Getting Back to Basics

[Capitalist Pig]

Amidst all of the models and theories of Socionics, and our own evaluations of these models and their merit, there can be a lot of confusion and discord. The one universal constant about Socionics that we can glean from typing threads, for members and celebrities alike, is there is rarely any consensus about a person's type. The inconsistency of the theory results from a lack of empirical evidence for the concepts that are inherent to the foundation of Socionics, and no rigidly defined criteria for determining important typology markers. This, in a nutshell, is why Socionics will probably never be considered for scientific investigation and inquiry. This is not up for debate, it's simply fact.

So I have a challenge I'd like to put to the forum: Define the very idea that is at the core of Socionics. If you had to answer in a single sentence, without making any assumptions or taking anything for granted, what is the basic observation about the natural world that necessitates a theory like Socionics to explain it's underpinnings? Furthermore, how would you conceive an experiment to empirically test that hypothesis? How would you falsify it?

Definitions of terms and relevant concepts:

• Anecdotal evidence
• Observation
• Hypothesis
• Occam's razor
• Experiment
• Reproducibility
• Falsification
• Theory

[woofwoofl]

Amidst all of the models and theories of Socionics, and our own evaluations of these models and their merit, there can be a lot of confusion and discord. The one universal constant about Socionics that we can glean from typing threads, for members and celebrities alike, is there is rarely any consensus about a person's type.

Which is all fine with me, because I never looked at nailing down one of any sixteen types as a really important endpoint in and of itself. A type consists of an intersection of any given four socionical dichotomies. It's the dichotomies I'm after.

The inconsistency of the theory results from a lack of empirical evidence for the concepts that are inherent to the foundation of Socionics, and no rigidly defined criteria for determining important typology markers.

As I was getting at before, coming to something as fine-tuned and specific as a "type" and attaching them too hard to in-the-flesh people isn't my idea of a good time. Also, when compared to what I know so far about socionical methodology in Russia and whereabouts, we're doing better as far as convergences go. A lot better. Part of this is because socionical suppositions about type relations aren't used as the dominant determinant of type.

This, in a nutshell, is why Socionics will probably never be considered for scientific investigation and inquiry. This is not up for debate, it's simply fact.

Hard sciences are hard sciences, this shit works for figuring out where people come from lots of the time when it would otherwise be hard to figure out, and it doubles as a huge metaphysical art piece.

So I have a question I'd like to put to the forum: What are those ideas that make up the foundation of Socionics? If you had to answer in a single sentence, without making any assumptions or taking anything for granted, what is the basic observation about the natural world that necessitates a theory like Socionics to explain it's underpinnings?

Interpersonal misunderstandings.

Furthermore, how would you conceive an experiment to empirically test that hypothesis? How would you falsify it?

My first step would deal with something very relevant to this you posted in that chatbox:

Today 05:41 AM Capitalist Pig: Socionics is a skyscraper built on tooth picks.

Shifting the focus towards more "one-in-two" deals, as opposed to "one-in-sixteen", is the first step. Raw basics. Basics exegesized from complexities too. Basics overlaying basics overlaying basics. If I'm gonna be working with toothpicks, better to make the building structurally interlocking and low to the ground.

[xerx]

Type should map to intertype relationships. That's the sine qua non of socionics. Everything else is built on top.

[Capitalist Pig]

I changed some of the wording in the OP. Some good ideas posted so far, hopefully this thread can inspire some bipartisan collaboration among members who would like to see Socionics develop as a legitimate theory.

[JWC3]

The idea is that Aushra Augusta created a personality theory to find love. So the point is intertype relationships. I think that's a stupid point.

[Ainfigur]

Socionics is necessary because it explains to me why I can't get on with anybody.

[Aylen]

My observation is that it is useful for typing yourself if you understand the way the functions manifest in yourself. It is probably best used when you have studied other personality typing systems first and have a basic self-awareness. It is nearly impossible to type other people you are not very close to, especially if you don't understand yourself first because people are trying to type based on physical characteristics, and superficial observations instead of seeing how functions truly manifest in others. You need a solid foundation in yourself before you start analyzing other people's behavior.

I notice that quizzes are useless if you don't understand the context of the questions being asked and if you are not aware of your own likes/dislikes, feelings, sensations, emotions, beliefs... etc...

I didn't really answer the op questions but those are my thoughts and feelings about socionics and other complicated typing systems.

On the bright side I am seeing that socionics is less complicated than I first believed it to be.

[yeves]

The inconsistency of the theory results from a lack of empirical evidence for the concepts that are inherent to the foundation of Socionics, and no rigidly defined criteria for determining important typology markers.

This, in a nutshell, is why Socionics will probably never be considered for scientific investigation and inquiry.

"Never" is a strong word and shouldn't this be the other way around? You'd first need to conduct a "scientific investigation" to gain the empirical evidence that will either prove or disprove the tenets of a theory. For as long as there is a lack of "scientific investigations" there will be a lack of evidence.

[Capitalist Pig]

"Never" is a strong word and shouldn't this be the other way around? You'd first need to conduct a "scientific investigation" to gain the empirical evidence that will either prove or disprove the tenets of a theory. For as long as there is a lack of "scientific investigations" there will be a lack of evidence.

Fair enough, but the problem I am pointing out is that Socionics has no clearly defined hypothesis. There is no observation of the natural world that created a question in the minds of Ausra or whomever, that inspired them to devise Socionics. Surely, there was some inspiration for the theory, otherwise we wouldn't be here today discussing it's merit. My point is that the theory has no empirical premise, it's simply a fork of other, quasi-scientific ideas that also have no basis in an empirical reality.

Of course, I do not mean to suggest that something can't be considered real merely because it can not be proven empirically. But it does help when formulating consistent ideas, and having the ability to conduct experiments that yield consistent results and generate reproducible research does a go long way in reality checking a theory and giving it weight in both scientific and academic settings. Moreover, because of this crucial missing element, no scientific investigation is even possible in the first place. How would you know where to begin?

The problem, as I see it, is if Socionics ever did get stripped down in the manner that I am proposing that gives it a solid foundation upon which proper scientific inquiry can be made, it would no longer be called Socionics. Because a scientific theory of interpersonal relations -- if we are to assume that as the purpose of Socionics -- would likely look nothing like Socionics as it's understood today, and Socionicists would scarcely recognize the language of the research.

And so far, everyone who has posted in this thread -- including yourself -- has completely sidestepped my challenge to lay out some foundational principles of Socionics that everyone here, regardless of whatever model they favor (be it Model A, Model X, etc), can agree upon. In short, nobody here can even define the basic principle behind the theory of Socionics. So how can such a confused, muddled mess of a pop psychology theory expect to be taken seriously? We can't even seem to generate a consensus among it's proponents! Everyone is just running with their own interpretations.

[yeves]

And so far, everyone who has posted in this thread -- including yourself -- has completely sidestepped my challenge to lay out some foundational principles of Socionics that everyone here, regardless of whatever model they favor (be it Model A, Model X, etc), can agree upon. In short, nobody here can even define the basic principle behind the theory of Socionics. So how can such a confused, muddled mess of a pop psychology theory expect to be taken seriously? We can't even seem to generate a consensus among it's proponents! Everyone is just running with their own interpretations.

I'm new to all this I was hoping that those of you who have been here for years could give some ideas.

What do you think? It says IP temperament on your profile. How do you support this?

[Capitalist Pig]

What do you think? It says IP temperament on your profile. How do you support this?

I don't, but my two most commonly suggested types are INTp (ILI) and ISTp (SLI). The common denominator between them being an IP temperament, and an apparently strong preference for according to general consensus. Also, based on descriptions of the IP temperament, I would have to agree it fits me better than other temperament profiles I've read. Historically, I've identified more with ILI descriptions than SLI descriptions, but I don't defend either one because I have no faith in the veracity of the system.

I'm a skeptic and a critic, nothing more. I offer valuable insight into Socionics by attacking it. I have just as big a role as the true believer.

[Not A Communist Shill]

There probably isn't any strong factual reason for having eight functions rather than nine for example... e.g. being comparable to the enneagram.

The Big Five had an experiment behind it where the English dictionary had its behavioural adjectives split into groups and sub-groups, and was then able to show correlations between those groups and sub-groups and particular real-word behaviors e.g. "likes to drive cars" or whatever.

That sort of thing doesn't actually prove that on its own that people have inherent personality traits etc. or that these traits actually exist in the mind (i.e. rather than being trends identified ad hoc)...but it is a way that useful models can be created.

[Not A Communist Shill]

As Socionics is in large part supposed to be about describing interpersonal relationships, it should not be a lot to ask for experiments to be carried out to find which facets of personality correlate with the best relationships!

[woofwoofl]

Fair enough, but the problem I am pointing out is that Socionics has no clearly defined hypothesis. There is no observation of the natural world that created a question in the minds of Ausra or whomever, that inspired them to devise Socionics.

Hmm.

Socionist Igor Weisband reports that Augusta was perplexed by clan-based power structures in the Soviet Union that seemed to be based on personal relationships alone, and that this caused her to look for explanations outside of the official Marxist-Leninist ideology, which refused to consider personal relationships a significant factor in societal evolution. Other sources state that the main impetus for Augusta's intellectual search was the realization that people are often unable to have the good relationships that they want. She became deeply convinced that relationship quality was determined and was not subject to individuals' free will. Another influence may have been her own not-so-perfect relationship with her spouse, an LSE (relations of "benefit," or "request").

What's wild is that the first one may be better explained by the dem/aristo dichotomy than anything else, and that explaining the last one strictly in terms of as-is intertypes is insufficient imo, benefit relations oftentimes work out great.

Of course, I do not mean to suggest that something can't be considered real merely because it can not be proven empirically. But it does help when formulating consistent ideas, and having the ability to conduct experiments that yield consistent results and generate reproducible research does a go long way in reality checking a theory and giving it weight in both scientific and academic settings. Moreover, because of this crucial missing element, no scientific investigation is even possible in the first place. How would you know where to begin?

The problem, as I see it, is if Socionics ever did get stripped down in the manner that I am proposing that gives it a solid foundation upon which proper scientific inquiry can be made, it would no longer be called Socionics. Because a scientific theory of interpersonal relations -- if we are to assume that as the purpose of Socionics -- would likely look nothing like Socionics as it's understood today, and Socionicists would scarcely recognize the language of the research.

Afaik that's what these people are aiming for, this is their thesis, and here is a list of their typings so far.

And so far, everyone who has posted in this thread -- including yourself -- has completely sidestepped my challenge to lay out some foundational principles of Socionics that everyone here, regardless of whatever model they favor (be it Model A, Model X, etc), can agree upon. In short, nobody here can even define the basic principle behind the theory of Socionics. So how can such a confused, muddled mess of a pop psychology theory expect to be taken seriously? We can't even seem to generate a consensus among it's proponents! Everyone is just running with their own interpretations.

Since I was incapable of effectively determing what you mean by "foundational principles", I Googled it; the results gave me links to religious fundamentalist websites.

As I laid out in the thread I made, the roots are Jung, the most concise and non-overlapping way to map the functions is via aspectonics, and as the aestrivex/niffweed chart (on his Socionics Workshop site, which is unfortunately down, but peripheral discussion of this exists here) pointed out; in contrast to what's going on elsewhere, our convergences are more than high. Convergences were so tremendous that this was actually used as a weapon against some of us.

Recently, the only model that emerged was Model W, the one model you conspicuously left out, one that doesn't eviscerate two entire blocks from the human psyche as Model X did. Given my Model W is fully compatible with Model A, given that Model X was pervasive during the time the concurrences were logged, and given that Model W works completely perfectly with every minus/plus assignment ever given to anything if you use Model X; if it wasn't a problem then, then it sure as hell isn't a problem now.


Onward, everybody.

[Capitalist Pig]

Thanks, @woofwoofl. I'll check that stuff out later.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Amidst all of the models and theories of Socionics, and our own evaluations of these models and their merit, there can be a lot of confusion and discord. The one universal constant about Socionics that we can glean from typing threads, for members and celebrities alike, is there is rarely any consensus about a person's type. The inconsistency of the theory results from a lack of empirical evidence for the concepts that are inherent to the foundation of Socionics, and no rigidly defined criteria for determining important typology markers. This, in a nutshell, is why Socionics will probably never be considered for scientific investigation and inquiry. This is not up for debate, it's simply fact.

Totally agree.

So I have a challenge I'd like to put to the forum: Define the very idea that is at the core of Socionics. If you had to answer in a single sentence, without making any assumptions or taking anything for granted, what is the basic observation about the natural world that necessitates a theory like Socionics to explain it's underpinnings? Furthermore, how would you conceive an experiment to empirically test that hypothesis? How would you falsify it?

Definitions of terms and relevant concepts:

• Anecdotal evidence
• Observation
• Hypothesis
• Occam's razor
• Experiment
• Reproducibility
• Falsification
• Theory

The biggest problem of Socionics is that their promoters refuses to submit it to the scientific methodology. You have a set of foundational concepts that in some way and for some people makes sense, so people take the for granted despite lack of rigurous observational confirmation. And no, it makes sense for me or that's what I have observed is no guarantee. It should be obvious but apparently it isn't. Anyone's observations depend on definition of concepts. Even if someone is consistent in his/her particular methodoly/ideas (no contradiction), results depend on the chosen definition of concepts.

An analogy: User 1 can define color blue from f0 to f1; user B from f2 to f3. Which blue is more correct? Both are equally valid or invalid, because what exists independently of the observer is EM radiation as a whole, not particular colors. A definition is true by its own nature, but it isn't more real or unreal than any other definition by default. Two definitions that are equally capable (or uncapable) of predicting result are equally valid/invalid. A set of functions {Fa, Fb} and a set {Fa' and Fb'} will work equally well/bad as long as both sets contains the same quantity of information. The same as using a different basis for expressing vectors. One of them (orthonormal) is more comfortable, but not more valid. Every typology user has his own particular basis. The real situation is worse than this, due to the fact that as you've pointed, concepts are in their actual form non falsifiable, so all basis are, in certain way, equally invalid (void could be a better description).

This problem is not exclusive to Socionics. All Sciences have been in a similar state, facing similar troubles. And there's a solution, which is proper methodology. When did Alchemy become Chemistry? When a guy called Antoine Marie Lavoisier decided to measure the results of his experiments. A measure does not depend on the subjective interpretation of the user; it is what it is regardless what the experimenter thinks it could be happening.

Could socionics concepts be measured? They are not falsifiable, so no. But instead in trying to construct different models or add more complexity to actual ones, it would be much more productive to redefine concepts in a way that could be falsified, by experimentation and observation. It could be problematic, but it is the right thing to do and the only answer to this problem, Because in this way inherent subjectivity to user's opinions could be surpassed, and results could become reliable.

For being falsifiable it should be Popper-falsifiable, that is, definitions such be in that way that there could be experiments where the hypothesis could fail. It will fail or it will not fail (then the hypotesis is wrong/right with given data) but it should be able to fail. If the concept is defined in a way that it's true by itself, then it is non falsifibale and unuseful (like the colors example). Concepts should be transformed in something inherently materialistic in order to this (measurements) being possible, and here is where the biggest resistance to this metodology could appear. Those who have non-materialistic beliefs or opinions about this or anything will rise their fingers and yell "reductionism!", "narrow minded!" or even "sensor!" (what I think i am not, but I do not feel offended by the idea). Obviously something which is actually unknown could be known tomorrow; the point is not that what it is not falsifiable does not exist, but what it is not falsifiable cannot be known (as long as it is unfalsifiable; when methods allow falsification then knowledge is achieved). Some people think they know what it is actually unknown, or worse, they know what by definition cannot be known. They are deluded and that's not my problem, those yellings are just an attempt of justifying magical thinking. Science works in this way and for Socionics joining the club it should also work in this way.

We have plenty of data from neurosciences and in a broader sense, Biology, the fundational concepts should be consistent with them. For example, considering historical evolution of the human brain. I give some points to the basic definitions as External/Internal Static/Dynamics of Objects/Fields in the sense they condensate some expected attributes of functions, but I do not like that these definitions are completely symmetrical, like all of them are "equal peers", and they are static definitions so to speak. Functions are ways of processing information (dynamic), and this processing is not evident in them. Also I do not think they're "equal", not in the sense of important/better/whatever subjetive qualification, but biologically speaking. It does not makes sense that sensing and intuition are independent. Taking in consideration observed results of what we call intuition, it does not make sense that it can evolve independently of sensing, like appearing before for example. Intuition is, from my point of view, a non conscious way of post-processing sensing information. It should be newer evolutionary speaking. The simpler the organism, the closer to a sensor it will be. It correlates with abstract thinking. I'm not speaking about intelligence or being more right/wrong, only abstract thinking as it is, so nobody should get offended. When I think in a person in terms of sensor/intuitor, I do it in comparison with the average person, relatively, not in absolute way (like if you're a sensor you're uncapable of abstract thinking). The difference is in the "last, tiny" segment of the whole thinking process. All humans are intuitors from the point of view of simpler animals, and inside humans, intuition has also his problems, (you miss data which could be determinant).

Could concepts like these be measured? Well, weighting how much X a person is could be quite difficult, but objectively observing if a person is more X or more 1/X compared with the average person, could be done. By definition, ego functions are valued (and conscious). Users will have a liking preference for the concepts they manage compared with their opposites. But asking directly to a subject will not necessarily produce this result (ego functions). The subject could offer what it's expected, or have learned about how the correct his/her own thinking flaws, and offer the correct answer to the concept/problem, valuing being right more than anything. The test should be something Rorschach-like in the sense that it should not have a right/wrong answer. Maybe offering simple pictures that in some way represent the "basic forms", archetypes of functions, or their products. The answer should be measured in an involuntary way for overpassing conscious corrections. Again, ego functions are valued, using them should trigger the reward brainpaths (dopamine) which could be detected with a PET scanner. the process could be "calibrated" doing sufficient tests with a big sample of population.

Something like this should be the general line of work. Redefining concepts, scientific methodology, objective measurements, etc.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm not defending socionics or anything, but you gotta remember that very purely speaking, socionics is very Fi (matters of like and dislike/attraction and repulsion) so it is inapplicable to try and apply external objectives to it because it's not about that. Unlike most personality theories it has a more complex (which I still think is shallow as shit but still deeper than a lot of mainstream personality theories) and robust intertype relationship system. It has lots of cute little labels that explain how people make other people feel.

Let's say you have a scenario where two people watch a person get hit by a truck and die. That is the objective fact. People aren't arguing against objectivity so much as you think, they're holding onto their emotional vantage point of the situation so much where it looks as if they are ignoring the facts but they're not; they're just too caught up in the human drama too much for your str8 man tastes or something. (it reminds me of a woman being just as good as men with engineering test scores but still squeeing over grey's anatomy at night)

Anyway if they personally liked the person, they're going to be sad when they die. If they hated the person, they're going to be thrilled. Most of the time they'd probably get a neutral and meh 'eh kinda sux but people die all the time, get over it.'

"I JUST WATCHED MY DUAL AND TWU WUV SOULMATE DIE HORRIBLY IN A CAR ACCIDENT!"
"Yeah well he was my conflictor so I'm throwing a party."

socionics picks and tears apart the nitty gritty of why these people probably aren't going to get along or like each other very much. It's not pointing at a rock and going 'THIS IS A ROCK. IF YOU THINK IT'S YOUR HEART YOU ARE A WEAK PUSSY. IT'S OBVIOUSLY A ROCK AND I'M GOING TO THROW IT AT YOUR SKULL TO PROVE ITS A ROCK NOW YOU SISSY LITTLE ETHICAL TYPE!' It's just so Fi... so of course it's going to crumble under some heavy objective Te stuff.

You say that socionics epically fails on the 'scientific objective' fact stuff, but funnily enough it also fails on the heart stuff too. Because people's feelings about people can change and aren't so easily manipulated as Hollywood writers think, and so that's why I think socionics' stupid heavy fi bias is bullshit. And I think this is how it basically encourages victim mentalities, which does suck.

[strangeling]

I'm of the philosophical understanding that psychology and science explain two different and sometimes opposing realms of understanding.

Science, on the one hand, seems to be an attempt to validate and/or invalidate thoughts or ideas about reality. It becomes extremely rational-based, only dealing with and accepting what is reproducible. Everything that isn't reproducible is seen as less rational (irrational) and it then reinforces an extremely static way of understanding things because it's not open to what isn't predicted.

Psychology, on the other hand, seems to aim more at exploring our qualia and how that affects our thoughts and behaviors and the meaning we then see in this world as we take part in it. It becomes extremely perception-based and is used to understand things that are not reproducible, but archetypal. For example, one might see people interacting and recognize a pattern to that interaction, after-the-fact; it is not something that person can reproduce, but instead perceives as it flows and disappears as things keep changing, an archetype.

In this sense, I don't see why a theory needs to be scientific in order to have explanatory power or to be taken seriously when not all knowledge is reproducible.

[RedMarquee]

Personal anecdotal evidence: for me every interpersonal relationship I have follows socionic intertype rules when family, long term friends, friends, coworkers and aquaintances are involved paying attention to the information elements they favour above specific typing. Duals is a very real thing, as anyone I've felt extremely close to followed the same information preferences. Retroactive observations, while possibly wrought with confirmation bias also follow these patterns. Everything I'm insufficient at in life also follows these rules, and most complaints about my personality directly relate to my role or PoLR. Reading most type descriptions of ILE, there is usually around 95-100% accuracy on the pages, reading other types it's almost no relation to me as a person.

To me Socionics is an extremely robust theory. As long as the typing is consistent and accurate based on information elements, it is highly predictable and testable. As people go into grey areas between types I assume the theory breaks down. I also feel that there is an effect of type distortion caused by an ego (Defined in this case as a personality mask created by an individual to cater to other's perceptions to win approval) masking many people's true types, as they attempt to change themselves to make people like them, which causes these grey areas that break down the theory as well.

[MensSuperMateriam]

I'm not defending socionics or anything, but you gotta remember that very purely speaking, socionics is very Fi (matters of like and dislike/attraction and repulsion) so it is inapplicable to try and apply external objectives to it because it's not about that.

Socionics so fo Fi that its creator was Fi-PoLR and main core developers are/has been Ti egos. Like/dislike etc are emotions/feelings, which are still brain processes suceptible of being objectively explained and measured.

[MensSuperMateriam]

I'm of the philosophical understanding that psychology and science explain two different and sometimes opposing realms of understanding.

Psychology tries to be a Science, with more or less success depending on the particular field or style.

Science, on the one hand, seems to be an attempt to validate and/or invalidate thoughts or ideas about reality. It becomes extremely rational-based, only dealing with and accepting what is reproducible. Everything that isn't reproducible is seen as less rational (irrational) and it then reinforces an extremely static way of understanding things because it's not open to what isn't predicted.

Apparently you don't seem to understand Science or scientific methodology.

Psychology, on the other hand, seems to aim more at exploring our qualia and how that affects our thoughts and behaviors and the meaning we then see in this world as we take part in it. It becomes extremely perception-based and is used to understand things that are not reproducible, but archetypal. For example, one might see people interacting and recognize a pattern to that interaction, after-the-fact; it is not something that person can reproduce, but instead perceives as it flows and disappears as things keep changing, an archetype.

Wishful thinking. Cannot be reproduced or at least "captured", but are still real only because they're experienced in that way. Like religious manifestions, by the way.

If a pattern is really a pattern (not only assumed to be), then reality is happening in the same way it did before. It falls inside reproducibility.

In this sense, I don't see why a theory needs to be scientific in order to have explanatory power or to be taken seriously when not all knowledge is reproducible.

Then it is not knowledge, only a particular bunch idea as valid or invalid as any alternative at the same level. Knowledge is the portion of ideas/beliefs that accurately represents reality. And reality is real, in the sense that its existence does not depend on the preconceptions of the user. Reality is therefore objective and reproducible.

I recommend to you learning a bit about scientific methodology, falsiability and why they're needed, because you do not seem to understand well these concepts and how they work and why.

[strangeling]

The problem with science is an inherent belief that reality must have a deterministic mechanism, independent from the perceptions of it - an axiom to the scientific method. Sometimes this is useful, such as with classical physics, producing predictable deterministic explanations. Other times it leads to problems, such as with quantum entanglement, where depending on what is perceived under study contradictory results appear that give way to non-deterministic explanations (through ensuing probabilities and relative principles, such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The irony of science becomes an inability to see how perceptions color and influence the mechanisms of reality.

[MensSuperMateriam]

The problem with science is an inherent belief that reality must have a deterministic mechanism, independent from the perceptions of it - an axiom to the scientific method. Sometimes this is useful, such as with classical physics, producing predictable deterministic explanations. Other times it leads to problems, such as with quantum entanglement, where depending on what is perceived under study contradictory results appear that give way to non-deterministic explanations (through ensuing probabilities and relative principles, such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The irony of science becomes an inability to see how perceptions color and influence the mechanisms of reality.

LOL. Some people when facing the irrationality of some of their ideas love to use Quantum Mechanics as a justification for what in Psychology is called magical thinking (which is not the same as believing in magic). Look at Quantum Mechanics! They prove unicorns... or whatever they would like.

Let's point out some logical contradictions in your assertion. You try to use a field of Science (therefore still submitted to scientific methodology) as a way to prove that Science is wrong or doesn't work. How can you consider that a subsystem is right when the system where it belongs is supposed to be wrong? It doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying 2+2=3 or 2+2=5 depending on your convenience.

Quantum Mechanics follows scientific methodology ("axioms"). And no, it doesn't mean what you are understanding. A non-deterministic experimental result doesn't imply that you make (in the sense of creating) the results. That's a very bad, bad understanding of the issue, which is usually explained using a metaphor but believed literally by people who usually has zero formation on the topic. Measuring cause the superposition of states to collapse and be defined, but it doesn't imply the result is subjective or subdued to experimenter's will or perception. The phenomenon is still described mathematically, using laws, and results are accurate, reliable and reproducible according to these laws (in fact, QM produces the most accurate measurements in all Science, afaik). I insist, results are neither arbitrary nor subdued to experimenter's subjective perception (sorry, no magic here). They simply follows statistical laws, but follows them with a perfect accuracy.

In that sense, QM is no much different from throwing a dice. Until you throw it there's no defined result, Once you've throwed it, the result is described by statistical laws. But it does not depend on experimenter's subjective perception or will (unless cheating of course). It works in the same way for all experimenters. So better ask scientists about what QM is.

Science is not a particular answer, idea or belief. It is only a method for properly building understanding of reality. Today's vision could be radically contradicted by tomorrow's ones (and so on), but the key is that you can always achieve a conclusion with given data at any moment which is better than the alternative hypothesis.

The irony of people like you is your inability to see that something isn't real (or even has meaning) only because you perceive it in that way. Too much self-focused. You think (believe) you know, or can perceive or know, what you simultaneosly define as beyond [provable] knowledge. How can you know that what you believe is real, then? It is no different from believing in god.

An analogy: 100 individuals, essentialy comparable (non separable by how much they sin, etc) pray to the same god asking for the same thing. Only one of them gets it, and hails "miracle!". He/she got what was desired, but why would be his/her particular experience more meaningful that the experience of the lasting 99 ones, who got nothing? Because he/she feels special? Science does not prove that god exist or not, but it proves that the lucky one is dumb. When you do not know the answer, the correct behavior is assuming that you do not know, and not believing that you know what you do not know or invent an answer.

Although I cannot see your type, I smell which one it could be, but I'll keep the answer to myself. Anyway, it's not my job to correct your thinking mistakes. Feel free to answer if you want but I will not keep going on.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Reminds me a bit of what labcoat once said, sth about as soon one measures a phenomenal state it ceases to be that state... Also reminds me a bit of "can't step into the same river twice"; is it similar?

Labcoat is simply right. That's the source of Heisemberg's principle, you cannot measure one thing without affecting the other.

The river quote does not come from the perturbation an individual does to the river, but about the nature of the river itself, if I remember properly. Related but not exactly the same.

Is this similar to afterthought vs forethought?

As a non native English speaker I'm a bit worried those words can contain more meaning than what a literal translation offers, but it seems to be valid.

[strangeling]

Still though, suggesting that statistics, a measure of relative certainty (and uncertainty) is scientific makes you look incredibly ignorant. Science aims at certainty through reproducibility. QM uses statistics to achieve relative certainty and uncertainty. They are very different.
And most importantly, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle illustrates that as you become more relatively certain in one aspect, you become more relatively uncertain in another. There is no direct reproducilibity as everyone will end up with different results and some results will not fall within the range of what's probable. Nothing about it is absolute. And these probabilities are only useful if you have a ton of results and can accept the fact that some of them will be completely unpredictable, without knowing which ones will be unpredictable.

And this makes it very unscientific and silly in application then; for example, if I utilized Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to make a machine that displayed a range of the position and momentum of a particle, I could look at and see either momentum or position and infer the other from that. However, some percentage of the time I will be completely wrong, but I won't know when I'm wrong... It is unreliable, non-absolute, and non-determinate. The reproducibility isn't there.

Measuring cause the superposition of states to collapse and be defined, but it doesn't imply the result is subjective or subdued to experimenter's will or perception.

Straw-man
Synchronicity doesn't assume that what one perceives becomes what one sees, although that can be part of it. It instead elucidates how a starting perception can lead to another; in the case of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, it shows how as one focuses more on the position of a particle, its momentum is also directly affected (and vice versa). Quantum Entanglement produces exactly this phenomenon and is acausal in how it effects because one meaning (position or momentum) directly affects the other.

Yeah, now it's your turn to ignore everything I've said and make baseless assertions as you've done twice already. A probability - will you do this? I don't know...and it's not reproducible because it's uncertain...an educated guess...intuition perhaps...

[Pookie]

The whole point behind it is to try to chart out subjectivity. Of course Objectivity isn't ever going to exist in the system. It's not for that.

[groogishgreegygrag]

This thread is low-hanging fruit.

[Capitalist Pig]

This thread is low-hanging fruit.

Yet you haven't stepped up to the challenge.

[Whoobie77]

The problem with the hardline empiricists ITT is that they refuse to acknowledge that the truth is both analytic and synthetic. I challenge anyone to falsify the number one, or a Euclidean point, or the alphabet. You can't do it. What Godel taught us is that, if you drill down deep enough, all of your knowledge will be essentially contingent upon you accepting certain axioms as true without evidence, or you are going to be forced to employ circular reasoning. If your hypothesis states "If you combine X and Y, the resulting compound should be blue", then it might be true for you and anyone else who defines "blue" as between 450-495 mm, but if another dude defines this as indigo, or is colorblind, then it is nullified in meaning. I know this is kind of disappearing-up-your-own-ass kind of thinking, but the heart of the matter is that ontology has a lot more to do with leaps-of-faith and subjectivity than some would have us believe. Jungian psychoanalytics, at its core, asks you to accept that there are two forms of dualism: between body and spirit, and between emotion and rationality. If you are willing to accept these premises, as I am, then you enter into a world, a "language-game" if you will, where the deductions follow hence. It is what it is.

G.K. Chesterton once devised an analogy for his apologetics for a conservative attitude. He said that the progressive comes in and wishes to clear away a fence before he understands why it is there. Chesterton admonishes the progressive, saying that one should know why the fence is there (as it may contain livestock, separate estates, whatever) before one going is going to knock it down. I think this is an excellent case for why we should tip our hats to the plurality of the human memetic complex, including religion (even though I am an atheist). All human information was created for a reason, and what has been replicated and has made its way finally to us must have some utility, even if is not always readily apparent. Jungian psychoanalytics is part of this memetic complex or (dare I say it) collective unconscious of humankind, and so, therefore, to me, it has some use value.

I'll end with a quote from good 'ole Bill Shakepeare "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[MensSuperMateriam]

The problem with the hardline empiricists ITT is that they refuse to acknowledge that the truth is both analytic and synthetic. I challenge anyone to falsify the number one, or a Euclidean point, or the alphabet. You can't do it.

I think you could have missed the point. "ITT empiricist" as you call them [us] are not arguing that something that it's not proven does not exist, or cannot exist. Nor they argue that someting proven is the truth, in the sense you're using (final, definitive). What they argue is that the only truth is that there is no truth, or more specifically, truth cannot be known (Reality).

Instead fooling themselves, they acept this fact. And proceed the best way we, limited humans, can do. If truth cannot be known, then the only solution is to achieve functional truths, that is, truths which work. Real or not real we cannot know (for sure), but we can test if they work or they doesn't. And keep going on.

"Axiom" number one or Euclidean points are not in the same level than the alphabet. The latter one is a pure convention, a definition we have created for convenience. The former two are axioms in the sense that they cannot be proven, yes. But does it matter? They work, so we use them. And they're not subjective, because they are based, or in certain way are abstractions, of natural properties/behaviors. If you observe a always the same "starting point" for a pattern and you call it X, that's an axiom. But this is not arbitrary, or subjetive in the sense of "random" (something for individual 1, something for 2...).

The way I see it (and this is my particular opinion, a bit offtopic) is that Maths & Logic combined are, in certain way, the essence of form of Nature. The smallest concepts that always could be applied. You could have one X, one Y, one Z... and if you remove every particularization, what remains is the idea of one. Maths & Logic is the language for describing the minimum concepts you have after you've calculated the intersection of all other concepts (and later combinations).

But regardless this, the key is that they work. Empiricist do not require more than this. They do not seek for a perfect ideal truth, which cannot be achieved, but ideas that work.

What Godel taught us is that, if you drill down deep enough, all of your knowledge will be essentially contingent upon you accepting certain axioms as true without evidence, or you are going to be forced to employ circular reasoning.

Something nobody has denied, afaik. What Gödel taught us is, basically, that you cannot prove a system inside the same system. This can be explained in a more "tangible" way:

-We can associate knowledge with the possesion of information which is correct.
-Information is related to shannon entropy (information entropy).
-Shannon entropy is related to thermodynamic entropy (explained in the same link).
-Thermodynamic entropic is an extensive property (it depends on the amount of matter in the system).

Therefore a subsystem cannot contain more or even equal information than the bigger system where it belongs because it has less matter. We are subsystems of Reality; we never will be able to truly know it then. We would have to be as big as the same Reality. We cannot even be sure if what we think we know is at least a limited form of reality but still accurate; we would have to be bigger than ouserves, for looking from the outside, which is impossible.

We are, therefore, not saying that our ideas are right (what we could accept as "true" in a particular moment with the information at hand). We are only saying that you cannot surpass that limitation, we are implicitly against reification fallacy. Someone can believe something that cannot be unproven, but it's not true only because that person believes it, perceives it in that way, or whatever similar formulation. There's no idea that its true by itself, there are ideas that work and ideas that do not work. That's all.

If your hypothesis states "If you combine X and Y, the resulting compound should be blue", then it might be true for you and anyone else who defines "blue" as between 450-495 mm, but if another dude defines this as indigo, or is colorblind, then it is nullified in meaning. I know this is kind of disappearing-up-your-own-ass kind of thinking, but the heart of the matter is that ontology has a lot more to do with leaps-of-faith and subjectivity than some would have us believe.

The color example is exactly the same I said in the former post, so I'm not sure how you pretend to use it against empiricism. Color blue is just a convention and so it's subjective (arbitrary, depending on the particular person, perception, definition, etc).

Empiricist are against believing that these subjective concepts are real in any form or represents any form of knowledge. I disagree that ontology has a lot more to do with leaps of faith as you said; one thing is believing in subjective concepts, which are arbitrary, and another thing is "believing" in axioms. You do not believe in them, you use them because, again, they work. And they work regardless the particular user, that's the key. Something that does not happen with color blue-like concepts (they're arbitrary).

Beauty can mean for some person one thing and another thing for a different one. The same about morality. But if I say "the pencil will fall if I drop it", it will happens regardless any belief/opinion you could have (unless you think all is subjective and we live in Matrix, or something like this).

Maybe I have to use axioms. Empiricist are not concerned with proving them. That's a philosophical discussion which happens in another arena and has no solution. They're concerned with using them if they work in a reliable way, and they're against believing something beyond human inherent limitations (reification fallacy).

Jungian psychoanalytics, at its core, asks you to accept that there are two forms of dualism: between body and spirit, and between emotion and rationality. If you are willing to accept these premises, as I am, then you enter into a world, a "language-game" if you will, where the deductions follow hence. It is what it is.

Request denied. Why should I have to accept those premises? More reification fallacy. And emotions are equal to rational thoughts in the sense they're thoughts, that is, brain processes. You could argue that I cannot prove this, and that will be true because I will have to see myself from the ouside of myself. But there's a clear limit, a line if you want, that separates what can be known and what cannot be known (falsiability). I prefer to accept my limitations and work with the tools I have instead falling in a world of beliefs, that cannot be proven, and for all practical purposes, they do not matter.

G.K. Chesterton once devised an analogy for his apologetics for a conservative attitude. He said that the progressive comes in and wishes to clear away a fence before he understands why it is there. Chesterton admonishes the progressive, saying that one should know why the fence is there (as it may contain livestock, separate estates, whatever) before one going is going to knock it down. I think this is an excellent case for why we should tip our hats to the plurality of the human memetic complex, including religion (even though I am an atheist). All human information was created for a reason, and what has been replicated and has made its way finally to us must have some utility, even if is not always readily apparent. Jungian psychoanalytics is part of this memetic complex or (dare I say it) collective unconscious of humankind, and so, therefore, to me, it has some use value.

Agree with the bolded part. I'm also an atheist, but I understand that if all (afaik) human cultures have had some form of religion at least in one point of their history, it's because religion has some utility. Not necessarily for an isolated individual, but for societies as a whole. They provide cohesion, for example. As societies develop and grow in complexity and size "forces" are required that keep glued such societies. If not, internal chaos will prevail and they will colapse. Religion has a lot to say about this. But this does not imply that religious ideas/beliefs are correct, only that they've *some* utility (at least in part they work). Memetic theory. Replication & evolution of ideas. Yep

I'll end with a quote from good 'ole Bill Shakepeare "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Maybe. But you know nothing about these things, what they are or how they are.

Again, empiricist are only against reifications; they disagree that true knowledge can be achieved. They accept human limitations.
They use what works. And this method works

fbd.jpg

[Capitalist Pig]

@MensSuperMateriam

ITT = In This Thread, for future reference.

[MensSuperMateriam]

My fault. Thanks, @Capitalist Pig.

[Whoobie77]

The way I see it (and this is my particular opinion, a bit offtopic) is that Maths & Logic combined are, in certain way, the essence of form of Nature. The smallest concepts that always could be applied. You could have one X, one Y, one Z... and if you remove every particularization, what remains is the idea of one. Maths & Logic is the language for describing the minimum concepts you have after you've calculated the intersection of all other concepts (and later combinations).

So if there was no intelligent life in the universe, the concept of "1" would exist out there? Atoms would be distinct, differentiated units apart from the soup of matter and energy? Dafuq? Believing that numbers represents the essence of reality or whatever doesn't require the same leap-to-faith that me believing Ti or Te or whatever represents my thought processes? Can you not see that numbers & logic are also not the territory?

But regardless this, the key is that they work. Empiricist do not require more than this. They do not seek for a perfect ideal truth, which cannot be achieved, but ideas that work.

Which is exactly what I am saying. Yes, Popper's falsifiable truths are incredibly effective if you want to build bridges or fight diseases. They work, and I am incredibly grateful that humankind has been able to engineer this computer I am working on, the internet which allows me to talk to you, and the air conditioner keeping my room cool. But the issue with Popper's evolution of knowledge is that it seems to believe that only this sphere of human knowledge can evolve and adapt to its environment. Despite the fact that we have Occam's Razor and falsification, religion, magical thinking, and all kinds of other "irrational" knowledge growths still exist and have found ways to propagate themselves. You may see them all as a cancer, but for me, these also flawed ideas must be resilient for a reason. They must fulfilling some other ecological niche in the memetic complex. You acknowledge yourself, later, that religion, although not inherently true, has partial use value. This is my belief about socionics. Being that it is derived from Jungian mysticism, it resides closer to religion than to science. Just because it is not empirical science does not mean it is lacking in use value. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb pointed out, "If you think religion is about belief, you don't understand religion, and you don't understand belief."

Here's an empirical study about how magical thinking helps us. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-can-make-you/

A lot of the rest of this is just you reiterating that empirical truths are flawed, but they work. They do work. Here I don't disagree. What I am saying is that they are not the only form of ideas with some form of utility.

I prefer to accept my limitations and work with the tools I have instead falling in a world of beliefs, that cannot be proven, and for all practical purposes, they do not matter.

At some fundamental level, even if just accepting that the number "1" is an accurate representation of the arbitrary assortment of particles that make up an atom, or a dog, or whatever, you are accepting something on belief. You can't use this line of reasoning to throw out less empirical ideas without throwing out science as well.

But this does not imply that religious ideas/beliefs are correct, only that they've *some* utility (at least in part they work). Memetic theory. Replication & evolution of ideas. Yep

There. Socionics is not empirically true. If subjected to true falsifiability, it would be ripped to shreds in an instant for the fact that it arbitrarily elects four dichotomies, eight functions, 16 types, etc.

...

That doesn't mean it never works.

[groogishgreegygrag]

Yet you haven't stepped up to the challenge.

That is a good point. I wonder why that is.

[MensSuperMateriam]

So if there was no intelligent life in the universe, the concept of "1" would exist out there? Atoms would be distinct, differentiated units apart from the soup of matter and energy? Dafuq? Believing that numbers represents the essence of reality or whatever doesn't require the same leap-to-faith that me believing Ti or Te or whatever represents my thought processes? Can you not see that numbers & logic are also not the territory?

Holy shit! Sorry. Two points:

I) When I expressed my opinion about {Maths + Logic} as the essence of form of Nature, I stated that it was just an opinion, and I explicity said offtopic. That was just a particular POV about this subject in paralell to the main topic, without being an argument of any kind for supporting my main argumentation.

With no intelligent life in the Universe there would be no concept of "1", no concept of atom, no concept of intelligence, no concept of any kind. Beause there would be no minds which think about concepts. Period. In such situation, not only there's no answer, but the same question has no meaning.

But you still mix things at your convenience, or maybe not in but you mix them anyway. You put all things in the same category when clearly they are not equal. That's what really surprises me, regardless agreement or disagreement between us.

You cannot say all concepts are equal (equally invalid, or equally artificial). Ti is not like any Math number. Ti at present form is like color blue convention, defined by will, with no differentiated effect if we alter the definition (no differentiated natural behavior). The result moves exactly as the concept does. But the same does not apply to numbers, they're not arbiratry in that sense, they're directly based in observations, as happens to any "axiom". Colors are arbitrary. Axioms are not. That's the key.

II) You insist in ideas like leap-to-faith, as if "faith" is necessarily required for using concepts. Sorry for using the word fallacy; I do not know how to say this without it, no offense is intented: maybe I'm wrong but your idea sounds like a justification for reification fallacy. Like it's necessary to accept inherent truth, a real existence of the ideas underlying in concepts, for using them.

Here's where I strongly disagree with you. Empiricism does not require beliefs, neither in ideas under test, neither in results as true (definitive), neither in concepts. It's just a method, that puts higher degree of confidence in things that work, over things that do not work. But there's no belief; things, including the meaning of concets, are only accepted in the way they work. When they stop working or they're replace by better ones, they're simply changed. The closest thing you can say is "temporal belief" but I still dislike the usage of such concept, because they're no implicit recognition in the inherent truthness of something.

You're focused in a philosophical debate (Empiricism vs Rationalism) which cannot be solved (because, again, it would require the skill of seeing things outside ourselves). But that debate only matters from Rationalism POV. Regardless our beliefs, regardless how our perception "formats" the Reality we're perceiving (that's in part your line, I think), ideas will work or will not work under test. That's all that matters for Empiricism. Beyond that there's an unsovable debate, and Empiricism has no use for it.

Which is exactly what I am saying. Yes, Popper's falsifiable truths are incredibly effective if you want to build bridges or fight diseases. They work, and I am incredibly grateful that humankind has been able to engineer this computer I am working on, the internet which allows me to talk to you, and the air conditioner keeping my room cool. But the issue with Popper's evolution of knowledge is that it seems to believe that only this sphere of human knowledge can evolve and adapt to its environment. Despite the fact that we have Occam's Razor and falsification, religion, magical thinking, and all kinds of other "irrational" knowledge growths still exist and have found ways to propagate themselves. You may see them all as a cancer, but for me, these also flawed ideas must be resilient for a reason. They must fulfilling some other ecological niche in the memetic complex. You acknowledge yourself, later, that religion, although not inherently true, has partial use value. This is my belief about socionics. Being that it is derived from Jungian mysticism, it resides closer to religion than to science. Just because it is not empirical science does not mean it is lacking in use value. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb pointed out, "If you think religion is about belief, you don't understand religion, and you don't understand belief."

Here's an empirical study about how magical thinking helps us. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-can-make-you/

I never said, or intented to say, that they lack value. I only said, or tried to say, that they're meaningless in the quest for truth (knowledge), so to speak. That's like if I recognize morality as a pure subjective concept, something I have stated here and/or in another threads, I have no moral views, no subjective opinion about it. I have. Or if I see emotions not like the expression of our "souls" but pure biochemical processes, I experience no emotions, etc.

I'm just a fierce advocate against mixing the two fileds, that is, "elevating" things beyond what they really are, believing subjective things as true outside ourselves, against reification of ideas. Because the alternative would be something like if I would believe in god only because I can acknowledge some usefulness of religion. That would make me quite dumb, I think. Like fooling myself at will. Wishful thinking at its best.

About magical thinking, the same. It could have some usefulness in some particular conditions. But this doesn't imply its ideas are "correct". I mean, the usefulness it could have is not related to how functionally correct its ideas are, it usefulness, like religion, falls in a different topic than "correctness".

A lot of the rest of this is just you reiterating that empirical truths are flawed, but they work. They do work. Here I don't disagree. What I am saying is that they are not the only form of ideas with some form of utility.

At some fundamental level, even if just accepting that the number "1" is an accurate representation of the arbitrary assortment of particles that make up an atom, or a dog, or whatever, you are accepting something on belief. You can't use this line of reasoning to throw out less empirical ideas without throwing out science as well.

Disagree. Already commented. In certain way, I see your argumentation in the line some people would say "you cannot disprove god!" (you are not a believer, just an example).

I'm trying to work with shades of grey and choosing the solution which is closer to "white". What I reject is that if something is not black, then everything has to be white, so to speak. Like if everything is in the same category or equally valid.

Is a whiter than B? Then A works, so it also works for me. No need of unsolvable discussions. That's Empiricism.

There. Socionics is not empirically true. If subjected to true falsifiability, it would be ripped to shreds in an instant for the fact that it arbitrarily elects four dichotomies, eight functions, 16 types, etc.

That doesn't mean it never works.

The part of Socionics that requires "beliefs" (unfalsifiable foundational concepts) is just the part of Socionics that do not work. Proof is the absence of consensus in typings. Russian "experts" sometimes even classify the same person as its conflictor. You see.

The part that "works" (could be upgraded to falsiability) will improve a lot by proper methodology.


---

It seems to me that maybe we more or less agree in the core and disagree in the forms. True or not, I think this debate will not progress much more because we're repeating argments.

What do you say? Let's agree in disagreement?

[Whoobie77]

It seems to me that maybe we more or less agree in the core and disagree in the forms. True or not, I think this debate will not progress much more because we're repeating argments.

What do you say? Let's agree in disagreement?

Yeah. I was pretty much done anyway. I did a little more research on Popper and I found out that he pretty severely butted heads with the analytic philosopher I'm ripping my ideas of from, Ludwig Wittgenstein. I don't think they came to a perfect resolution either.

Socionics is not empiricism and does not belong in the realm of empirical science. I'm glad to agree to disagree on the minutiae. You're a stimulating debate partner, for what it is worth.

[Esaman]

Define the very idea that is at the core of Socionics. If you had to answer in a single sentence, without making any assumptions or taking anything for granted, what is the basic observation about the natural world that necessitates a theory like Socionics to explain it's underpinnings?
]

Brain has faculties/resources/physical structures that function in connection/tandem with more than one other faculty. Not at the same time. Having to be working with one or an other, balance between use of faculty in different connections is unlikely, while dis-balance reinforces and orders itself because while two faculties are connected the faculties that they are not connected would use and reinforce their other connection.

(socionic "elements" are the connected faculties, not a single faculty)
That is sufficient to explain existence of types and conflicts or facilitation of information.

Furthermore, how would you conceive an experiment to empirically test that hypothesis? How would you falsify it?

The orientations should be observable/measurable as pattern of patterns of neurological activity and different ratios between number of connections between different areas.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Yeah. I was pretty much done anyway. I did a little more research on Popper and I found out that he pretty severely butted heads with the analytic philosopher I'm ripping my ideas of from, Ludwig Wittgenstein. I don't think they came to a perfect resolution either.

Socionics is not empiricism and does not belong in the realm of empirical science. I'm glad to agree to disagree on the minutiae. You're a stimulating debate partner, for what it is worth.

Thank you. I think the same about you.

This is a gentlemen's agreement

[Eldanen]

Cpig: the anti-Ti. Lol. I don't think that socionics will ever become a scientific theory. I'm not going to answer your challenge because I really couldn't care less about whether or not it's scientific or empirical. If you want an observation about the world that triggered the search for the idea of Socionics, here's one: some human relationships work well while others fail miserably. "Why is that?" would be the question that then became the impetus for its development.

[groogishgreegygrag]

If you want an observation about the world that triggered the search for the idea of Socionics, here's one: some human relationships work well while others fail miserably. "Why is that?" would be the question that then became the impetus for its development.

One month, 40 replies and 1000 views before someone answers a simple question about how to science.

But it was answered.