what do you think of this site fairly accurate or not?
http://gallery.socionix.com/main.php
site accurate?
what do you think of this site fairly accurate or not?
http://gallery.socionix.com/main.php
Pointless site.
It is, I can see my dual on that site.
Looks like a bit of work went into it, don't agree with all the typings, but that's socionics.
Take all typings with a grain of salt, there isn't a real mechanism for typing in a consistant, repeatable and accurate fashion.
I wouldn't say that site is 100% accurate. It does have multiple contributors.
Socionics makes no testable predictions, ergo it is not scientific. Whether or not that undermines the veracity of the theory is up to whatever you choose to believe.
Cognitive psychology is a relatively new field of study (only having been invented around the same time computer science was experiencing a boom in the 1940s), focusing on the brain-as-machine theory; but it's based on an empiricist approach to studying psychology, as opposed to a rationalist approach. Together with cognitive neuroscience, they employ the scientific method to understanding mental processes and how they manifest. So, for Socionics, it's simply a "wait-and-see" approach if some empirical evidence matches up with any of the theory's limited predictive abilities; or, you can try extrapolating your own predictions and then design a repeatable experiment to validate the hypothesis.
Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 05-13-2013 at 07:17 PM.
That's it, I'm getting plastic surgery so I can immediately become a delta.
Socionics does have testable predictions(intertype relations). What it does not have is measurement instrument.Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
As far as socionics is concerned, it is part of cognitive psychology approaching cognitive science. It provides a rationalist explains of previous empirical observations and many of the observations are similar to the work being done in information preference prediction.
The fact is today, information(and cognitive) preference prediction drives the internet, it is the fundamental technology that funds it and with every single information preference engine being used today is a 2^x typology at the center of it. This also happens to be one of the most powerful tools in artificial intelligence. As far as I'm concerned AI and cognitive(computer) science will validate many of the psychological assumptions being made in various studies, as well as expose the areas which need further exploration.
With big data it's actually not that hard to create a typing mechanism, just data mine a dating site for individuals. How you will type is take this data, check the marriage registries to see who within this data is married to whom, and for how long and whether or not there has been domestic violence of legal cases between these married individuals, how many children. This data will form a information database to be matched with new profiles based on questionnaires, self-description, linguistic analysis to determine which of the type the new individual is and this will generate the prediction for who the new individual will best be compatible with.
It doesn't really matter if this is not perfect, as long as a better than coin flip analysis or recommendation can be made, the study is valid. In this sort of macroscopic prediction mechanism, it's impossible to get perfect results, but better than coin flip makes the system scientifically significant.
The actual successful implementation of this system would require quite a large investment in money and technology, generally by groups who would want to keep it proprietary, but eventually the knowledge will feed down and there will be discoveries made.
Yeah, so it's not testable.Socionics does have testable predictions(intertype relations). What it does not have is measurement instrument.
Rapid gentrification.
Buy the moral high ground today.
Just because there is no measurement instrument doesn't make it never testable or the creation of a proper measurement instrument possible. All you can say it's not currently testable.
Many theories are in the not currently testable bucket and many theories are in the never testable bucket.
The thing is you can create scenarios to test it which I have offered, and there have been double blind experiments on marriage and type conducted by various Russian/Former USSR groups, it's not what you would consider repeatable or of a big enough sample size, but if you accept those studies as ok then you can try and repeat or refute the existing studies.
I would say it's probable that the descriptions in socionics will not conform to a future measurement instrument, but the probability of a 2^x typology being used to predict relationship quality being created and valid is highly probable due to the current techniques and theories in computer science. If socionics is right, then it will make many similar observations as socionics.
What socionics is, is a analytical mechanism by which you can use your own information preference measurement tool(your brain) to determine type and make predictions, remember the human brain and its judgement can actually work and at a even greater success rate than even the most powerful technologies, just you can't trust every human being to be able to reproduce this success.
Until such a system is accessible by normal folk and mainstream population via a black box device, people will still need to use some method of analysis to determine compatibility and make relationship decisions, some people will go with their natural social abilities, and others will use a tool like socionics. YMMV
I agree with most of the typings I have an opinion about (which aren't so many).
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Human identity is fluid. You are made up of 70% water, and that includes psychological mumbo jumbo. Trying to test socionics would be like trying to control water too much, it would have disastrous results. You don't know what kind of evils it would have on the world if this was proven to be 100% true, the elite would know who 'conflictors' were and would naturally manipulate events for their own benefit even more so than they already do...
Knowledge is just knowledge. It means nothing. What you do with it counts. Many socionists are big-hearted liberals who have the noble goal of just wanting others to get along more for a greater good. The road to hell is paved in good intentions though, and there are just too many self-absorbed and narcissistic people on this planet that just take whatever intellect they can get and use it to build more mansions while the rest of us suffer, they don't care how it can be used. Imagine putting all IEI males in concentration camps because they are too weak and faggy and then the SLE males would try to protect us but they would be jumping into battle they may not win while a sinister ENTj in warlock gear looks from his evil castle with a stern asshole look on his face. But that's what would be happening from my perspective, from the perspective of deltas they would only be ridding the world of 'trouble makers' and people that emotionally annoy them too much.
A more inspiring goal would be, that, no matter what people type or call themselves- we can at least try to get along better, even if the struggle seems hopeless and inevitable. Humanistically, perhaps that's where we should be putting our efforts , not 'Testing people.' We already have enough 'tests' for people as it is. I would like to test our testing of others, because I know the intentions are dark and sociopathic. Fuck your testing, fuck your socionics and fuck all of us for putting people into neat boxes just because we don't like them.
I wouldn't put too much faith in these kinds of lists because most type "consensuses" boil down to popularity contests: eg. Expat vs. Smilex. I especially wouldn't put any faith in something that's intended to come readily prepackaged for your uncritical consumption.
FWIW,
It's better to study basic socionics yourself, see the intertype relationships on your own and graduate with your own intuitive understanding of the types. Also pay attention to who you personally like and dislike, who makes you comfortable/uncomfortable, and how that changes over time. The theory is really easy to see in action if you have normal Human (Homo Sapiens) social instincts.
Once you get it going in real life, arguing with others about the personal lives of celebrities becomes the single biggest waste of time ever!
IMO
There is total mismatch between all typers and I have not seen any list that been at least 50% accurate (from my POV)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote