Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Research on psychological compatibility?

  1. #1
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Research on psychological compatibility?

    I am looking for any scientific research on psychological compatibility. Anyone have any info, or is this an area that science avoids altogether?

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

    It's based on observation only. There are no empirical laws to observe, nor any solid system that can maintain itself under focused scrutiny. It can't be a "true" science because our understandings are very general, as additional specificity causes a collapse of the theory. Think of it like a TV screen: The closer you look, the less coherent the image becomes.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There was this study published over a year ago that I found quite interesting.

    http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp882304.pdf
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside
    PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

    It's based on observation only. There are no empirical laws to observe, nor any solid system that can maintain itself under focused scrutiny. It can't be a "true" science because our understandings are very general, as additional specificity causes a collapse of the theory. Think of it like a TV screen: The closer you look, the less coherent the image becomes.
    I think you should study more science before making this claim. You are completely wrong and your analogy doesn't even apply. Granted, scientific studies of Psychology are rather difficult and not as rigorous as scientific studies in "traditional" disciplines, but they are definitely not impossible and definitely not pseudoscience (in any definition of the word).

  5. #5
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside
    PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

    It's based on observation only. There are no empirical laws to observe, nor any solid system that can maintain itself under focused scrutiny. It can't be a "true" science because our understandings are very general, as additional specificity causes a collapse of the theory. Think of it like a TV screen: The closer you look, the less coherent the image becomes.
    I think you should study more science before making this claim. You are completely wrong and your analogy makes zero sense. Granted, scientific studies of Psychology are rather difficult and not as rigorous as scientific studies in "traditional" disciplines, but they are definitely not impossible and definitely not pseudoscience (in any definition of the word).
    LOL.

    1. I wasn't talking about all of psychology. Psychological compatibility, however, is pop-psych.

    2. The analogy makes perfect sense.

    3. Lack of is fun, no?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside
    1. I wasn't talking about all of psychology. Psychological compatibility, however, is pop-psych.

    2. The analogy makes perfect sense.

    3. Lack of is fun, no?
    I will have some fun with you too, lol. Don't worry, I got plenty of (not that I know why it would matter).

    1.
    Psychology (ancient Greek: psyche = "soul" or "mind", logos/-ology = "study of") is an academic and applied field involving the study of the mind and behavior, both human and (less frequently) nonhuman. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including problems of individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental illness.
    Now, from this definition, does Psychology include Psychological Compatibility? I think so. So when I say that Scientific Method can be used to study Psychology, I am implicitly saying that it can be used to study Psychological Compatibility.

    2. Benford's law is a statement that characterizes a very peculiar phenomenon of the universe and only applies to relativitely large quantities of numerical data. That means, this phenomenon is only apparent when you look things holistically. When one tries to analyze the smaller sets of data, the "law" is no longer apparent. I was not claiming that your analogy is incomprehensible; I was claiming that there are physical phenomenons of the universe that can only be examined holistically hence your analogy doesn't really carry over to science. I can also cite an example using the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics (patterns only emerge after a large number of bombardment but individually, there is no pattern). If you don't know a lot about science, you should think twice about being arrogant about the correctness of your ridiculous claims.

  7. #7
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. I wasn't talking about all of psychology. Psychological compatibility, however, is pop-psych.
    This is like saying, "we don't know how to study it, so it must not exist!"

  8. #8
    Dmitri Lytov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There were many such studies. I have, for example, a voluminous file in German. They, however, had the same problem; a lot of small facts scooped up together without a concept at the output.
    www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.

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

    Default

    Now, from this definition, does Psychology include Psychological Compatibility? I think so. So when I say that Scientific Method can be used to study Psychology, I am implicitly saying that it can be used to study Psychological Compatibility.
    You can imply whatever you want. That's entirely irrelevant. What I was saying is that the study of psychological compatibility, especially in Socionics, is NOT science. It is unprovable and just a tad ridiculous and impractical. Now, "scientists" can study it using scientific method, but that does mean it's reliable or even based on actual data, as the "facts" surrounding type theory are all suspect and open to interpretation.

    I was claiming that there are physical phenomenons of the universe that can only be examined holistically hence your analogy doesn't really carry over to science. I can also cite an example using the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics (patterns only emerge after a large number of bombardment but individually, there is no pattern). If you don't know a lot about science, you should think twice about being arrogant about the correctness of your ridiculous claims.
    Huh? You're losing coherency. Are you saying that my analogy applies to what I was saying, but not to science? Wouldn't that mean that the study of psychological compatibility isn't really science then?

    I'm TELLING you that psychological types can't be proven to exist, and that there is not one damn thing anyone can prove about psychological compatibility. It's all up in the air.

    If you don't know a lot about critical thinking, you should think twice before ever doing anything.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  10. #10
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    1. I wasn't talking about all of psychology. Psychological compatibility, however, is pop-psych.
    This is like saying, "we don't know how to study it, so it must not exist!"
    Humorously, it is not AT ALL like saying that.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

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

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside
    You can imply whatever you want. That's entirely irrelevant. What I was saying is that the study of psychological compatibility, especially in Socionics, is NOT science. It is unprovable and just a tad ridiculous and impractical. Now, "scientists" can study it using scientific method, but that does mean it's reliable or even based on actual data, as the "facts" surrounding type theory are all suspect and open to interpretation.
    Socionics can be verified by the scientific method. I don't know how you are defining ridiculous. Verifying socionics may be impractical but that's irrelevant, it doesn't make it any less scientific (You obviously don't know what a scientific hypothesis is). If you want to talk about impracticability, General Relativity still hasn't been completely verified and much of it was only verified recently. The reason is most of the predictions can only be tested under extreme conditions and only recently do we have the technology and the resources (costs a lot of money to even conduct an experiment) to make the extreme measurements. If Socionics is so open to interpretation, then why you labeling yourself as an ENTp. If it is so open to interpretation, then there has to be an interpretation whereby you are labeled as an ISFj so don't call yourself an ENTp. If it is so open to interpretation, how do you know what you are doing is ? There has to be an interpretation in that says that what you are doing is . (Also, I should point out that I don't fully even understand what you mean by "facts" surrounding type theory. If my counterargument "misses" then define what you mean so I can shoot it down.)

    By making a claim about Socionics, I am implicitly making a claim about Psychological Compatibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside
    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    I was claiming that there are physical phenomenons of the universe that can only be examined holistically hence your analogy doesn't really carry over to science. I can also cite an example using the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics (patterns only emerge after a large number of bombardment but individually, there is no pattern). If you don't know a lot about science, you should think twice about being arrogant about the correctness of your ridiculous claims.
    Huh? You're losing coherency. Are you saying that my analogy applies to what I was saying, but not to science? Wouldn't that mean that the study of psychological compatibility isn't really science then?

    I'm TELLING you that psychological types can't be proven to exist, and that there is not one damn thing anyone can prove about psychological compatibility. It's all up in the air.

    If you don't know a lot about critical thinking, you should think twice before ever doing anything.
    In your first post, your comment about science is wrong. Your analogy can be applied to your comment hence, it is comprehensible and is a valid analogy but since your comment is wrong, your analogy does not apply to science. Here's an example: risk takers only go down in the corporate ladder because they are more likely to make decisions that will destroy themselves. Think of it like driver who is driving wildly. The driver might move fast but he will almost always end up in an accident. The analogy is perfectly logical and can clearly be used to explain the statement. However, because the statement is false, namely risk takers usually move up the corporate ladder, the analogy cannot be applied to the corporate world. Similarly, even though your analogy makes sense, because your comment is wrong already, your analogy cannot be applied to Science. If you don't know a lot about critical thinking, don't try to attack someone on it. As for why your comment is false, consult my second response. If you can't figure it out, you need more help with critical thinking.

    There is a difference between proving the existence Psychological Types and verifying Socionics. Psychological Types and Psychological Compatibility are just names for nontangible ideas of a theory call Socionics. Being able to prove the existence of these is irrelevant as far as the validity of the scientific theory is concerned and whether these actually exist depends on the Philosophical view of Science you take. Therefore, just because we can't actually prove the existence of these does not invalidate the theory. It is like saying, Ohm's Law is false because we haven't proved the existence of electrons or that Maxwell's Equations are false because we cannot prove the existence of fields (By definition, a field is purely metaphysical).

  12. #12
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let's suppose that psychological compatibility is a myth and does not actually exist. We want to debunk the concept once and for all. This is easy to do, actually. We can use a lot of different settings -- jails, space shuttle trips, or any other setting where people spend lots of time together in an enclosed space.

    All we do is take a bunch of random pairs of people and have them live together for some significant period of time. Then we take non-random pairs and have them live together. These non-random pairs can be chosen using any method -- socionics, psychological testing, body weight, whatever. Then we conduct various tests of psychological comfort, well-being, etc. -- anything we choose.

    Our hypothesis is that the psychological success (as we define it) of the non-random group will not differ statistically from the random group. If this is the case, time after time, no matter what criteria of compatibility we apply, then we think we have debunked the concept of "psychological compatibility."

    But wait, it's not actually that simple. To completely debunk the concept, we would actually have to show that there were no significant differences in the psychological functioning of each pair. To be more precise, Person 1 must experience the same level of psychological comfort (or whatever measure we choose) with all other participants of the experiment.

    If we end up finding that Person 1 experiences comfort with Persons 2, 4, 6, and 8, and discomfort with Persons 3, 5, 7, and 9, then we have in essence proved the existence of psychological compatibility, even if we are unable to find criteria on the basis of which we can predict compatibility.

    Thus, the only real way of proving that psychological compatibility does not exist is to demonstrate that all people are equally comfortable around all other people.

    All you can say, Darkside, about psychological compatibility is that it is difficult to find objectifiable criteria for predicting it.

  13. #13
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside
    PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

    It's based on observation only. There are no empirical laws to observe, nor any solid system that can maintain itself under focused scrutiny. It can't be a "true" science because our understandings are very general, as additional specificity causes a collapse of the theory. Think of it like a TV screen: The closer you look, the less coherent the image becomes.
    Funny, I thought science was all about observation. Or do you prefer the medieval natural philosophy?

  14. #14
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,935
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Study into MBTI type and relationships

    Google Translate

    This means that vnutrikvadrovye socionic relations (dual, activation, mirror and identities), according to statistics Myers-Briggs, are roughly 28 ± 2%. The relationship between the orthogonal squares (quasi-identities, complete opposites, superego and conflict) account for 28 ± 2%. The relationship between the related quadra (social order, social control, family and poludualnye) accounted for 28 ± 2%. The relationship between unrelated quadra (social order, social control, business and illusory) accounted for 22 ± 2%.
    At the same time, we obtained empirical results on the statistics of couples are consistent socionic laws [3]. The number of marriages with the dual relationship is 45% of the total,[...]
    If all this is true...:wink: then socionics and MBTI really are quite distinct from each other.

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
  •