Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: site accurate?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default site accurate?

    what do you think of this site fairly accurate or not?
    http://gallery.socionix.com/main.php

  2. #2
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Pointless site.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is, I can see my dual on that site.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Looks like a bit of work went into it, don't agree with all the typings, but that's socionics.

  5. #5
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Take all typings with a grain of salt, there isn't a real mechanism for typing in a consistant, repeatable and accurate fashion.

  6. #6
    Erk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wouldn't say that site is 100% accurate. It does have multiple contributors.

  7. #7
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,939
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    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 08:17 PM.

  8. #8
    Tyrant with a side of bacon
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    TIM
    ENTJ, LIE, 8w9
    Posts
    424
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's it, I'm getting plastic surgery so I can immediately become a delta.

  9. #9
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Socionics makes no testable predictions, ergo it is not (and may never be) 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). 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.
    Socionics does have testable predictions(intertype relations). What it does not have is measurement instrument.

    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.

  10. #10
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,939
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Socionics makes no testable predictions, ergo it is not (and may never be) scientific. [. . .] [F]or Socionics, it's simply a "wait-and-see" approach if some empirical evidence matches up with any of the theory's limited predictive abilities[.]
    Socionics does have testable predictions(intertype relations). What it does not have is measurement instrument.
    Yeah, so it's not testable.

  11. #11
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a pretty good reference for VI and shit. Most of the typings I agree with.

  12. #12
    InvisibleJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Si vis pacem
    TIM
    para bellum
    Posts
    4,832
    Mentioned
    202 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finale View Post
    That's it, I'm getting plastic surgery so I can immediately become a delta.
    Rapid gentrification.

    Buy the moral high ground today.

  13. #13
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Yeah, so it's not testable.
    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

  14. #14
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  15. #15
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  16. #16
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cassann View Post
    what do you think of this site fairly accurate or not?
    http://gallery.socionix.com/main.php
    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
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,138
    Mentioned
    387 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is total mismatch between all typers and I have not seen any list that been at least 50% accurate (from my POV)
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •