I was wondering if anyone knew of a detailed critique of socionics/MBTI/Jung's personalities, or if there is evidence from any psychology experiements that either supports or conflicts with this sort of personality typing.
How valid is socionics as a psychological theory!?!?
I was wondering if anyone knew of a detailed critique of socionics/MBTI/Jung's personalities, or if there is evidence from any psychology experiements that either supports or conflicts with this sort of personality typing.
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.
I find it hilarious that you have a quote about the "Introverted Thinking" type in your sig, yet you are asking an Extraverted Thinking question.
The answer? No.
You have to decide for yourself. But always waiting for testable conformation of something will leave you trailing behind, however.
I actually think that only empirical evidence can truly advance Socionics at this point.Originally Posted by Rocky
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Trailing behind what? Socionics isnt Alice and Wonderland. "We're late, we're late!" "Late for what you freak ass neurotic rabbit?"
And Kim- that would be helpful. But Im not holding my breath.
Oh, I agree.
I just mean not believing in something just because there hasn't been a scientific publication on it yet would be harmful. Jungian typology, for instance, is something that is not "proven" yet, but I have been able to justify it for myself, so I still believe in it. Actually, if no one thought this way, than no one would believe in anything enough to go out and try to prove it.
There is SO MUCH more we can learn and know that science it not yet capable of explaining.
I agree in that and I agree with the opposite. There can be good or harm in either belief.
Agreed and with Jadae too. Testing for type is the problem; ala validity.I actually think that only empirical evidence can truly advance Socionics at this point.
Entp
ILE
Re: How valid is socionics as a psychological theory!?!?
It is all theoretical stereotyping ... there are generally types of some sort, but whether there is not a deeper premise to the whole thing is another question all together.
Extraverted Thinking?!?! If I was Te then wouldn't I have rigid formula?
'By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental'
I'm just throwing ideas around and seeing if anyone's got anything to add.
In fact I quite like it when my interpretations are incorrect-it means they need refining. I'm NOT interested in imposing ideas , simply assessing them.
Classical conditioning and neuropsychology existed BEFORE Jung came up with his personalities.
In fact I suspect the 4 irrational functions can be explained in terms of classical conditioning
The rational ones in terms of neuropsycology-specifically prefrontal cortex functioning
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't believe in something just because it hasn't been proved. But that objective testing makes the difference between a nice idea and a predictable and repeatable model which has a clear application.
This is the difference between 'soft' and 'hard' science
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.
Not really. Looking for "proof", or "evidence", or scientific studies could also be Te. Quoting Jung to prove your point could be Te.Extraverted Thinking?!?! If I was Te then wouldn't I have rigid formula?
I always thought of Te as being concerned with imposing ideas and Ti with developing them, but this is missing the point somewhat.....isn't it?
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.
This seems to have hit a bit of a dead end. So maybe a little story will explain my view point......
This is a kid's story I heard when I was about 5 and hopefully explains where I'm coming from.
Once upon a time in a far away land the King needed a new advisor. So he summoned the wisest six men in his kingdom and gave them a special task.
They were to be blindfolded and allowed to touch a mystery object once.
Whoever could tell him what this object was would be made his new advisor.
The first man came forward and was met by something huge, tall, flat and immovable. He proclaimed, 'It must be a wall!'.
The second reached out and felt a thin, flapping sheet and almost at once decided, 'It's a huge leaf'.
This went on until each of the six men touched the object.
The third deciding it was a tree trunk
The fourth that it was a vine.
The fifth thought it was snake
and the sixth thought it was a pole.
Each of them completely convinced that they were right and that all the others was wrong.
How could a vine be like a wall?
How could a snake be like a tree trunk?
How could a leaf be like a pole?
Each of them was partially right, however because they were unwilling to accept any other perspective each of them failed to understand what they had touched.
This mystery thing was an elephant.
It's side is like a wall
It's ears are like leaves
It's legs are like tree trunks
It's tail is like a vine
It's trunk is like a big snake
and it's tusks are like poles.
But each separate bit of information tells you very little. Only identfying what fits most or all of them could you start to understand what an elephant looks like.
I'm interested in understanding what defines consciousness but I know this requires the understanding of alot of different information.
Jung's personalities (and socionics by association) gives an interesting perspective. But it's only one perspective and on it's own starts to look flimsy.
If you start to view it in relation to other information however it becomes far more interesting.
Although I'll explain what I mean in detail in another post....
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.
Look up "psychorelativity" on Google. Combine it with socionics and Jung, and you have an empirical model simply because it can't be disproven, with correlations everywhere.
I tried googling psychorelativity, I only got about 7 hits, didn't seem to get a very detailed explaination
For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.
Welcome to the Google!I tried googling psychorelativity, I only got about 7 hits, didn't seem to get a very detailed explainationActually scientists in Russia have done research to proove how type is related to brain. But those materials are in that Slavic language and I can't read it so good to tell others at least something. Try International Socionics Institute website. Type it into labyrinth google.com and see what you will get!
A very detailed review of psychological criticism toward all post-Jungian theories was presented by late James Newman in a series of articles published in Bulletin of Psychological Type, 1991 - 1992.
Although he did not write about socionics, a lot of what he talked about is applilcable to socionics as well.
Can anybody of you find this journal in a library?
www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote