Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 47

Thread: Do you ever think

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Do you ever think

    that socionics could just be a bunch of bullshit? That there are not *really* 16 types and whatnot?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  2. #2
    Creepy-

    Default

    duh

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    westfield, nj usa
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    that socionics could just be a bunch of bullshit? That there are not *really* 16 types and whatnot?
    not impossible. and of course we could be imaginations from a dreamer from another world. or a program that's still running in some computer in atlantis.

    it's a pretty sharp coincidence that many people have the exact same attitudes and abilities regaurdless of ethinic, schooling, age, etc. so there must be something to it... i do think it should be refined.

  4. #4
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would disagree. It should be less defined.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  5. #5
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sometimes I wonder if there are only eight functions. What if, for example, there exists along with intuition and sensation a third form of perceiving information that Jung failed to define? However, the functions are so broadly defined that the idea seems hard to grasp.
    Lyricist

    "Supposing the entity of the poet to be represented by the number 10, it is certain that a chemist, on analyzing it, would find it to be composed of one part interest and nine parts vanity." (Victor Hugo)

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    westfield, nj usa
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tempus
    Sometimes I wonder if there are only eight functions. What if, for example, there exists along with intuition and sensation a third form of perceiving information that Jung failed to define? However, the functions are so broadly defined that the idea seems hard to grasp.
    i think the main problem is the word usage used to describe it. when i think of intuition i think of gut feeling, just knowing etc. however they also use it win figuring out how to do something, to pattern recognition.

    i really don't think jung had a large enough pool to gather from. but then again, he didn't have the internet either. were we can compare our "problems and abilities" with one another and cross correlate much faster then he ever could. it allows us to remove those questions and search for new ones.

    ideally each function should be divided up. intuition in the form of mental projections, maybe the ability to change one's life path or predict the future (they are related in this manner) - by simply thinking about it in the right way. it's happen to me way more than to be just a coincidence.

  8. #8
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    that socionics could just be a bunch of bullshit? That there are not *really* 16 types and whatnot?

    I am quite certain that I really don't need to say anything about my considerations on this subject
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  9. #9
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    charming
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  10. #10
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't want to get redundant, that's all..
    (yeah, I realize the contradiction)
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you're ENTp
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  12. #12
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you know it
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  13. #13
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well it seems there's always something you're not saying... ask and sycophant, they do it all the time
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  14. #14

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

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    edit.

  15. #15
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    a whole lot of faith often based on "empirical evidence" etc.

    -----

    Perhaps a few of the people who find socionics credible would tell us why they do.
    Faith based on empirical evidence is not faith, it's a rational conclusion.

    I have seen more than enough empirical evidence to lead me conclude that there is definitely more to it than coincidence, as mike pointed out.

    Now, whether the there are really 16 fixed types, or whether model A is accurate, that I'm not sure about. Perhaps, for instance, there are really only 8 types made of the mirror pairs, like ENTj/INTp, and ENTj is simply the logical subtype of this type, and INTp the intuitive subtype. Or perhaps there are really crosstypes. No idea.

    I have already said why I find socionics credible -- it seems to work better in determining how people behave, and their intertype relationships, than any other model I've seen. But "better" doesn't mean "perfect". As Rick said, a correlation of 60% would already mean there is something to it.

    For practical purposes, I work with the model as it is, which is by no means a "faith" .

    I have worked in R&D in exact sciences, as in chemistry and engineering. These are fields where things have to work 100%, otherwise you have an accident. Yet, in the early stages of researching something new, it's perfectly normal to find out that your experimental results don't always come out the way they "should". However, if they come out right "most of the time" it's already an indication that you're on the right track.

    The difference is that in engineering you eventually find a way to make everything fit 100%, while in human sciences, such as psychology or economics, that will never happen.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    well it seems there's always something you're not saying... ask and sycophant, they do it all the time
    Joy...

    Jow, there is something I'm not saying. Shh.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NiFe
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    =)

  18. #18
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    that socionics could just be a bunch of bullshit? That there are not *really* 16 types and whatnot?
    My whole being is telling me a lot of negative things about socionics. This forum sometimes has the "feel" of a cult I was once tempted to join for my amusement and adventure and to benefit from the knowledge of some of the bright people who had succumbed to it. No doubt, to criticize socionics theory, often results in a whole lot of emotional defensiveness similar to what I saw in that movement.

    I am still yet to figure out why so many people put so much belief in socionics. As far as I can see, so much is not understood about the theory and I think until a whole lot more research is done, I have no reason to support it myself. At the point where socionics is at, it seems to me that it requires the same mentality that one needs to believe in god... a whole lot of faith often based on "empirical evidence" etc.

    Sometimes I wonder if some socionics believers are lacking in a well grounded sense of identity and connection and are seeking it through socionics. Then, I wonder if socionics is just an outlet for the romantic and arrogant side of us. Then there is the hope, the hope and promise of duality seems a bit like the hope and promise of heaven, perhaps even better, what with the appeal of unconditional love and acceptance of even the most socially inept. Then it might be just a system to play with and understand and maybe have some fun with until better amusements come along.

    Perhaps a few of the people who find socionics credible would tell us why they do.
    @ Joy in case I missed it, do you think socionics is bullshit and if so why?
    I <3 your mind yet again.

  19. #19
    Creepy-heathiep

    Default

    more importantly, what is it good for? Understanding yourself is socially acceptable narcissicism.

  20. #20
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For me it's not important for understanding myself, but precisely for understanding others.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  21. #21
    Creepy-heathiep

    Default

    Precisely? Forgive me for the pretension, but i don't believe people can be summarized in paragraphs and by concepts.

  22. #22
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heathiep
    Precisely? Forgive me for the pretension, but i don't believe people can be summarized in paragraphs and by concepts.
    His "Precisely" was not aimed at defining the precision of the descriptions, but rather at defining the "precision" of his objective - that is, trying to understand other people.

    Even if your objection was true, this would not imply that the informations provided by summaries and concepts are not useful in understanding people; but merely that they haven't got an accuracy of 100%.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  23. #23
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Heathiep,

    You keep missing the point . I did not mean that it helps me to understand people precisely, I used the word to emphasize that my use for socionics is to understand others rather than myself. If my construction of the phrase was not easy for you to understand, humble apologies for English not being my first language and merely one of 4 I am functional in.

    But if at this stage you still think soconics is merely, or primarily, about understanding oneself, I wonder if you actually try to understand what you read here.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  24. #24

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

    Default

    edit

  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
    @Expat

    I would like to know why is it that you seem to claiming that socionics "works" based on what seems like solely your experience and that of some others (the % of which you do not know) while at the same time you have neglected the large amounts (the % of which I do not know)of people that it does not "work" for ?
    As I said once on this forum (I don't know where), and I think Rick said something similar, if, for instance, people with experience in socionics would type hundreds of couples separately, without knowing who's with whom, list their conclusions, and then be demonstrated that a significant percentage of "happy" couples are actually conflicting, that would be a demonstration that socionics is flawed (or perhaps that those people sucked at typing ).

    Until I see something like that, all I can do with work with base on my own experience and that of other people, don't you think? That is the best I can do.

    Now, if you say that you're both skilled in typing and at the same time conclude that the intertype relationships don't work, I think it's significant. But what can I do? I don't know the people you do, so I'll always have some doubt on whether you typed those people right or not (just as I always question my own typings).

    Quote Originally Posted by Megan
    Is it not possible that there is some other variable (perhaps subjective)at work in your relationships and your understanding of them apart from socionics theory?
    Of course it is possible, which is why I'm always checking and re-checking how well it works.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  26. #26
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics has its limitations, but within these limitations it's pretty useful. Everybody uses typologies. "He's a dreamer", "he's one of those helpful people who can't say no, like my aunt XY", "she's a dork", "he's over-emotional", etc etc. Since this is so, I can just as well use a typology that is a bit more complex and objective.

    The question isn't if you like or dislike Socionics; it's more if you're absorbed by it and think it's THE truth. You can use it as a useful tool, all the time knowing that it's got its limitations. It's best if you use Socionics (or other typologies) as a kind of map for reality; one that is just accurate enough to help you navigate, but of course some details might be wrong.

    Think of how we process words. The concept behind a word isn't a category you can really define (like: Concept: BIRD. Criteria: +small, +flies, +chirrups, +builds nests, etc.). In reality you've got a certain archetype in your head of what a "typical" bird looks like. That is at the centre of the concept, and the edges are fuzzy. That makes it (f.expl.) hard to say if a penguin or an ostrich are birds or not.

    Typologies are a bit like that. Messy, illogical, and you can't really define them fully... but still useful.

  27. #27
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The above was what I'm sure of, now comes a wild guess... perhaps people get obsessed with Socionics simply because they're so young? Isn't it normal for young people to think that their theory explains everything?

  28. #28
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    The concept behind a word isn't a category you can really define (like: Concept: BIRD. Criteria: +small, +flies, +chirrups, +builds nests, etc.). In reality you've got a certain archetype in your head of what a "typical" bird looks like. That is at the centre of the concept, and the edges are fuzzy. That makes it (f.expl.) hard to say if a penguin or an ostrich are birds or not.

    Great. I support such idea. That humans are contradictory, life is diversity and it happens that some people are more "typical" than others.
    Some people fit better in one typology i.e. in one of the 16 types (if they are 16 or not that's not the point), while others are not that "typical".

    Just like Expat said, human sciences are not supposed to be 100% accurate.

    Socionics is a theory, it seeks those typologies, it's just a point of reference if you want. But if in theory all things seem to be clear, and easy to explain, in practice you'll rarely find people that fit 100% with the theoretical model.

    I think that's the problem, when people say socionics is bullshit, because they confound the theory with the practice and they fail to see socionics is not the TRUTH, it's nothing but a typology system, a science, not a cult or a religion to worship it.

  29. #29
    Creepy-heathiep

    Default

    i lose

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    westfield, nj usa
    Posts
    529
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu_ baba
    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    The concept behind a word isn't a category you can really define (like: Concept: BIRD. Criteria: +small, +flies, +chirrups, +builds nests, etc.). In reality you've got a certain archetype in your head of what a "typical" bird looks like. That is at the centre of the concept, and the edges are fuzzy. That makes it (f.expl.) hard to say if a penguin or an ostrich are birds or not.

    Great. I support such idea. That humans are contradictory, life is diversity and it happens that some people are more "typical" than others.
    Some people fit better in one typology i.e. in one of the 16 types (if they are 16 or not that's not the point), while others are not that "typical".

    Just like Expat said, human sciences are not supposed to be 100% accurate.

    Socionics is a theory, it seeks those typologies, it's just a point of reference if you want. But if in theory all things seem to be clear, and easy to explain, in practice you'll rarely find people that fit 100% with the theoretical model.

    I think that's the problem, when people say socionics is bullshit, because they confound the theory with the practice and they fail to see socionics is not the TRUTH, it's nothing but a typology system, a science, not a cult or a religion to worship it.
    maybe what's needed is a fine tuning test. where after you letters are assigned. clarification questions are asked to narrow it down even more. questions like how you think (audio, picture, words, kinesthetically, etc). how sensitive you are (nature, sounds, visual, etc). set's of questions that also reflect who you are.

    it might place you in an even more rare catagory. since the socionics, MBTI, eenagrams, etc, are simply a frame work. we need a new test that fills the gaps. like you might be a famous INTJ tap dancer. or so forth. something that doesn't fit the current model, unless you refine it. like an INTJ - Type 2 or 3, 4, 5 etc. maybe something like that is needed.

  31. #31
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    well it seems there's always something you're not saying... ask and sycophant, they do it all the time



    Well, I'll give you that. There is always something that I'm not saying. I don't have the time to intergrate meaningless people over the internet into my world, to explain my thoughts, meanings, definitions, theories, views, etc etc etc etc etc.


    Yet, for some reason, people assume that my 'words' here online are "all telling" of who I am.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  32. #32

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

    Default

    Socionics has its limitations, but within these limitations it's pretty useful. Everybody uses typologies. "He's a dreamer", "he's one of those helpful people who can't say no, like my aunt XY", "she's a dork", "he's over-emotional", etc etc. Since this is so, I can just as well use a typology that is a bit more complex and objective.

    Yes; any theory is bullshit, since theories are just human beings way of trying to organize data and make sense of the world. Theories seem to accurately catch things at particular moments but usually not at all times. Some are more accurate than others; there is more data to support some theories.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again: the main problem with socionics and mbti is that of type identification. For this reason, there is always a problem with the reliability of the data. Predictability is also a problem: if I am type X can you predict how I will behave in a given situation? Maybe maybe not, since each situation is laden with its own variables.

    Anything that helps us try to understand other people and the world is a good thing; you just can't take it to extremes or rely on any one theory as the total support for your world view.

    For myself, I have about a half dozen theories that I use to help me understand things.
    Entp
    ILE

  33. #33
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    The above was what I'm sure of, now comes a wild guess... perhaps people get obsessed with Socionics simply because they're so young? Isn't it normal for young people to think that their theory explains everything?
    Yes and no. From a young person's perspective, we believe that adults are way too apathetic, and we certainly do not want to become so jaded. So we are infinitely optimistic, and whether we believe the theory solves everything or solves nothing, we at least think we can fix it. And WE are the ones who will bring it to the world. It's not about belief or disbelief; it's about making Socionics yours.

    But of course, this is not the ONLY reason I and others believe in the future of Socionics. Yes, I admit, the initial reason I got into Socionics (or more accurately, MBTI) is somewhat of an unconscious teenage desire for belonging and identity. The rest of you, you older members, have (hopefully) already found something to live by. So if Socionics is wrong, then there's absolutely no need to stay here. But for the young, it is our lifeblood.
    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)

  34. #34
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    *boggle*

  35. #35

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    The above was what I'm sure of, now comes a wild guess... perhaps people get obsessed with Socionics simply because they're so young? Isn't it normal for young people to think that their theory explains everything?
    Yes and no. From a young person's perspective, we believe that adults are way too apathetic, and we certainly do not want to become so jaded. So we are infinitely optimistic, and whether we believe the theory solves everything or solves nothing, we at least think we can fix it. And WE are the ones who will bring it to the world. It's not about belief or disbelief; it's about making Socionics yours.

    But of course, this is not the ONLY reason I and others believe in the future of Socionics. Yes, I admit, the initial reason I got into Socionics (or more accurately, MBTI) is somewhat of an unconscious teenage desire for belonging and identity. The rest of you, you older members, have (hopefully) already found something to live by. So if Socionics is wrong, then there's absolutely no need to stay here. But for the young, it is our lifeblood.
    How cool! You sound exactly like your generation is "supposed to", according to another theory: the turnings theory, a theory of a cyclical pattern of history where social moods, decisions, and politics are driven by a constellation of generations, each with their own group identify and values. See Strauss & Howe for further info.

    You even correctly perceive the orientation of the generation one ahead of you, us Gen Xers. Wow, great face validity for the turnings theory!

    As a member of Alpha and a self respecting entp, I have to say that I am always on the lookout for the newest innovation, which socionics definitely is! So there, I'm young at heart and always will be!
    Entp
    ILE

  36. #36
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @fever: I hope you don't think I was criticizing younger people? What I said was this - that it's not unusual to get absorbed in things when you're younger, and to think that your theory/worldview explains everything. I didn't say (or mean) that this is in any way wrong, or stupid, or whatever. It just happens. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. It leads to great achievements and probably also to great howlers.

    Later in life people typically discover the limitations of their worldview. And that just happens, too. Sometimes it leads to wisdom and sometimes to middle-aged lethargic disenchantment. It all depends.

  37. #37
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    The above was what I'm sure of, now comes a wild guess... perhaps people get obsessed with Socionics simply because they're so young? Isn't it normal for young people to think that their theory explains everything?
    Yes and no. From a young person's perspective, we believe that adults are way too apathetic, and we certainly do not want to become so jaded. So we are infinitely optimistic, and whether we believe the theory solves everything or solves nothing, we at least think we can fix it. And WE are the ones who will bring it to the world. It's not about belief or disbelief; it's about making Socionics yours.

    But of course, this is not the ONLY reason I and others believe in the future of Socionics. Yes, I admit, the initial reason I got into Socionics (or more accurately, MBTI) is somewhat of an unconscious teenage desire for belonging and identity. The rest of you, you older members, have (hopefully) already found something to live by. So if Socionics is wrong, then there's absolutely no need to stay here. But for the young, it is our lifeblood.
    How cool! You sound exactly like your generation is "supposed to", according to another theory: the turnings theory, a theory of a cyclical pattern of history where social moods, decisions, and politics are driven by a constellation of generations, each with their own group identify and values. See Strauss & Howe for further info.

    You even correctly perceive the orientation of the generation one ahead of you, us Gen Xers. Wow, great face validity for the turnings theory!

    As a member of Alpha and a self respecting entp, I have to say that I am always on the lookout for the newest innovation, which socionics definitely is! So there, I'm young at heart and always will be!
    why do you rule so hard
    asd

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North
    Posts
    567
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Faith based on empirical evidence is not faith, it's a rational conclusion.

    I have seen more than enough empirical evidence to lead me conclude that there is definitely more to it than coincidence, as mike pointed out.
    Faith based on circumstantial/anecdotal evidence is still faith, not a rational conclusion.
    And, sorry to say it, but I have seen no 'empirical evidence' for the validity of socionics. Online studies where you write up a profile, and 20-odd people come running screaming "OMG! dats mee!", and then agree to everything you say about that type because, after all, it's not that wrong, and they so want to be type X are... not reliable. Show me a set of at least 10 studies, performed either by reasonably non-biased researchers, or by researchers that spred out equally on the Bias Scale, that test at least 1000 people in several different ways, and test the entirety of basic socionics theory, and I just mgiht believe it. Until then, I'll go on considering socionics as what it currently is: A pseudo-science that make for some interesting discussions.
    After all, I can propbably find at least a few pieces of good, empirical evidence of the caliber socionics has or higher for phrenology, if I could just be bothered to search.

    (This may have been brought up earlier, but I have very limited time at the moment, and so I apologize if my ramblings are superfluous.)
    Beware! Nerd genes on the prowl.

    INFj - The Holy CPU Saint
    Dishonorary INFp
    Baah

    (Very good place for emoticons. Right-click on the one you want and select "properties" for direct link)

  39. #39
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Do you ever think

    Such studies are what supposedly led Aushra to think of socionics in the first place. I suppose there are others. As everything else in socionics, the fact that the almost totality of the published material on it is in Russian doesn't help.

    Conclusions based on circumstantial/anecdotal evidence are "faith", if you totally believe your conclusions are right based on very little of such evidence.

    My personal take on socionics is that it's a model that seems to work better in practice than mere coincidence or self-dellusion would warrant. For my own immediate purposes, it's better than nothing.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  40. #40
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae
    *boggle*
    What's so hard to understand? It's comparable to a childhood ambition that is actually realized.
    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)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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