2 Major problems with Socionics

[Youngian]

I've been doing Socionics for about 2.5 years and these are questions that I have never been able to get over since day one and I take them seriously. So if you're thinking about posting something like

"if you don't like Socionics then leave" or
"why do you do Socionics if you don't believe in it" or
"go read more and come back"

then don't post at all because you're not taking this seriously. And I think anyone who does Socionics needs to take these questions seriously. That being said, if anyone has any answers or comments I would love to hear from you.

Here are the questions in order of importance.

1. Translations. Fundamental problem.
We have very little translated material from Russian and most of it is terribly translated. This means not only do we NOT have access to Augusta's life work and commentary, but the partial material we have is distorted. So are we even doing Socionics? Isn't this kind of like claiming to know Jung's theory of psychological types after reading only his introduction?

2. Reliability.
Do you have anyone to do Socionics with?
If so, how often do you reach a consensus about someone's type?
I have a few friends and we've all been doing Socionics for years, yet we change our typings time and time again and very rarely do we reach a consensus that lasts. This has made me very suspicious about any typings, especially my own. Has anyone else noticed this? If so, how do you explain slash get around this problem?

There are other problems I have with Socionic theory, but because of problem 1 I don't really believe we have access to Socionic theory. If anyone can ease my mind about these problems please do so.

Edit: If anyone has any links to translated material of Augusta I would love to read anything I can get my hands on. I asked Rick and he said he hadn't heard of any.

[xerx]

We have both problems here, unfortunately, and I doubt that things will improve in the conceivable future. I'd even say that those two problems are at the root of the main ongoing social dynamics of the forum. Watch for people casually dismissing both problems as an excuse to interject their own vision for socionics, and for retaliatory strikes by consensus-wielders ensconcing their idiosyncratic interpretations within Augusta's original framework.

[somavision]

1. It could be said that western socionics is a rediscovery of russina socionics. It does not matter so much if the material is exaclty translated, what is more significant is that it has planted the seeds of a workable, logically and ecologically system. Material from russia well translated will of course give a greater wealth of insight into the research that has been done in russia. However as long as the core of theory works (which seems to have been bought to the west with a fair degree of consistency e.g. ganin, rick, filatova etc) then I believe that we can be fairly certain that the core theory has been carried to the west succesfully.

2. The people i know have been consistent in their typings and also my typings of them, with a few exceptions. From whatI can tell these changes have mainly been due to age, self knowledge and understanding of the theory. I know some people in their late teens or early twenties undergoing a some sort of psychosocial moratorium, and are exploring their identities, this may impact on their ability to perceive a stable type within themselves.

[Jonathan]

Regarding #2, the problem is that there are many alternate schools and definitions. People often change their typings because they get influenced by different competing ideas about fundamentals, sometimes without realizing the shift. If you can stay within the same framework, your typings will be consistent, but they'll conflict with those from another school. The answer to #2 is to do a big statistical study to see which typing methods accurately predict intertype relationships. Pretty much everyone here is just thinking about socionics "on the side," so there really isn't any momentum around doing a decent study. Most of the Russian studies seem to be around small focus groups...nothing rigorous.

However, people continue to find the concepts interesting and relevant in their lives. That's why they continue thinking about this stuff.

[Jarno]

2. Reliability.

if you use functions to type, then everyone has a different opinion because of their different interpretation.

if you start with dichotomies, even layman can reach consensus. Ask anyone if they know an introvert person and an extravert person.

[717495]

True, dichotomies are just as important. I/E is often very obvious. N/S and F/T is the same as function strength so will help out the most, and you often hear people and texts speak of the "irrational version" of a function, or the "irrational version," like -creatives being unpredictable, expressive, "emotions on their sleeves" vs -dominants more civilized, closed, polite... or -creatives having much restorative willpower, etc.

[Trevor]

Regarding #2, the problem is that there are many alternate schools and definitions. People often change their typings because they get influenced by different competing ideas about fundamentals, sometimes without realizing the shift. If you can stay within the same framework, your typings will be consistent, but they'll conflict with those from another school. The answer to #2 is to do a big statistical study to see which typing methods accurately predict intertype relationships. Pretty much everyone here is just thinking about socionics "on the side," so there really isn't any momentum around doing a decent study. Most of the Russian studies seem to be around small focus groups...nothing rigorous.

However, people continue to find the concepts interesting and relevant in their lives. That's why they continue thinking about this stuff.

I am glad you keep bringing this up. There indeed are different schools of socionics.

[Youngian]

somavision
1. Rediscovery or hijacking? The line is thin.
Socionics IS research done in Russia by the thinker Augusta. The problem is that MOST of the material is not translated as of yet and it is WITHOUT a fair degree of consistencey (and I don't mean current research, which would be interesting too, I mean Augusta's). The core of the theory is carried across, agreed, but without Augusta's commentary and explanation, which was her life's work, it is ripe for misunderstanding and even complete distortion. If I had only read Jung's information elements in his Psychological Types and then filled in the blanks by myself I would NOT have known what Jung was talking about but instead I would have been "casually dismissing [Jung's entire wealth of research and explanation] as an excuse to interject [my] own vision for [Jung's theory]." And this is all good if you don't want to really understand Socionics and instead make it up as you go, but I consider this an extremely important problem. Its like reading a short badly translated summary of Frued's Dream Interpretations and then trying to interpret dreams with accuracy.

2. From what I can tell these changes have mainly been due to understanding of the theory (or a lack of) because it is next to impossible to agree on a "correct understanding" considering problem number 1. The lack of typing consistency has to do with the lack of a detail regarding the Socionic system, which brings me to

Jonathan
First do you know where I can find those Russian studies in English?

Secondly, alternate schools would make sense to me in Russian, but in English I think there are rather simply alternate personal opinions and interpretations. This is due to problem 1 since I believe we do not have enough original material that we can use to understand the intended Socioinic framework academically. And so competing opinions emerge and arguments over misunderstandings and speculations, which is mainly what my friends and I do and what this forum seems to be doing. I think an English translation of Augusta would be far more valuable than statistical studies on Socionic method.

I would like to see Socionics not just as an "on the side" but a way to better understand myself and those around me. You probably share this hope at least a little since you've been doing Socionics and posting in this forum about it for five years. To me problem 1 makes Socionics in English a hobby that cannot be understood academically and I am increasingly skeptical if I am really gaining any valuable understanding or rather using reductionist explanations to explain stuff that's really more complex than that in order to make myself feel better and smarter. Talking about it is fun, but I can't get around these problems to take it seriously enough to learn anything more useful than a good conversation. Do you think there is an alternate way I'm missing here to interpret and use Socionics with an accurate and sufficient understanding of its system?

[mfckr]

1. Translations. Fundamental problem.
We have very little translated material from Russian and most of it is terribly translated. This means not only do we NOT have access to Augusta's life work and commentary, but the partial material we have is distorted. So are we even doing Socionics? Isn't this kind of like claiming to know Jung's theory of psychological types after reading only his introduction?

This is a problem and it's been pointed out here by many before you, including myself.

For instance, we just ran into an issue the other week where it appears the intertype label for 'Supervision', should've actually be 'Audit' or something like this.

Generally the half-garbed machine translations exacerbate the issue of people conducting personal exegesis on Socionics and reinterpreting it what they feel it 'should' mean.

2. Reliability.
Do you have anyone to do Socionics with?
If so, how often do you reach a consensus about someone's type?
I have a few friends and we've all been doing Socionics for years, yet we change our typings time and time again and very rarely do we reach a consensus that lasts. This has made me very suspicious about any typings, especially my own. Has anyone else noticed this? If so, how do you explain slash get around this problem?

*shrug* I've had stable consensus about many typings for years. I've also never re-typed myself since I 1st found out about Socionics.

Edit: If anyone has any links to translated material of Augusta I would love to read anything I can get my hands on. I asked Rick and he said he hadn't heard of any.

Rick has some. Here's a direct translation of some of Aushra's work.

1. Rediscovery or hijacking? The line is thin.
Socionics IS research done in Russia by the thinker Augusta.

Eh. Socionics AFAIK has never had any real research behind it. Aushra's received "accreditation" from a pseudoscientific institution or two, but that's it—there's posts around here somewhere exposing that. I've run across plenty of criticism from Russian sources regarding Socionics, such as: http://translate.google.com/translat...ка

Socionics - this is a horoscope that is kakbe psychological ^[2] typology, as it explains the causes of the relationship - a fierce, fierce hatred or mutual FAP, created in the early '70s Lithuanian Ausra Augustinavichiute sociopath. Also, followers insisted on publishing his version of the definition:

Socionics - a classification of the types of information processing in human beings. Put simply - the "theory of information metabolism."

That is, Socionics believe that everything in this world can be transformed into a sort of "information" that is circulating in man in the interaction with the environment, as well as for mutual communication. But science does not support this theory, moreover, to comprehend this definition in full must be at least a little aware of socionic context. So, it can be only one presented, but not the only one on the page.

Socionics in practice, like most (about) the psychological movements - a subtle yet aggressive phimosis. Limited to users in, imbued with the mysteries of socionic teaching becomes deaf to his criticism, has all the answers, ignore any facts that do not fit into their own picture of the world ^[3], as well as molds for all the labels, sometimes having nothing to do with reality -symptoms very characteristic .

It is known that Ausra has used the work of Carl Gustav Jung, whom she had a drink and added to the theory of intertype relationships of their own invention. Several moments (in units of model A) were taken from the teachings of Freud. Interestingly, the Pindostane several decades before there was a lot like the Myers-Briggs typology. Discussion where it was skopipizzheno and to what extent - one of the many disciplines of the Special Olympics in Socionics.

In 1995, the Academy of Natural Sciences has recognized the opening of Socionics and awarded a diploma Ausra opening and medal. Nuff Said.

…

Unfortunately, the beautiful and consistent theoretical constructs crumble when trying to move them IRL. Play both reasons - as a disputed scientific Socionics and approach people to do it. This situation is well illustrated generally 95% - instead of to systematize observations lead to Socionics least hint of standards, the CA chooses to bury it deeper. This convergence is low, which many do not even notice, and the absence of significant experimental tests, and subjective assessments of distorted notions of "scientific ethics", and engaging with the horoscope astral practices as an "extension" theory, etc. And, of course, the lack of a critical approach to the subject, "Socionics is true and scientific because Ausra said so."

From this we can and must draw lulz.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan
First do you know where I can find those Russian studies in English?

I don't remember where I saw all those links that were mentioned in various threads; maybe if I have more time, I can look for them sometime. There are some synopses of papers and some translations on Rick's site (http://www.socionics.us/works.shtml).

In any case, whenever I've read of studies in Socionics, they've always been of the focus group variety, as in http://www.socionics.us/works/semantics.shtml - great for forming hypotheses, not really for testing them.

I remember also reading about how Augusta came up with the Reinin type descriptions based on her own observations of a small number of people she had typed. I don't have the reference at the moment.

In any case, it's interesting that you bring up the idea that Socionics is when the Russians come up with stuff, and so if they disagree, that's different schools, but when people in the West theorize about Socionics, that's just people making stuff up, and if they disagree, then that's just different personal opinions.

On one level, it's true...Surely on a forum such as this, you'll find lots of uninformed opinions, or people going off in all kinds of directions without much research to back it up. And certainly some of the people who are doing consulting and have access to real data and time to analyze it have an advantage. Furthermore, while there are lots of ways one might apply Jung's structure to type people, the ones that count are those where the genuine intertype relationships are noticed and predicted.

But on the flip side, wasn't Augusta also forming her own ideas based on her own personal observations? Why if someone theorizes stuff on the basis of some casual observations and logic in Russia, that person is a geniune Socionist to be taken seriously, but if someone does so in the West, then that's merely someone having an opinion? If one goes to various Russian sites or forums, one sees lots of divergence in terms of typings of well-known people, just as here.

[Beautiful sky]

http://socionics.org/theory/Default....d=jungbio.html

[somavision]

somavision
1. Rediscovery or hijacking? The line is thin.
Socionics IS research done in Russia by the thinker Augusta.

Only if you see it as being an exclusive and esoteric system like scientology for example. If however it is seen as a new and intellectually open theory of psychology, then anything built around and is consistent with the core theory is socionics

The problem is that MOST of the material is not translated as of yet and it is WITHOUT a fair degree of consistencey (and I don't mean current research, which would be interesting too, I mean Augusta's). The core of the theory is carried across, agreed, but without Augusta's commentary and explanation, which was her life's work, it is ripe for misunderstanding and even complete distortion. If I had only read Jung's information elements in his Psychological Types and then filled in the blanks by myself I would NOT have known what Jung was talking about but instead I would have been "casually dismissing [Jung's entire wealth of research and explanation] as an excuse to interject [my] own vision for [Jung's theory]." And this is all good if you don't want to really understand Socionics and instead make it up as you go, but I consider this an extremely important problem. Its like reading a short badly translated summary of Frued's Dream Interpretations and then trying to interpret dreams with accuracy.

Socionics is based on a schematic rather than the in depth descriptions of dream analysis for example. Accuracy depends solely on logical extrapolation from the schematic, measured against empirical observations. The work of others will of course make this task easier however once you have the core theory the same conclusions can potentially be reached independantly.

2. From what I can tell these changes have mainly been due to understanding of the theory (or a lack of) because it is next to impossible to agree on a "correct understanding" considering problem number 1. The lack of typing consistency has to do with the lack of a detail regarding the Socionic system,

Again detail is not required. Remeber that Socionics is a 'Ti' system, logically the core is reduced down to the bare minimum, the details can be grown around it. This is not to dismiss the other wealth of information that has come from Russia, however sometimes the more information you have from the more sources the greater the semantic dicergence from the core theory, regardless of how well something is translated..

[Youngian]

Ashton

For instance, we just ran into an issue the other week where it appears the intertype label for 'Supervision', should've actually be 'Audit' or something like this.

While I agree that all translations, especially important labels like “supervision,” should be open to revision, this is not the problem I was referring to. The problem is that no one here has read Augusta’s original work (unless you can read Russian) which makes it very difficult to understand or revise a translation seeing as we don’t have access to its original context.

Generally the half-garbed machine translations exacerbate the issue of people conducting personal exegesis on Socionics and reinterpreting it what they feel it 'should' mean.

Right, but there is a more fundamental problem here: that the issue of personal exegesis is hard with machine translations but it is made MOST difficult, in my opinion, by not having access to the original texts. How can I revise or understand a machine translation if I can’t read the original?

*shrug* I've had stable consensus about many typings for years. I've also never re-typed myself since I 1st found out about Socionics.

I was mainly talking about how we’ve retyped other people, not ourselves, and by “my own” I meant my own typings of others, not my own type. The problem of reliability is big in any personality typology, but without access to a strong and common theoretical base (i.e. problem 1) it becomes far more difficult to reach consensus. I’ve realized that doing Socionics alone you can develop your own personal system and become fairly consistent within that, but if you try to reach a consensus with others doing Socionics you’ll find a lot of problems and inconsistencies which are mainly due to different understandings of Socionic theory (maybe I’m wrong about this? I’m just speaking from personal experience).

Rick has some. Here's a direct translation of some of Aushra's work.

Yes this is awesome and an English Socionic jewel. Other than Rick however I’ve found very little of Augusta’s original work translated.

And I agree with you completely about the research. Socionics is mainly a thought experiment.

Jonathan
Thanks for the links.
What I meant is that in Russia the schools revolve around interpretations and expansions on Augusta's original text. This can be studied in an academic framework. In English we can only disagree about the very limited material we have. This means most of us must fill in the blanks ourselves and we end up arguing over this, our own speculations, and although they may be valuable they cannot be weighed against anything common. I understand there is still widespread disagreement about Socionics in Russia, but at least there can be serious debate AND agreement over what it is that’s even being debated about i.e. the original text.

In Russian Socionics can be debated academically using Augusta's work (I even read somewhere about Socionic graduate programs in Russia but I don’t remember where); in English the extent of the schools ARE forums and websites. But this is not Englishmen vs Russians, it is lack of material vs common ground, serious debate vs speculation. And its enough of a problem for me, and hopefully others who would like to take Socionics more seriously than a passing interest and understand it more academically, to raise a few eyebrows. Again, I’m not saying English Socionics is useless or even not valuable, its just limited, and I’m just trying to draw the line.

As for Augusta, I understand she made all her observations herself, but she spent her life creating a system like Socionics which I'm sure I could not duplicate even if I had the time, which I don't. All I'm saying is that the lack of her original material obscures Socionics for all English speakers, this is a MAJOR problem, and that this is not a problem in Russia.

Maritsa
Thanks for the link.

somavision

“Only if you see it as being an exclusive and esoteric system like scientology for example. If however it is seen as a new and intellectually open theory of psychology, then anything built around and is consistent with the core theory is socionics

I’m just trying to draw the line between Socionics and pseudo-Socionics. If what you say is true then Socionics is indeed not a “Ti system” because contradictory statements about the core theory can be accepted as long as they don’t contradict the core theory itself. This means that anything I want can be considered Socionics as long as I don’t contradict the limited translations we’ve been blessed with. And this is fine, people do Socionics differently, some more serious than others. As long as you don’t claim reliability and admit that you are doing a personal variation of Socionics and that YOU are the author of your own theory, and NOT Augusta, then I agree.

Socionics is based on a schematic rather than the in depth descriptions of dream analysis for example. Accuracy depends solely on logical extrapolation from the schematic, measured against empirical observations. The work of others will of course make this task easier however once you have the core theory the same conclusions can potentially be reached independantly.

Well although you may have supreme confidence is your mental abilities, I do not think that I can reach the same conclusions as Augusta independently, even if I had all the extensive time and research she put into it. This is why I’m curious about her writings.

Again detail is not required. Remeber that Socionics is a 'Ti' system, logically the core is reduced down to the bare minimum, the details can be grown around it. This is not to dismiss the other wealth of information that has come from Russia, however sometimes the more information you have from the more sources the greater the semantic dicergence from the core theory, regardless of how well something is translated.

First I was mainly referring to the lack of translation from Augusta’s original work which can be considered the “core theory” of Socionics (unless you disagree about this?). Other material would be good too, but this is not part of my problem. I do agree that we have enough material to understand the basics of Socionics, but we are missing everything else. Just being told the basics of a theory (for example the standard model of physics, i.e. the atom, electron, and nucleus, etc.) would be enough for some people to "understand," but for those who want to understand why this is so and dive into the theory more deeply they would want to have more information and better tools to interpret the model.

Secondly, so what you’re saying is that you can strip Augusta’s theory down to its “bare minimum,” fill in the details yourself, and lose nothing? The problem with this, other than the blatant disregard for Augusta’s work, is that how are you to know what is the core and what are the details, what is important and what is not, if you do not read the original work? Our differences may just come down to how much faith you have in your abilities and translations but also how deeply we aim to understand Socionics. I feel a need to dive much deeper into Socionics because of problem 2, but I cannot because of problem 1.

[Creepy-pokeball]

The primary issue is that it is not quantifiable. One can make predictive statements about another, but the validity then becomes qustionable. The predictive stance has to be consistant.

Perhaps, in the advanced neuroscience field of the future, when things like Dopamine levels in the brain dont require a spinal tap, then things like Socionics could be quantifiable. For now, though, its debate.

[Gilly]

Generally the half-garbed machine translations exacerbate the issue of people conducting personal exegesis on Socionics and reinterpreting it what they feel it 'should' mean.

...of which you are more guilty than any. We have had one person who speaks Russian on this site and your views are further from his than anyone here sans tcaud.

*shrug* I've had stable consensus about many typings for years. I've also never re-typed myself since I 1st found out about Socionics.

Lies. 80%-ish is not a consensus and you have questioned your type multiple times.

[Absurd]

...not only do we NOT have access to Augusta's life work and commentary, but the partial material we have is distorted. So are we even doing Socionics?

The moment you registered on here you're doing socionics. Heck, you said you're doing it for over 2 yrs so far.

how often do you reach a consensus about someone's type?

You won't reach consensus unless you start thinking/acting as one organism. That means you, your friends, your family, and so on, have to think as one organism. It can by any organism: human body, state, etc.

Now think about socionics as of an organism, you and everyone else as it's 16 parts, comprising the whole, that is socionics. This is where fun begins, for any disloyalty coming from 16 types means they're acting against each other and do not live in harmony.

Disloyalty brings about a revolt of some part of the anatomy against the remaining whole, and thus we have, in effect, an internal revolution.

Schizophrenia!

Better get organised!

[Youngian]

Based on the lack of replies on this thread I'm going to assume that most members here don't think these are problems worth discussion.

We have both problems here, unfortunately, and I doubt that things will improve in the conceivable future. I'd even say that those two problems are at the root of the main ongoing social dynamics of the forum. Watch for people casually dismissing both problems as an excuse to interject their own vision for socionics, and for retaliatory strikes by consensus-wielders ensconcing their idiosyncratic interpretations within Augusta's original framework.

Well said: this is the entire forum.

[Bardia]

Based on the lack of replies on this thread I'm going to assume that most members here don't think these are problems worth discussion.

Or maybe that the problems you pointed out are obvious and not even the only 2 problems. Only the problem in attaining translations can be solved in the foreseeable future.

[Slacker]

Socionics has a lot of problems. I wouldn't think of it as a science, but as an interesting thing to think about and consider. If you think of it as a science that should be proven, you will be disappointed time and again. That just isn't what it is. It's more of a phenomenon a lot of people have noticed that is interesting to discuss. But yeah the translation issues and bad names for things are a problem. And no there is no reliability, and everyone disagrees about everything.

[Youngian]

Socionics has a lot of problems. I wouldn't think of it as a science, but as an interesting thing to think about and consider. If you think of it as a science that should be proven, you will be disappointed time and again. That just isn't what it is. It's more of a phenomenon a lot of people have noticed that is interesting to discuss. But yeah the translation issues and bad names for things are a problem. And no there is no reliability, and everyone disagrees about everything.

Right, some people like to do socionics on a more leisurely level, and that's completely fine. I was just pointing out that say just because some people like to read poetry for fun on the bus or between their classes doesn't mean a more formal understanding isn't possible.

Everyone disagrees about everything and reliability is low, but can't these problems be fixed? I guess I was just speaking for anyone who does socionics and would like to have a more developed and thorough understanding. For me if this is not possible fr socionics then then it loses a lot of it's force and becomes very similar to horoscopes. I don't need it to be proven or be a science, but I would rather discuss socionics more like psychology where reasons can be given and common ground developed rather than like politics or astrology where anything goes.

In this thread I propose that this is possible and give steps to achieve this such as first getting English translations and then having critical discussions. Again, some people don't do socionics in this way or even want to, and this is completely fine as long as they are not claiming some sort of superior status treating socionics as something more advanced than leisurely talking or horoscoping, which many people in this forum seem to do.

Or maybe that the problems you pointed out are obvious and not even the only 2 problems. Only the problem in attaining translations can be solved in the foreseeable future.

Have you heard anything about an English translation? I know I haven't an it's been years. The most interest I've seen in socionics in the english world is this forum and I was surprised that there hasn't been a movement here to get a good translation going. But after reading the responses in this thread I realize that many here don't really take the translation problem very seriously.
I'm arguing here that all "other problems" that you say exist mostly stem from the translation problem. Without translations we're making up socionics as we go, which comes with it's fair share of problems sure, but most of these cannot be dealt with in depth or successfully on a general level without the original text (unless you're content with a completely personal version of socionics, which is completely fine, as long as you don't claim that it's more than that).

[Beautiful sky]

Socionics has a lot of problems. I wouldn't think of it as a science, but as an interesting thing to think about and consider. If you think of it as a science that should be proven, you will be disappointed time and again. That just isn't what it is. It's more of a phenomenon a lot of people have noticed that is interesting to discuss. But yeah the translation issues and bad names for things are a problem. And no there is no reliability, and everyone disagrees about everything.

LOL how did science become science?

[Beautiful sky]

The primary issue is that it is not quantifiable. One can make predictive statements about another, but the validity then becomes qustionable. The predictive stance has to be consistant.

Perhaps, in the advanced neuroscience field of the future, when things like Dopamine levels in the brain dont require a spinal tap, then things like Socionics could be quantifiable. For now, though, its debate.

That is the same with all sciences. There are bazilion biochemicals and reactions in the brain; it's not just a handful like Dopamine and serotonin; just because we've identified a few, we can't assume that they are responsible for all that goes on or have any factor in what goes on, our current system points at the ones we know of and we're trying to manipulate those, which is all that we can do right now.

[krieger]

i don't think there are problems with socionics.

[InvisibleJim]

1. Translations. Fundamental problem.

I don't agree this is a problem; as time tends to infinity it should evolve to follow a deductive logical path (unless this is impossible) otherwise you run into your next point...

2. Reliability.

Yes. This is a problem.

But this problem can be caused by several factors. If it were a calculation then it could only be wrong or right. However this is a model and thus it can suffer from an additional complaint: It can be right, but completely inappropriate.

[ClownsandEntropy]

1. In regard to translations, do you think it's as simple as hiring someone who speaks Russian and English to translate? The fundamental ideas behind Socioncs are probably pretty similar, but as we develop ideas, it might be good to be able to cross-reference with correctly translated material. Naturally, however, the actual translation would probably cost money, which I'm not sure many people are willing to put in. If it is simply a matter of getting a genuine Russian and English non-machine translated source, then I think it's a matter of someone hiring a translator. Either that, or we could talk to the Russian authors and see if we can convince them to translate it, perhaps they might have lower fees because of their interest in the field, but that solution seems even harder to manage.

2. I think reliability is a bit of a problem too, mainly because, if we are hoping for it to have any type of respect as a discipline, there needs to be something that is considered definitely true. This is either a problem inherent in Socioncis, or in self-typing. If the former, then Socionics is probably a waste of time, because the types, essentially, don't exist in the way Socionics believes them to. I believe the latter, in that the types do exist and that the problem is people are unreliable in typing themselves, and in typing others. If this is so, I can't imagine there to be a solution, other than establishing firmly what each type is "like" and how the functions interact (I can see how this is related to the problem about translations), and then, with everyone agreeing upon this initial data, we start typing people. If we can reach a consensus about people's types, then it certainly gives the discipline a sense of objective reliability about it, rather than it being a subjective "feeling".

I might mention that I don't seem to have much disagreement with my friends about other's types, but that's because I'm the only "true" studier of Socionics in my social circle, and whenever we reach a disagreement, I usually attribute it to not enough thought or an inadequate understanding of another.

[Youngian]

I don't agree this is a problem; as time tends to infinity it should evolve to follow a deductive logical path (unless this is impossible) otherwise you run into your next point...

What? Can you explain this further? Are you saying that you would reach the same conclusions as Augusta independently of reading Augusta?

Yes. This is a problem.

But this problem can be caused by several factors. If it were a calculation then it could only be wrong or right. However this is a model and thus it can suffer from an additional complaint: It can be right, but completely inappropriate.

Again I'm a little confused. I think you're saying that socionics has low validity? If so, I agree but the system must first be reliable. If this is not correct, please explain what you mean.

i don't think there are problems with socionics.

I get the sarcasm but much of this forum seems to agrees with you.

ClownsandEntropy

1. Of course its not that simple, you're correct. We would need someone who speaks Russian and English and who has read enough of the original text and understands the theory well enough to translate the material accurately. I've had dreams about Rick translating the material or contacting the original Russian publishers or even contacting those Russians with advanced degrees in socionics to try and get the ball rolling. Freelance translators especially through students and universities are also a great option. Of course, this takes time, effort, and worst of all money so it would be a difficult thing to do, but I don't think it would be too expensive and a donation site may fare well with all of the growing interest in the west, even just specifically on this forum. I am surprised however at the wealth of negative responses and lack of wanting an original translation, so then again maybe people are mainly interested in simply their own accounts of socionics rather than some sort of deeper understanding.

As for 2 I completely agree. A firm establishment of initial data is needed as a base in order to have any meaningful discussion about socionics. And this is a major problem. The only way I can think of to solve this problem is to attain access to the original translation so we can use that as an academic base for further study and collaboration. I can definitely relate to your point about friends who don't "truly" study socionics, but I can also say that even those few of my friends who have a deeper interest in the subject end up disagreeing over various typings and theoretical points, which is also obviously seen on this forum. I attribute this mainly to the lack of any real ground work, for which the only solution I can come up with is a translation of the original text, without which socionics slowly turns from an systematic theory to a good conversation.