Socionics - A Need for Standards?

[jason_m]

I was looking through some Russian translated descriptions of the LII, and I noticed something peculiar. Some descriptions I didn't identify with at all, some descriptions I identified with to a moderate extent, and some descriptions I really identified with.

In looking at the LII descriptions, some emphasized a very detail-oriented person, others emphasized a very just person, and others emphasized a very abstract, theoretical person. There might be some vague similarity amongst these descriptions, but, in reality, they are basically describing three different types of people. Also, there were contradictions. One description said something to the effect of "highly theoretical reasoning is not for them" and another said that they are "the theorists of theorists." Another one said that they are basically good with details, while a different one said that they are good with complex concepts but can make mistakes when it comes to details.

I would assume that the LII descriptions are not the only ones that are guilty of this problem. Therefore, is it any wonder why many people have such a difficult time identifying their type? If socionics wants to gain any sort of credibility, there has to be some consistency amongst the descriptions.

This is essentially the difference between socionics and the MBTI. The MBTI is a poorly thought out theory, but is implemented effectively. Socionics is just the opposite. The advantage that the MBTI has is that there is "official" information and standards (and there is also a test that is reasonably accurate). Therefore, socionics should seriously consider merging the various schools of thought into one body. That way, there can be standardized descriptions and ideas, which might also lead to the possibility of an accurate test. Some might say that by having official information, you have to select one socionist's ideas over the rest, and that might not be fair. The solution is to get as much empirical feedback as possible. For instance, poll the people of a given type to see which description is most accurate. This way, you're not just arbitrarily choosing one person's ideas over another's. And if someone's description is found to be inaccurate, then there would be good reason as to why it isn't being implemented.

In my opinion, without any standards, socionics basically amounts to only a theoretical construct, not a practical one.

What do you think?

Jason

[Ritella]

I'm not sure if that's really the problem. The lack of standards is, I think, a side effect or corollary to the fact that Socionics is basically an unfalsifiable theory. There's really no way to disprove (or prove) anything.

[jason_m]

I'm not sure if that's really the problem. The lack of standards is, I think, a side effect or corollary to the fact that Socionics is basically an unfalsifiable theory. There's really no way to disprove (or prove) anything.

It would be about having empirically derived descriptions, and limiting the possibility of people creating descriptions that don't meet those standards. That might not be "proof", but it is a step in the right direction towards accuracy and consistency.

I also don't agree that being an unfalsifiable theory means that there can be no standards on the grounds that MBTT is an unfalsifiable theory, and MBTT has authoritative standards. And if you look at the descriptions, there is a lot more consistency amongst them.

Jason

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

To me, being theoretical and being practical aren't opposites, or contradictory in any nature. Neither are practical/idealism.

The opposite of practicality is impracticality. And a lot of theories are based on a 'pre-practice.' Most smart people who develop theories do so with already existing evidence. (Isn't that where a hypothesis comes from?)

Seeing how things truly are, right at the moment- is realism. Not their potential, not where they are before- where they are right now and what they are truly. 'The world sees you as a successful business man, I know you're a liar and a whore.' But even then that doesn't necessarily contradict ideals or theories. There's also just plain luck that can throw the whole thing off as well.

You're dealing with too much vagueness to worry about any sort of contradictions. Logically speaking, the more grand/abstract something is- the more it cannot contradict. That is why the 'big problems' of the world never truly go away- they have no water to put the fire out so to speak.