Is Socionics a Belief or a Theory?

[Skeptic]

A science teacher from my childhood once told me that truth is the intersection of belief and knowledge. Knowledge without belief is stubborn and close minded. Belief without knowledge is blind and intellectually irresponsible/dishonest.
While I'm sure anyone who has studied even basic epistemology will be bored by the following, it is necessary to define what we may discuss;

Knowledge; Evidence, reasoning, existing or proposed formulae (including existing postulates/theories). Generally measurable and testable. Ex; the length of a pencil.
A belief is something that is believed to be true but has nothing that can be described as 'knowledge' to back it up. Ex; belief in a higher power.
A theory ideally an equilibrium in the amount of intersecting belief and knowledge, leading to a consensus of 'truth', ex; The Theory of Gravity.


Based on these definitions, is Socionis a theory or belief?
If it is a theory, what kind of knowledge does it have reinforcing its claims?
If it is a belief, for what reason should we believe in it?


These are questions everyone should ask themselves before accepting socionics. If we could try to provide some answers here, I and anyone with similiar desire to live a life untouched by superstition and fanatacism will be greatly appreciative, even if it leads to the conclusion that socionics is a belief.


I make this topic because I have have been trying to eliminate 'beliefs' that are taken for granted in my life. Socionics has recently been a problem. Until now I have been mostly able to justify my interest in it by running circles around anyone who tried to disprove it by referring them to commonsensical notions like T, F, N and S. However, recently I have encountered opposition that suggests that while all commonsensical ideas regarding socionics may exist independently and codependently alike, there is really nothing I can provide to make them believe they arrange themselves neatly into 16 types.

[Creepy-male]

Knowledge; Evidence, reasoning, existing or proposed formulae (including existing postulates/theories). Generally measurable and testable. Ex; the length of a pencil.
A belief is something that is believed to be true but has nothing that can be described as 'knowledge' to back it up. Ex; belief in a higher power.
A theory ideally an equilibrium in the amount of intersecting belief and knowledge, leading to a consensus of 'truth', ex; The Theory of Gravity.

By your very definition of knowledge, it would be a theory, since it has components of knowledge, in that it has internally coherent reasoning to explain real-world observed phenomena. A belief in contrast has no such reasoning. It's like my spiritual beliefs in higher dimensions; they're wholly illogical and utterly arbitrary (and I have no illusions that they're anything to the contrary, but they're not something I particularly feel need much logical treatment.)

Even if it were merely a belief, once you are versed in it, it has accurate predictive powers. It arms you with predictions about how things are likely to turn out between yourself and any other given (healthy) individual. That's at least a starting reason.

The issue comes from the fact that it's an abstract system that does not deal with any measurable real-world phenomena, and requires the development of skills to apply, thus introducing elements of subjectivity (even though there can be varying levels of convergence as to interpretations of single real-world things).

EDIT

"Belief without knowledge is blind and intellectually irresponsible/dishonest."

I disagree. It becomes dishonest when you don't acknowledge its limitations as merely a belief. Irresponsible perhaps, but I would disagree with anyone saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it helps people to just have a source for introducing some meaning or comfort into often a harsh and meaningless world. Not everyone can thrive off their own cold intellect.

[krieger]

It's a belief based on induction from a weak empirical foundation. Belief based on induction is not intellectually dishonest as long as the person is overt about the fact that his/her claims are based on such reasoning.

[Skeptic]

...

But what knowledge? All I've ever studied on socionics is one description after another. There is an abundance of descriptions, an excess of claims; I have yet to see anything explaining why the descriptions are justified or why they describe just 16 types.

I fear I've studied for years to accumulate a enormous wealth of knowledge and mastery over something that exists in a completely different dimension.
And beliefs (that exist independent of the knowledge described above) are harmful. Their existence within yourself is a crime to yourself and to humanity as many of them are seemingly harmless but blind us to the reality of the situation, causing us to make unethical decisions that are not supported by reality.

edit;

It's a belief based on induction from a weak empirical foundation. Belief based on induction is not intellectually dishonest as long as the person is overt about the fact that his/her claims are based on such reasoning.

But why do you then believe it? Induction from what - what leads us to this guess? It is a short logical jump to infer the existence of the dichotomies and simple aspects to do with the IEs, but an enormous leap to infer the existence of 16 types in which all these things are arranged in most every human.

[Creepy-male]

Socionics is a model. It seeks to describe human relationships.

The simplest way to have a network of interacting nodes is to have each node have an "in", and an "out". (This is your ego block; the other 3 blocks are just ways of describing specific phenomena related to your specific "in" and "out"--they are logically superfluous and exist solely for clarity's sake.)

As for why there are 8 functions and not some other number, that is a Socionics history lesson I cannot administer.

etc etc can someone please finish this thought for me?

EDIT

And beliefs (that exist independent of the knowledge described above) are harmful. Their existence within yourself is a crime to yourself and to humanity as many of them are seemingly harmless but blind us to the reality of the situation, causing us to make unethical decisions that are not supported by reality.

That is a result of their abuse, not their use. The minute you use Socionics as a script is the minute you cross into abuse. I have not had this problem of abuse except in one situation. In all other respects Socionics has been a boon and helped me to understand and let other people do as they please, and there have been many similar reports both on the forums and from people I have introduced the theory to in the real world.

[Skeptic]

..

Hm.. I understand your definitions and they make sense. I can see socionics as having application in that you see it working around you. But what about this; once you're looking for it, it suddenly becomes apparant to you; the christian seeking his miracles will surely find one, the faithful searching for a sign will undoubtedly make sense out of some random encounter, the person flipping a coin may end up flipping it until he gets the option he would have wanted in the first place... you trick yourself.

In short; if you justify socionics through your personal experience with its truth around you ('evidence that you have assimilated into your memory') how can you know that you aren't ignoring certain aspects of human relationships that contradict the theory (i.e. the numerous situations in which types DO NOT conform to their descriptions) while reinforcing and reliving the moments that do?

Knowledge is more commonly defined as "belief that corresponds with reality".

To you I would ask the same questions I do to Krig.

Socionics is a model. It seeks to describe human relationships.
The simplest way to have a network of interacting nodes is to have each node have an "in", and an "out". (This is your ego block; the other 3 blocks are just ways of describing specific phenomena related to your specific "in" and "out"--they are logically superfluous and exist solely for clarity's sake.)

As for why there are 8 functions and not some other number, that is a Socionics history lesson I cannot administer.

etc etc can someone please finish this thought for me?

But why why why; how do you know a model of any sort could represent the complicated and irrational state of human relation? Why a network of interacting nodes and why an in and an out? And (ofc) why 8 functions, 16 types? If these questions cannot be answered but with more claims and unsupported conclusions it would be a great blow to the 'theory'.

That is a result of their abuse, not their use. The minute you use Socionics as a script is the minute you cross into abuse. I have not had this problem of abuse except in one situation. In all other respects Socionics has been a boon and helped me to understand and let other people do as they please, and there have been many similar reports both on the forums and from people I have introduced the theory to in the real world.

With this I must resign myself to agree. If I were to condemn any and all beliefs I would condemn myself in doing so; there are simply things we take for granted in order to survive. Additionally, I can see certain beliefs that are excercised with caution a harmless endeavor that deserves no condemnation, but if you are going to qualify yourself for this group you must take care not to excercise your beliefs when making decisions that affect anyone but yourself.

[Creepy-male]

But why why why; how do you know a model of any sort could represent the complicated and irrational state of human relation? Why a network of interacting nodes and why an in and an out? And (ofc) why 8 functions, 16 types? If these questions cannot be answered but with more claims and unsupported conclusions it would be a great blow to the 'theory'.

You do know what a model is, don't you?

[Krig the Viking]

Here's how I would say it:

Knowledge is information of which you are aware. This includes evidence, reasoning, etc. that you have encountered and assimilated into your memory.
A belief is knowledge that you hold to be true. Some beliefs are backed up by evidence and logic, some are not. The former are rational beliefs, the latter are irrational. Note that this does not mean that the latter are necessarily untrue, it simply means that they cannot be proven rationally.
Evidence is information about the world that can be directly observed. This generally includes anything that can be measured or tested.
A theory is an explanation of the aspects of the world that cannot be directly observed. Because of this, a theory is never as "certain" as evidence is, it can only be more or less likely to be true. The two primary things which affect whether a theory is likely to be true are logical correctness and consistency with the evidence. If a theory violates the laws of logic, it cannot be true. Furthermore, in the areas where the theory touches on aspects of the world which can be directly observed, it must accurately describe those aspects, or it cannot be true (i.e. it must be consistent with the evidence).

In other words, the most you can say about a theory is that it is logically correct and consistent with the evidence. The more evidence you have which is consistent with the theory, the more likely it is to be true, but this can never be proven beyond all doubt (which is why courts only require the jury to be certain beyond "reasonable" doubt).

Socionics, therefore, is a theory. In my opinion, it is a logical theory, and consistent with the available evidence. However, there is not as much evidence available in this field as there is in, say, physics or chemistry. This is a problem for psychology generally, not just socionics specifically, because both deal with the inner workings of the mind, which are not directly observable.

To put it all together, socionics is a theory which I believe to be true, because I have knowledge of much relevant evidence and logic, and have concluded that it is consistent with both.

[krieger]

Knowledge is more commonly defined as "belief that corresponds with reality".

[xerx]

Knowledge is more commonly defined as "belief that corresponds with reality".

How is reality defined?

[Azeroffs]

[krieger]

How is reality defined?

The body of consistent factors that have an existence independent of the mind and subjective experience.

But let me tell you this: your post takes the discussion in the direction of the less intelligent and more obfuscatory. Reality is not a term with an ambiguous meaning, no matter how far you urge me to break up it's definition. You have to establish your fundaments at some point.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

A fact.

Your brain works in a natural way that you can't change. you can only become more like yourself (peace , integration) or more dislike yourself (stress) -- and the other types of people you interact with either separate you from yourself, or they mend you together. Basically.

You can totally remove your ego and become one with humankind, but doing so will take types of people that essentially have a very similar ego as you to do so. (like other identicals) That's what people mean when they say ego is both the problem and the solution.