics and astrology, as well as in anything - I think that to single out socionics and astrology, together, in that sense, is misleading in the sense that it is unfair to the former, which is based on far more solid scientific methodology than astrology, which is based on none whatsoever.

    Especially as that's the reaction I've heard from some people whom I told about socionics, especially regarding relationships, "it sounds like astrology".

    There is no "irrefutable" evidence to support socionics, but the thinking behind it is scientific (even if some people - as people everywhere - will have biases when applying and studying it).

    There is irrefutable evidence that astrology's premises are sheer nonsense, and the thinking behind it is non-scientific. That is the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Also, Expat I was feeling bored and wicked when I made the one specific comparison between astrology and socionics . I am sure you have several precise reasons that you will share as to why certain aspects of both typing systems should not or cannot be compared in any legitimate way.
    Socionics starts from scientific observations of people as they are, and then tries to explain their behavior, especially in interpersonal relations, based on those.

    If the conclusion is reached some day that the majority or even a large number of marriages between, say, people clearly typed individually as ENFjs and ISTps are happy and "dual", then that would be clear evidence that socionics is bunk. But as long as those remain the exception - if they do - then I think socionics has a claim to be a valid social science.

    Astrology starts from a non-scientific premise - that people's psychologies are precisely determined by the stars and planets on the sky the moment they were born. Not only does that contradict the accumulated scientific evidence in other areas, but it also contradicts direct evidence.

    For instance, that would imply that twins would necessarily have identical psychologies - is that the case? I think it's clear that it isn't.

    And how precisely would the stars and planets affect someone at birth? Why not during conception, or during phoetal development? Why is the moment of leaving the womb so important?

    Would the stars and planets affect the baby through their gravity? The doctor's gravitational field affects the baby much more intensely than that of the stars forming Capricorn, or even than that of Neptune.

    Or would they affect the baby due to their radiation? The sun's would always be infinitely more intense.

    If socionics starts to explain types by genetics, or brain types, or similar things, without experimental evidence - then it will start to go down the path of astrology.

    As long as it sticks to analysing people as they already are, through observation; and tries to reach conclusions based on those observations, it will deserve to be called a science.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  31. #31
    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 Megan
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Moreover, I'm not certain of anything.
    Your observations above of the inherent uncertainty in forecasting human behavior even with knowledge of socionics theory supports the previously made point.
    What I meant was rather like, "I don't have a ISXj hidden agenda". :wink: A more general comment rather than just applied to the validity of socionics.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  32. #32
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    How can you be certain that the outlined covert resistance of the ESTp female living under the Taliban would actually happen?
    If you want to analyze a trait like "assertivness", you absolutely must set a ceteris paribus condition - that is, all other things being equal, the ESTP will be assertive. Otherwise, no comparison whatsoever is even thinkable.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    If you want to analyze a trait like "assertivness", you absolutely must set a ceteris paribus condition - that is, all other things being equal, the ESTP will be assertive. Otherwise, no comparison whatsoever is even thinkable.
    All what things being equal? When is anything to do with human psychology equal anyway?

  34. #34
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    If you want to analyze a trait like "assertivness", you absolutely must set a ceteris paribus condition - that is, all other things being equal, the ESTP will be assertive. Otherwise, no comparison whatsoever is even thinkable.
    All what things being equal? When is anything to do with human psychology equal anyway?
    I was referring to the external environment.

  35. #35
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    If you want to analyze a trait like "assertivness", you absolutely must set a ceteris paribus condition - that is, all other things being equal, the ESTP will be assertive. Otherwise, no comparison whatsoever is even thinkable.
    All what things being equal? When is anything to do with human psychology equal anyway?
    I was referring to the external environment. If you look at the previous post, the discussion was inherent to the effect of the environment in regard to the development of the stereotypical ESTP traits.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    ...Having said that - and agreed that there will be bias in socionics and astrology, as well as in anything - I think that to single out socionics and astrology, together, in that sense, is misleading in the sense that it is unfair to the former, which is based on far more solid scientific methodology than astrology, which is based on none whatsoever.

    Especially as that's the reaction I've heard from some people whom I told about socionics, especially regarding relationships, "it sounds like astrology".

    There is no "irrefutable" evidence to support socionics, but the thinking behind it is scientific (even if some people - as people everywhere - will have biases when applying and studying it).

    Socionics starts from scientific observations of people as they are, and then tries to explain their behavior, especially in interpersonal relations, based on those...
    Expat, your points just to say quickly, are very well made and clear. However do bear in mind that the comparison was not between astrology and socionics as whole systems.
    Nevertheless, to move on and take a broader look at the systems as you have done, I think I would need to have more evidence to consider from both systems. I am not an astrologist and from what I have read about astrology, I have to say that evidence to verify astrology's claims seem rather weak and appear to be centered around the effects of the moon on gravity and human body fluids at the time of an individual's birth. I guess I could expand in greater details about this, but as neither you nor myself have any belief in this system, I will spare myself the effort. To be honest, I feel ridiculous discussing astrology even in the "anything goes" forum.

    The methodology that socionics uses to gather information is not entirely clear. I have searched hard to find well-conducted research that adds a huge amount of credibility to socionics. I have been unsuccessful so far. I am not thinking that socionics is total garbage, but it just seems that too many of its methods and premises have not been satisfactorily investigated.

    When people identify with characteristics from their own socionics personality profile, I do not believe that the influence of the Forer effect can be ruled out.
    I was about to discuss V.I but at this stage self-respect is restraining my ability to do so. However, I may try and trample upon my dignity enough to look at it in detail at a later date. I do try to V.I people for fun though, so at least socionics has brought me some idle pleasure.

    For my own benefit, may I ask, what controlled studies if any have you analysed that has lead you to support socionics' claims? Is it purely based on self experience and your observations of your relations with other types? How did the functions come about and what reasons do you have to trust that they work like socionics indicates they do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    As long as it [socionics] sticks to analysing people as they already are, through observation; and tries to reach conclusions based on those observations, it will deserve to be called a science.
    Do you think that if I simply engaged in this practice then I might rightly officially represent myself as and claim my profession to be that of scientist?
    Just kidding, don't answer that one. :wink:

    By the way, I have found out since my last post that astrologically, I have both a sun and moon in scorpio and a capricorn rising. So unless I am an eagle scorpio (astrology has subtypes too), being a scorpio sun and moon type means that I am a very evil person . I am currently using this to explain the personal boredom, iniquity and wickedness that engulfed me and caused me to simplistically demean socionics like I did by comparing any aspect of it to astrology. Damn evil .

  37. #37
    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 Megan
    For my own benefit, may I ask, what controlled studies if any have you analysed that has lead you to support socionics' claims? Is it purely based on self experience and your observations of your relations with other types? How did the functions come about and what reasons do you have to trust that they work like socionics indicates they do?
    Megan, there seems to be a misunderstanding of my position.

    I'm not at all sure that socionics does work the way its proponents claim it does. However, from what I've seen so far, also by reading some articles on its history, its approach is scientific.

    By that I mean simply that it starts from empirical observations and tries to reach a theoretical model based on those, and then, sees how well further empirical observations fit that model. And if they don't fit, you change, or even discard, that model accordingly.

    In a nutshell, that is how science works - being "scientific" does not mean "being always right", or even "already having a finished model".

    As to your question regarding the functions: I see it as the theoretical model first proposed, based on the initial observations. I would hope that the work going on in Russia now is precisely to see how further observations fit that model.

    As I stated previously:

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    If the conclusion is reached some day that the majority or even a large number of marriages between, say, people clearly typed individually as ENFjs and ISTps are happy and "dual", then that would be clear evidence that socionics is bunk. But as long as those remain the exception - if they do - then I think socionics has a claim to be a valid social science.
    It's a pity that almost all the available literature in socionics is in Russian, I'd be very interested in finding out if they have carried out this sort of empirical analysis. If they haven't, and are just happy to assume that the original work of its founder is correct (like many psychologists do with Freud's ), then socionics' claim to follow a scientific methodology will be diminished to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Do you think that if I simply engaged in this practice then I might rightly officially represent myself as and claim my profession to be that of scientist?
    Just kidding, don't answer that one. :wink:
    No, I think it's a valid point . I don't know about your profession, but you follow a scientifc approach - to anything - then you can rightly claim to be thinking and acting like a scientist [should].

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    By the way, I have found out since my last post that astrologically, I have both a sun and moon in scorpio and a capricorn rising. So unless I am an eagle scorpio (astrology has subtypes too), being a scorpio sun and moon type means that I am a very evil person . I am currently using this to explain the personal boredom, iniquity and wickedness that engulfed me and caused me to simplistically demean socionics like I did by comparing any aspect of it to astrology. Damn evil .
    That does explain everything !

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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