Please vote...
an unverified personality type theory like MBTI
a psychological theory like the concept of personality disorders
a philosophical system like buddhism
pseudoscience like astrology
protoscience like psychology 200 years ago
an ideology like Marxism-Leninism
a religion like Christianity
something else
Nature of Socionics
Please vote...
apparently Maritsa and I agree on this one.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Interesting: 8 people and 4 different answers so far...
Most socionists probably think of socionics as
- a psychological theory
- or a new protoscience.
Most MBTI practicioners probably think of socionics as
- a type theory like MBTI
- or pseudoscience like astrology.
Most psychologists probably think of socionics as
- pseudoscience like astrology.
- or a philosophical system.
In my opinion socionics is obviously not just a type theory like MBTI (even if MBTI practicioners may think so). It is much more sophisticated...
Socionics is more like a philosophical system than like a psychological theory because it lacks falsifiability and empirical studies.
Socionics is MBTI with intertype relations.
MBTI has deeper and more insightful (if wronger) functional descriptions.Originally Posted by labcoat
How can you be wronger and more insightful?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Sarcastic input can be a source of insight, even when the input wasn't meant to be sarcastic to start.
Because there is an added dimension of human experience to it that isn't type related (I think mostly within the parts that closely mimic Jung's work), but which you don't get with socionics.
If you're talking about my comment in the tcaud vs xerxes thread, then all the talk of personality disorders and schizophrenia sort of brought back latent paranoid tendencies and I might have accidentally misinterpreted your intent. Er, my bad.
I cannot vote, since my idea of socionics is that it's a verified theory about types and interactions.
Personality disorders is more vague then socionics. They are on a continuum and sometimes you have 2 disorders. Types are more digital and you can only have one.
Socionics is one of the most sound theories that I've ever read about.
Those categories aren't really mutually exclusive.
Actually I've often thought of socionics as more of a personality philosophy than a psychology or science.
I voted protoscience cause it's a fun word.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
These are so dumb. Hire some betas to do some real world research or dump the data already collected by the russians/whomever at our disposal right here so you can stop your wanking dumb "alpha" blabber.
Russian marriage studies and other shit point to the reality. However since these studies could easily be horsehit, slap some scientific method on it and try again and get all the glory.
JohnDO stop being a turd and make the hot socionics bitches gallery, its more interesting and useful than these polls.
If your in college and studying anything related, psychology, sociology, neuroscience comission a study of socionics to prove or disprove its existence in practical applications. There are enough BULLSHIT studies already underway, this one should be a piece of cake to engineer a decent thoughful one.
oh and if you have the chance to work for a dating site try and make "beta" division that you use to expirement with socionics on. What a goldmine to work for match.com or eharmony or whatever if you could do that. As I've said before chemistry.com is making bank off of a shitty ass 4 person type test cobbled together from mbti, jung and other crap no reason you coulnd't replace it with socionics. Other dating websites are too small to have power enough to get decent data, socionics will be lost in a sea of garbage like the tests at okcupid.
lol@everyone who voted protoscience
please tell me your mouse slipped when trying to vote for pseudoscience
cuz it is ya know. my second choice was "unverified personality theory" but it's not my first because it's not much of a theory in the scientific sense of the word; insofar as it lacks a shred of any physical evidence and has zero predictive ability (i.e., you can't experimentally verify socionics because socionics does not make any predictions that can be verified).
Agreed.
It was probably invented by Delta NF's as well.
The end is nigh
From my personal experience it works, but yeah, no experiments, no science.
I feel like my best answer would be "I believe it will become a protoscience eventually."
The end is nigh
Removed at User Request
Meh. Socionics can make more accurate predictions than economics.
Why do you suppose this?
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Removed at User Request
WHAAAAAAAT
I'm sure many, many people can provide evidence to the contrary. Socionics can't really make detailed, specific predictions but it can make useful, general predictions about how two people will interact, for example. My roommate is in an identical relationship, for example, and I figured from the beginning that it wouldn't be the greatest relationship. They compete for the same roles and don't really fulfill each other's needs, which is exactly what socionics predicts.
oh ok, so when are you drafting that first paper for the peer-reviewed journal introducing this remarkable new science in psychological profiles?
as for the low-blow on economics made by other posters, economics is indeed a distinct science from the natural sciences, but its basic tenets are effective measures of market productivity. which is inherently more useful than "i used Ne when I bought Quaker Oats as opposed to Lucky Charms"
As I indicated in the poll, socionics is a protoscience - meaning its subject matter is not as yet quantifiable, but nonetheless empirical (and predictive). Besides, socionics is just too obscure in English-speaking countries. I'm sure if more psychologists knew about it they would be interested in it.
Any true Ne user would buy Lucky Charms hands down.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I agree that one day it'll become a protoscience, after it starts getting tested. Maybe eventually move its way into cognitive psychology, because the interesting part is the information metabolism more than anything.
Si however might differ.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
A lot of people suck at typing, so considering that, I limited "socionics" to only the handful of people I know to be good typers. Therefore, it is a baby half out of the vag at this point imo.
True.
The end is nigh
I'd say closest to a protoscience. I see enough that it's pretty much impossible for me to turn my back on it; I think Expat once analogized Socionics to a language, that, once you've learned to speak it, you can't just ignore what you hear. I don't think it's refined enough, and there may be some science to back it up some day, but personally I'm convinced of what I know I see.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
