My qualm with socionics

[adiaphane]

Or what disgusts me about socionics or repulses me about socionics or the particular aspect I find unsavory about socionics. Whatever it is I want to say. I'm not sure really, and I forgot temporarily how to post threads, so this might not be as lucid and articulate as it should be.

The idea that value is something that can be quantified and categorized into discrete 16 units. I'm sure (well, I hope) everyone realizes that value is subjective and that the idea of "good" and "bad" types is preposterous, but the judgment is still there. Value is ineffably complex and the unconscious content in interpersonal relationships is rich and vast. Ultimately what we feel is good and right and true, that ineffable something that rewards our brains with shots of opiate might be reducible to something like a mathematical formula, but who among us will ever know?

Talking about value in the context of some highly hypothetical construct like socionics strikes me as irresponsible, morally. Which is strange, because I didn't realize that I had any morals.

[crazedrat]

if you're going to post a thought try to make it a bit more original.

[xerx]

I find it highly disturbing that my toaster and fridge are categorized into 2 distinct units. I mean FUCK, it's just morally irresponsible to arbitrarily divide two things that still give you food.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Just cuz there's no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I mean that would be a boring stuffy life to talk in a such an overly precise way like that I mean shit. archetypes are very powerful man.

Also, who cares if value is subjective? Why do you think objectivity is better than subjectivity? it isn't. That's a logical fallacy in itself. I will prove it to you.

Say you have your dream house, you have an idea of it before you build it or search for it, you have a subjective idea you like before you make it an objective reality. It's all interconnected but for humans, subjectiveness is about 150,000,000 times more potent than 'objective.' You can't just scientifically institutionalize the world like that. I'm not saying the cliche u need to 'get a real life' cuz I'd be a hypocrite, but you should try to simple observe the living moving chaotic world or something.

Always demanding PROOF and EVIDENCE is implying that objectivity is this strong naturally more manlier and better force than subjectivity but that isn't true, as you can create your entire reality from meditation and your subjective reality, it all starts there as being your creator. Let your feelings be your guide and stop yammering on about something that doesn't exist to self-renew you. I mean if Abraham Hicks did it so can I! Objective reality and science, are just total lies. I like poetry.

[Creepy-male]

Just cuz there's no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I mean that would be a boring stuffy life to talk in a such an overly precise way like that I mean shit. archetypes are very powerful man.

Also, who cares if value is subjective? Why do you think objectivity is better than subjectivity? it isn't. That's a logical fallacy in itself. I will prove it to you.

Say you have your dream house, you have an idea of it before you build it or search for it, you have a subjective idea you like before you make it an objective reality. It's all interconnected but for humans, subjectiveness is about 150,000,000 times more potent than 'objective.' You can't just scientifically institutionalize the world like that. I'm not saying the cliche u need to 'get a real life' cuz I'd be a hypocrite, but you should try to simple observe the living moving chaotic world or something.

Always demanding PROOF and EVIDENCE is implying that objectivity is this strong naturally more manlier and better force than subjectivity but that isn't true, as you can create your entire reality from meditation and your subjective reality, it all starts there as being your creator. Let your feelings be your guide and stop yammering on about something that doesn't exist to self-renew you. I mean if Abraham Hicks did it so can I! Objective reality and science, are just total lies. I like poetry.

This is what I think;

subjectivity is of higher value than objectivity
but
objectivity is of higher use than subjectivity

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

How is objectivity useful? To be purely objective, you wouldn't get dates at all. Purely subjective you might not either, but we're always kinda playing with the two and its too meshed together.....

Either way I don't worry about this stuff when I"m actually kinda living my life, not that this isn't interesting it's just that ummmmm idk. I kinda just drain out what I don't like, or information that isn't serving me until I get closer to what I want. Haha this also asks a bigger question 'what is honesty, really?'

[Creepy-male]

How is objectivity useful? To be purely objective, you wouldn't get dates at all. Purely subjective you might not either, but we're always kinda playing with the two and its too meshed together.....

Either way I don't worry about this stuff when I"m actually kinda living my life, not that this isn't interesting it's just that ummmmm idk. I kinda just drain out what I don't like, or information that isn't serving me until I get closer to what I want. Haha this also asks a bigger question 'what is honesty, really?'

I am thinking in terms of like science and math, both are highly objective. Both allow people the ability to create new technologies that are useful.

You get a terminal disease, if you objectively analyze the disease, maybe you'll find a cure for it.... If you just sit around subjectively exploring how you feel about the disease, maybe you'll be able to get past the sadness and enjoy your life -- but you'll still die. So its valuable but not useful.

However there is a paradox.... Aren't valuable things useful and useful things valuable.... well yes, but I wouldn't want to dig into that because it just makes this all more confusing for the time being - for the time being lets just consider the idea of value and useful as independant.

[Slacker]

Even if we could prove that it's real, which we can't, there's no way to objectively say what type anyone is. Huge, huge problem.

I think there's something to it just because of personal experience, but its usefulness is questionable.

[crazedrat]

you need to realize the value of objectivity B&D.

[ArchonAlarion]

dude, troll.

[redbaron]

Even if we could prove that it's real, which we can't, there's no way to objectively say what type anyone is. Huge, huge problem.

I don't see socionics as something that needs to be "proved" really. I see it more as a descriptor of what's already there naturally. Like it's just putting a system over top of the people and interactions between people that are already taking place. And there are mild variations, and other factors come into play also but overall, I think it does a good job of articulating reality.

[leckysupport]

I don't see socionics as something that needs to be "proved" really. I see it more as a descriptor of what's already there naturally. Like it's just putting a system over top of the people and interactions between people that are already taking place. And there are mild variations, and other factors come into play also but overall, I think it does a good job of articulating reality.

But as a descriptor it needs to be proven to be a accurate descriptor, if it isn't accurate or it doesn't have much truth in it, we might as well be doing astrology.

[redbaron]

But as a descriptor it needs to be proven to be a accurate descriptor, if it isn't accurate or it doesn't have much truth in it, we might as well be doing astrology.

yeah I agree. I guess I'm just saying that I find it to be more accurate than any other personality descriptors out there.

[Jarno]

Talking about value in the context of some highly hypothetical construct like socionics strikes me as irresponsible, morally. Which is strange, because I didn't realize that I had any morals.

socionics isn't highly hypothetical.

[xyz]

socionics isn't highly hypothetical.

Then what empirical tests have been done? Any control subjects to determine if what you define to be "ne" or "fe" are correct from person to person?

[mu4]

I would say socionics is fairly empirical and appeals to empirical and observable tendencies that anyone can examine. It's not as abstract as say theoretical physics where many phenomena are described which are not yet observable.

Ultimately what we feel is good and right and true, that ineffable something that rewards our brains with shots of opiate might be reducible to something like a mathematical formula, but who among us will ever know?

It's easy to say that one can never know, but yet one can still act and design, and these are based on some knowledge or belief. It's also highly unlikely we will be in the dark forever about the mechanisms of the human brain, we've already unlocked pieces of the puzzle and continue to unlock more pieces of the puzzle.

Talking about value in the context of some highly hypothetical construct like socionics strikes me as irresponsible, morally. Which is strange, because I didn't realize that I had any morals.

To talk about value as if it were something other then a hypothetical construct is irresponsible. Value is human generated, its ontology is based on human cognition of preference.

[xyz]

I would say socionics is fairly empirical and appeals to empirical and observable tendencies that anyone can examine. It's not as abstract as say theoretical physics where many phenomena are described which are not yet observable.

Is it possible to falsify someone's type based on whatever we define the types to be? I don't see who it can be so empirical when we can't even agree on what "Fe" means.

[redbaron]

Is it possible to falsify someone's type based on whatever we define the types to be? I don't see who it can be so empirical when we can't even agree on what "Fe" means.

I thought for the most part, we DO agree on what Fe means/is. I mean, don't we have working definitions for these and don't they make sense in the context of interacting with people? They do to me! Seems very obvious in most cases, less obvious in a lower percentage of cases, but genuinely helpful, imo. I've seen types and intertype relations play out irl extremely accurately. And not just my own, but those of others as well--others who know nothing about the theory.

[mu4]

Then what empirical tests have been done? Any control subjects to determine if what you define to be "ne" or "fe" are correct from person to person?

Empirical is not based in testing or control but rather observation. All it has to do is be based in observables, behavior and personality differences are observable.

Socionics is not scientific and is unlikely to meet scientific requirements of testing and prediction. It does provide a foundation for the design of tests and experiments which can be performed but is unlikely to prove causation. It has some solid philosophical backing which is something that is lacking in modern science.

If you got the funding for say 160 EEG's/MRI's/etc on a sample of the population and then had these same 160 people evaluated by socionists. Then you can attempt to find some pattern of similarity between similar types and measurements. This is of course in relation to typing error and the measurements relationship to type.

[redbaron]

Empirical is not based in testing or control but rather observation. All it has to do is be based in observables, behavior and personality differences are observable.

Socionics is not scientific and is unlikely to meet scientific requirements of testing and prediction. It does provide a foundation for the design of tests and experiments which can be performed but is unlikely to prove causation. It has some solid philosophical backing which is something that is lacking in modern science.

yes, exactly!

[xyz]

Empirical is not based in testing or control but rather observation. All it has to do is be based in observables, behavior and personality differences are observable.

Socionics is not scientific and is unlikely to meet scientific requirements of testing and prediction. It does provide a foundation for the design of tests and experiments which can be performed but is unlikely to prove causation. It has some solid philosophical backing which is something that is lacking in modern science.

If you got the funding for say 160 EEG's/MRI's/etc on a sample of the population and then had these same 160 people evaluated by socionists. Then you can attempt to find some pattern of similarity between similar types and measurements. This is of course in relation to typing error and the measurements relationship to type.

And until you got that funding this socionics stuff should be treated as what it is: A hypothesis.

[mu4]

And until you got that funding this socionics stuff should be treated as what it is: A hypothesis.

Which means you can design experiments, make predictions and uses the hypothesis to your liking!

As long as the hypothesis is interesting and you want to apply it... people can and will to whatever level of success they have as they are doing. Socionics is certainly not at the level of something as deterministic as physics and estimations based on physics, it's also not as magical as something like wiccan practices or astrology. It's methodology is inline with other social sciences, polling systems, political voting, economics amongst other pseudo-scientific practices.

As a whole socionics is a ethical study, based on qualities and compatibility of human relationships with a hypothesis on the underlying cause which is mechanistic and scientific in origin(althrough not proven in any sort of explicit detail).

[adiaphane]

I like poetry.

Well, I fucking like poetry too. If I wanted to I could analyze why I like (or dislike) a poem. I could point to its metrical structure, its form, the rise and fall of the cadence, the phonosemantic and phonoaesthetic qualities of the language, consonance, assonance, alliteration, diction and rhyme, metaphor, imagery, the particular arrangement of aural and visual elements of a poem, its pathos, its poignancy.

The precise foundation for its aesthetic and emotional appeal I could pinpoint. But then, how do I say why that foundation is aesthetically and emotionally satisfying? Am I really supposed to say that all poetic information is broken up into 8 discrete categories and that I am intrinsically receptive to some of these categories more than others? Doesn't that debase the worth of the poem, my reaction to it, and the person who wrote it?

And that's just a poem. How can something so central to our lives like other human beings and interpersonal relationships be talked of in this way?

[xerx]

Well, I fucking like poetry too. If I wanted to I could analyze why I like (or dislike) a poem. I could point to its metrical structure, its form, the rise and fall of the cadence, the phonosemantic and phonoaesthetic qualities of the language, consonance, assonance, alliteration, diction and rhyme, metaphor, imagery, the particular arrangement of aural and visual elements of a poem, its pathos, its poignancy.

The precise foundation for its aesthetic and emotional appeal I could pinpoint. But then, how do I say why that foundation is aesthetically and emotionally satisfying? Am I really supposed to say that all poetic information is broken up into 8 discrete categories and that I am intrinsically receptive to some of these categories more than others? Doesn't that debase the worth of the poem, my reaction to it, and the person who wrote it?

And that's just a poem. How can something so central to our lives like other human beings and interpersonal relationships be talked of in this way?

A stethoscope is a medical tool. In the hands of a layperson all it can measure is the rate of heartbeat. You can say that it inhumanely reduces a person to the beating of some ambiguous sounds. But in the hands of a professional, the beating reveals all sorts of hidden characteristics about the person's health and well-being. Unlike the layman, the professional transcends the use of the tool to understand the real medical problem of his subjects.

Socionics is no different. It's a tool we can use to understand the thoughts and motivations of people: their strengths, their fears, their dislikes. These in turn help paint a rudimentary picture of the individual, which can be used to springboard onto a higher understanding. A tool is only as keen as the intentions and expertise of the person using it. It is never dull in the hands of a true professional.

I'm afraid it is a little more complicated, because the age we live in is quite dehumanizing in and of itself, by virtue of popular scientific adherence to positivism. Any invention will no doubt be twisted to fit this reigning paradigm. But that is not the fault of Socionics, merely a symptom of the age we mutually inhabit.


ps. I'm sorry if my earlier post was dickish. I was a little drunk. I apologize for that.

[Slacker]

I don't see socionics as something that needs to be "proved" really. I see it more as a descriptor of what's already there naturally. Like it's just putting a system over top of the people and interactions between people that are already taking place. And there are mild variations, and other factors come into play also but overall, I think it does a good job of articulating reality.

I agree with that. The main weakness I see is that I think a huge number of people here are mistyped. And people here have mistyped a huge number of people in their lives. And then they post on here about the people whom they "know" are such-and-such a type, and that becomes part of the description of what that type is to people here. It's out of hand. I wish there were some good way of finding out for real what type people are.

[Slacker]

I disagree. I think type will eventually be correlated to brain activity patterns to further understand what patterns link with what information processes. I think probably there is fair amount already understood, but, the information is not readily accessible. NLP already helps to understand this, but, not necessarily from the viewpoint of socionics.

I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible, or what is possible elsewhere. I'm talking about what is happening here at the16types, now.

[redbaron]

I agree with that. The main weakness I see is that I think a huge number of people here are mistyped. And people here have mistyped a huge number of people in their lives. And then they post on here about the people whom they "know" are such-and-such a type, and that becomes part of the description of what that type is to people here. It's out of hand. I wish there were some good way of finding out for real what type people are.

yeah, I agree.

[UDP]

The idea that value is something that can be quantified and categorized into discrete 16 units. I'm sure (well, I hope) everyone realizes that value is subjective and that the idea of "good" and "bad" types is preposterous, but the judgment is still there.

Good call.

Part of understanding socionics, just like understanding most fields of study, is realizing the bullshit that other people have brought into it, and separating that from what the theory itself is really talking about.

[Jarno]

Is it possible to falsify someone's type based on whatever we define the types to be? I don't see who it can be so empirical when we can't even agree on what "Fe" means.

falsify...? karl popper is soooo 1902

ever heard of pragmatism: socionics works. period.

[xyz]

but it doesn't!

[crazedrat]

I agree with that. The main weakness I see is that I think a huge number of people here are mistyped. And people here have mistyped a huge number of people in their lives. And then they post on here about the people whom they "know" are such-and-such a type, and that becomes part of the description of what that type is to people here. It's out of hand. I wish there were some good way of finding out for real what type people are.

if a person is more than a type then how can they be mistyped? They are just multiple types

[Jarno]

but it doesn't!

it does work! according to all the psychologists and sociologists of the socionics institute and of course augusta and jung.

who says it doesn't work? ah yes, lokivanguard.

anyways, non sciences like horoscopes etc have never been backed up by serious scientists. Socionics has a complete institute of smart people who support it. Don't say it doesn't work.

[jughead]

marriage studies
thats what we've got
weak but exist

[xyz]

it does work! according to all the psychologists and sociologists of the socionics institute and of course augusta and jung.

who says it doesn't work? ah yes, lokivanguard.

anyways, non sciences like horoscopes etc have never been backed up by serious scientists. Socionics has a complete institute of smart people who support it. Don't say it doesn't work.

Dude, I think you've got problems when no one can even define what one of the "basic elements" of this "theory" is supposed to be.

Spew whatever you want. I'm done

Oh, and

having a rough estimate of how things are going to turn out, and a sense of all the wrong things that can happen along the way.

That's called "wisdom" out there in that scary world.

[Jarno]

Dude, I think you've got problems when no one can even define what one of the "basic elements" of this "theory" is supposed to be.

they were already observed and defined by Jung in 1917.

Also, you expect to much from a social science. If you compare socionics to other social sciences it's pretty well defined actually. You have to see it in the right perspective.

[Blaze]

marriage studies
thats what we've got
weak but exist

yes. and they're tantalizingly compellling.

I don't see socionics as something that needs to be "proved" really. I see it more as a descriptor of what's already there naturally. Like it's just putting a system over top of the people and interactions between people that are already taking place. And there are mild variations, and other factors come into play also but overall, I think it does a good job of articulating reality.

this, too. one only has to fully understand IE's and their functional placement fully to be able to identify if once you see it. and separate it from everything else that's going on with the person and with the situation. it takes several years of comprehension and application to pull it off though.

For another, socionics gives me a way to describe/discuss things I notice naturally in others, so that I can take what often amount to intuitive understandings or "conclusions" and put them into words better so that they can be discussed with others [an example of this being helpful is in translating bt my parents, a superego pair who fail at understanding each other no matter how hard they try - I've always been able to do this, but knowing socionics helps me explain things in ways each of them understands, even if they can't relate].

great example of practical application. socionics gives you the words, so you can draw attention to the right aspects of communication and values.

I agree with that. The main weakness I see is that I think a huge number of people here are mistyped. And people here have mistyped a huge number of people in their lives. And then they post on here about the people whom they "know" are such-and-such a type, and that becomes part of the description of what that type is to people here. It's out of hand. I wish there were some good way of finding out for real what type people are.

this is the major weakness and it has to do with honesty. really being able to use socionics demands rigorous honesty. otherwise, it's just so much manipulation.

[xyz]

Also, you expect to much from a social science.

Maybe. Maybe you're right.

[MysticSonic]

The thing with Socionics is that to make it of any use you must do a lot of personal experimentation and observation in order to ascertain whether or not the ideas presented within the theory or true or not. No one is going to be able to feed you evidence of the system. Socionics just isn't, and probably never will be, at that point.

[Jarno]

Maybe. Maybe you're right.

Ofcourse I am. I compare socionics with similar sciences.

how about, if you compare definitions of personality disorders with those of the 16 types of socionics.

Which ones are better defined?...