You are given one million dollars

[ClownsandEntropy]

...to organise Socionics experiments. What do you do? Include how you would go about typing people, and what the aim of each experiment is (e.g. to give Socionics credibility, to prove a certain theory, etc.).

[Leader]

I would be searching for a way to improve the usage of functions, like I am now.

[ClownsandEntropy]

How do you mean, "the usage of the functions"? In typing others or in self-development, or something completely different?

[Leader]

Self-Development.

[WVBRY]

If I was given a million dollars, I wouldnt use it on socionics.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Some type of longitudinal study, looking at different types? Any specific ideas, or is more of a general concept at the moment?

[WVBRY]

Actually I would keep the money for myself and "prove" to the world how HA works .

[Beautiful sky]

What do you want to test for?

[Galen]

I'd probably steal the money and demand for more funding.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Not sure if I would trust you with more money if you've just stolen one million dollars

[DividedsGhost]

What do you want to test for?

socionics HIV

[Beautiful sky]

Divided, sorry, but HIV is something very serious and not a joke for people who suffer from it and from families who have to see the slow decline in the health of the individuals they love. I don't take jokes about the health and well-being of people in vain.

[Beautiful sky]

You have to have an objective when you want to test. That will help you devise a test that will give you results towards your hypothesis.
I would want to test the validity of VI, that would have some genetic significance.

I would want to devise a 3D test; scan 12 type that I find to be ideal of that type into a 3d system and have that system/computer type other candidates, that way it's as objective as possible. This is the 3D model of Brad Pitt's face; I type this SEE and I would want to see how many individuals the computer types as having similarity to this model:





This is an ideal shot to determine Perceptual type.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Sounds complex, would you then make one of those combined faces-like images where all the SEE's features are put into one photo? That is you would have 12 examples of each type (i.e. 12 SEEs)?

[Absurd]

...to organise Socionics experiments. What do you do? Include how you would go about typing people, and what the aim of each experiment is (e.g. to give Socionics credibility, to prove a certain theory, etc.).

Invest half in several businesses and harvest.

[717495]

Invest half in several businesses and harvest.

What about your next book?

[Absurd]

What about your next book?

"How I got rich using socionics" coming I don't know when. I have to finish my bestseller book "I solved socionics" first.

[rat1]

I would use the money to support my work for the functions applications in music & set up a school to train musicians with socionics and vedic astrology while spreading the word about freeing aliens and disarming ourselves

[IEI]

I would hire out a large building for single volunteers to take part in an experiment. As they arrived each would have a photo taken which would be sent to two seperate panels of socionics experts to agree on type. The individuals would also be asked to take a socionics self test. Anyone whos self test also confirmed the same type as the two panels would be considered typed correctly (due to triangulation).

I would then pair up the single duals for a couple of weeks and create a documentary around the stages of duality. Each dual would be asked to create a private video diary around the experience and hidden cameras would capture their interactions day to day. Single conflictors would also be paired up for a couple of weeks and filmed to show the difference.

The purpose of my experiement would be to 1) bring duals together 2) prove that socionics is not bullshit by showing how conflictors interact

The footage would be analysed to check how well the relations worked and some measures established

I would then sell the program which i expect would be very entertaining to a TV station to make a huge profit on my $1million.

[Absurd]

[Anglas]

all the money to yaroslav

[Lotus]

i would use it to wipe socionics out of existence. 1984 stYle

[Gilly]

I'd probably steal the money and demand for more funding.

wtf I didn't know you were LSE

[ClownsandEntropy]

I would hire out a large building....huge profit on my $1million.

Maritsa's 3D modelling sounds interesting, you wouldn't want to use that for a fourth method of verification (have it group similar faces together)? Unless you think it's not worth the effort - that a computer wouldn't really be able to discern the correct aspects of VI. I, personally, would have some type of interaction between the typers and the people if possible (though this would limit the amount of trials you could do...) so as to verify their types.

Would the types be given any general likes and dislikes tests? Just in case you have one SEE and ILI that love science, and one SEE and ILI that love, say, music, and they get put together with the opposite dual partner. On the one hand, if you did this with dual and conflict partners, it could lead to faster bonding which may otherwise be slow to come out. On the other hand, it could be seen as unscientific, because they could argue the dual partners were set up more favourably than the conflict partners. I assume you won't differentiate between genders (they should dualise regardless of gender, in theory). What happens if we have a surplus of, say, IEIs but no SLEs? Perhaps we could set up identity or kindred or other couples. Or would this be a waste of money and too inconclusive in its data?

And what will the types do? Will they be assigned a partner and be told "okay, hang out and make a video journal"? Or "we're lending you a house - reality TV-style - go and live together" or "you need to meet up 1+ hours every day and just do whatever you want to do." Are we running security checks on these guys? Perhaps we should design a test afterwards "How much fun did you have with your assigned partner...," etc., etc.

If we're going to make it a TV show, we should occasionally have challenges for money. You know, make it interesting by adding conflict.

[IEI]

Would the types be given any general likes and dislikes tests? Just in case you have one SEE and ILI that love science, and one SEE and ILI that love, say, music, and they get put together with the opposite dual partner. On the one hand, if you did this with dual and conflict partners, it could lead to faster bonding which may otherwise be slow to come out. On the other hand, it could be seen as unscientific, because they could argue the dual partners were set up more favourably than the conflict partners.

No we wont test likes and dislikes. We will use non-probability sampliing in our experiment and a sample size of at least 12 duals and 12 conflictors totalling 24 couples to ensure our results are statistically significant.

I assume you won't differentiate between genders (they should dualise regardless of gender, in theory).

Correct we will not differentiate between genders.

What happens if we have a surplus of, say, IEIs but no SLEs?

We will dispose of the surplus IEI's. I will be happy to take any extra SLEs if we have to many of them.

But seriously we will have plenty of applicants to select from as our experiment will be international we will keep interviewing until we have the right numbers.

Perhaps we could set up identity or kindred or other couples. Or would this be a waste of money and too inconclusive in its data?

We need to remember our target audience for selling the TV show - love and hatred sells. More complex or subtle relations will be too much for the general public to grasp. Im open to shooting some footage though.

And what will the types do? Will they be assigned a partner and be told "okay, hang out and make a video journal"? Or "we're lending you a house - reality TV-style - go and live together" or "you need to meet up 1+ hours every day and just do whatever you want to do." Are we running security checks on these guys? Perhaps we should design a test afterwards "How much fun did you have with your assigned partner...," etc., etc.

Yes all will be asked to hang out and make a video diary. We may set them tasks and do some voice over commentary around who we expect will take the lead on each of the tasks and how we expect each pair to react. We will have them in a secure but comfortable house which has cameras everywhere. I support your idea about the test and agree we should put this in place.

We will not be able to offer a reward or money as that could skew our results in terms of how well the couples interact and would introuduce too much bias - conflicters may put their differences aside to perform well on tasks and win the cash therefore giving off the impression that they get along.

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa's 3D modelling sounds interesting, you wouldn't want to use that for a fourth method of verification (have it group similar faces together)? Unless you think it's not worth the effort - that a computer wouldn't really be able to discern the correct aspects of VI. I, personally, would have some type of interaction between the typers and the people if possible (though this would limit the amount of trials you could do...) so as to verify their types.

Then that wouldn't be considered objective. You have to remove any human element/bias in testing to have any results that would be considered scientific; if you program a computer to identify the features you want and place it in categories, then you can potentially have a really good test with 3D

[ClownsandEntropy]

Well, that depends if you're going for the objectivity version of a computer, or you think it's easier to type them according to VI. The aim of your experiment is to prove VI has validity. The point of that experiment was to test the intertype relations, which requires people what the types of each person is, and so a computer would be inadequate: while it may allow us to group similar types together, it doesn't allow for people to actually decide what the types are. Of course, this depends on how much you trust VI. I, for example, would not feel comfortable typing people solely by VI.

[Leader]

If I could somehow find a way to improve function use dramatically, every other idea in this thread could be accomplished without the money.

[Absurd]

If I could somehow find a way to improve function use dramatically, every other idea in this thread could be accomplished without the money.

Try spending more time on here.

[Leader]

What do you mean by that?

[Absurd]

What do you mean by that?

The amount of time, that is quantity, you spend on here talking about improving function use is going to have a impact on your life resulting in a change of quality.

[Leader]

When I keep constantly saying I want to improve functions, it doesn't mean im asking for handouts, im doing it because im open to suggestions. Im actively seeking out ways to accomplish this in the real world aswell, im about results, I dont talk just for the sake of talking.

[Absurd]

When I keep constantly saying I want to improve functions, it doesn't mean im asking for handouts

Good for you. I remember Maritsa PMing people asking for money to fund her "research".

I dont talk just for the sake of talking.

I can see that.

[Beautiful sky]

Well, that depends if you're going for the objectivity version of a computer, or you think it's easier to type them according to VI. The aim of your experiment is to prove VI has validity. The point of that experiment was to test the intertype relations, which requires people what the types of each person is, and so a computer would be inadequate: while it may allow us to group similar types together, it doesn't allow for people to actually decide what the types are. Of course, this depends on how much you trust VI. I, for example, would not feel comfortable typing people solely by VI.

So you want to test the validity of intertype relations?

[ClownsandEntropy]

Oh, I was just discussing that experiment, which was wanting to test the validity of intertype relations. I, personally, would like to test any type of congruence between certain lifestyle choices, sociotype, enneagram and the Big Five, although perhaps that's too boring.

[rat1]

how about studying the psychological effects socionics has on people who learn it, measuring things like psychoticism, aggression, group think, stagnation, isolationism, etc.

[Trevor]

i would decide once i get the money

[Beautiful sky]

Oh, I was just discussing that experiment, which was wanting to test the validity of intertype relations. I, personally, would like to test any type of congruence between certain lifestyle choices, sociotype, enneagram and the Big Five, although perhaps that's too boring.

So you know what to test for but you have no idea how to devise and experiment.

[rat1]

yeah experiments are maritsas specialty

[Krig the Viking]

I would hire out a large building for single volunteers to take part in an experiment... [etc.]

Brilliant idea. My initial thought was to do a huge survey, as accurately as possible, of as many people as possible, to do a detailed statistical study of the inter-type relationships. But your idea is way better.