Why is socionics so rounded?
Ok, so one thing i like about socionics is you have the 16 types, 4 quadras, 4 personalities per quadra. Each one has their dual etc. The idea of this makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. But life to me is not normally like this. What would the evolutionary basis be for this seemingly even system? It just seems to me it would be more likely that some types would have no duals and others might have a number of "duals".
Last edited by meatburger; 04-13-2008 at 11:07 PM.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
Just to throw something out there ...
Maybe there used to be more types, but evolution has brought it down to just 16, and 4 quadras.
Or...
Maybe it's been built up a system from a time when we have no types.
After all, we are social creatures, it's one of the reasons why we've survived as a species, and as social creatures (complex social creatures even) it would make sense for evolution to develop a social (socionic) system, a system in which we all interact within that framework.
I don't think there truly is an evolutionary basis for this. IMO, type in itself is biological as well as experiential, but not necessarily evolutionary.
As far as the bit about certain types having no duals and others as having many duals, I think it's in the interest of the socionic system, a system that would most likely be found to be factually based(an assumption i'm making because I don't know if there have been any empirical tests in an attempt to prove the validity of socionic theory) that all types would have a specific core relationship to the other types, a relationship that is indifferent to all other aspects of human society simply because they do fit into a single cohesive structure without which the concepts behind socionics would lose validity(at least they would to me). Just my thoughts on the matter....
does it matter?yes, because it's saying you wouldn't have any duals in a fair system, and i'd have 14 duals.@ that picture!
Evolution and Socionics cannot be reconciled.
Socionics fails because it is not scientifically verifiable.
However...
Perhaps some types are better at living without their duals. ESEs and IEIs and ESIs can take an information beating and not give up.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Just curious, wouldn't you say that much of the evidence at present for both evolution and socionics is emprical?Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
I think its fair to say that our socialness as creature comes from an evolutionary development, so pretty much to make a not completely unreasonable connection, why couldn't evolution have developed socionics as part of our socialness as humans?
What empirical evidence do you have for socionics?
Prove the functions exist.
There is a reason socionics is not accepted within the scientific community.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
does it matter?
yes, because it's saying you wouldn't have any duals in a fair system, and i'd have 14 duals.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Well yeah i think it does. Humans have an amazing history of believing in systems that are faulty and wouldn't want us to fall into that trap. Exactly Kam would be ok because he would be dualing it up with everybody while i would be all alone. (DAMN you evolution).
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
Alchemy anyone???anyone???
To this day I cannot find any empirical evidence in my school's library, or the internet. Anyone else find any? Till then all of this (personality theory) still seems incredibly.... iffy to me.
Hey, we figured out how to make stuff into gold... so it's extremely expensive to do, and even if we managed to do it more cheaply it would deflate gold's value... details.
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Haha, true, I'm not saying Alchemy was useless, just, it wasn't what we were claiming it truly was.
And lemme thank you, Mariano, for putting into words precisely what I've found out. I really suck
Last edited by xyz; 04-14-2008 at 04:45 AM.
There's a perfectly rational explanation for this. Aushra Augusta, with her Fi PoLR, wanted an explanation for why certain relationships worked, and others did not. She identified Jung's functions, adding her own spin on them, and hey presto! Socionics was born.
ETA: It's rounded for a reason; it's a man-made product, and men (I use the term gender-free, ladies, for convenience's sake) like well-roundedness. They can't help doing so; humans cannot be random. They cannot be ordered in a certain way.
yes, socionics is a system which conceptualises reality - it is not reality itself
Yeah but we want our conceptualisation to as closely mirror reality as possible.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
These questions presume that Socionics (and Jungian typology as a whole) is a biological theory. However, implicit in the question is that Socionics is a theory primarily about information aspects (e.g., a theory about existence, phenomena) that naturally apply to people as they would to anything else.
Of course, a large part of it is the anecdotal evidence that these symmetries seem to "work" in real life. However, it's quite possible that Socionists, biased by the system, may incorrectly interpret some of the data.
The answer for your question, my fellow meatburger, is that socionics describes the full range of possibilities of the mind. The whole theory revolves around the idea that the mind is dichotomic, so it starts with a single division and two "types" and it grows up to 4, 8, 16... types. There is no reason for 16 being the exact number; only that socionics only goes that far.
But, one thing is theory and another is reality. It is very likely that types are not evenly distributed among the population. MBTI people says that intuitives only make up a small part of the population. Even people informed about socionics says so indirectly as I recall FDG stating recently that "the value of the functions is the same, but like in economy, goods which are scarcer are considered to be more valuable". According to that idea, since intuitives goods are scarcer chances are intuitives are rarer.
It could mean two things: that intuitives are about to extinguish or that intuitives are just starting to flourish. Of the two options I pick up the later, because it seems obvious that the modern society relies more on abstract ideas and other stuff where intuitives have an advantage.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I like this question Meatburger. A lot of nature is well rounded. Like leaves having symmetry. I don't think there is as much randomness as it seems. We just might not always see the connection behind everything.
It makes sense to me that this would develop like evolution. If all people had the same drives and traits, then we'd probably die out. It makes sense that different personalit traits would evolve to serve various practical needs in all the areas.
It's sort of amazing when you think of it. That all the types combined creates a successful society. Some focused on building and preserving the present, others creating new theories and driving change, some socially focused, some not, some risk takers, some not, all somehow blending together and cancelling eachother out into balance.
Even with dogs, you can tell that some dogs are more aggressive, some more cuddly and friendly, some run away a lot, others are afraid to leave, etc. The differences combine in a way that allows dogs to befriend eachother, chill, and accomplish tasks (if they were like in the wild or whatever).
It makes sense to me. Now, within each type I'm sure there are lots of variations, much more than subtypes. I mean, you have all the other categories of all the things that people can be. It probably branches out like a tree from there, which is why two people of the same type can be so different. Just like men and women are two different categories, but within that category there are endless variations of differences between a bunch of women, or men.
Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)
In regards to socionics being valid-i'm not saying wether it is or not. There's nothing to show why this theory came about any differently than Darwins theory.
maybe the difference is the nature/quality of the evidence which has been used to support each theory?
Why is socionics so rounded?
It hasn't been putting on that much weight
Last edited by Cyclops; 04-14-2008 at 08:00 PM.
There are plenty other fields of studies that are essentially high-levels models of something much more complex and subtle. Economics is a good example. It dares to claim that there are a few sets of rules that determine market structure and behavior. It's just that these rules get compounded on top of one another because society is very complex. In fact, an overemphasis on empiricism at the expense of theory is precisely what many modern economists believe led to the stagflation in the 70s.
Just because something is a conceptual model doesn't mean it's not science. What's important is that we approach it scientifically, testing how our model holds up under multiple conditions. Just because this is delicate with all psychological models doesn't mean that they're all pseudo-scientific.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
