Pretty much all of this is equally applicable to Socionics. Sorry about your "theory."
Why MBTI is Useless
Pretty much all of this is equally applicable to Socionics. Sorry about your "theory."
Real theories make testable predictions and are falsifiable.Originally Posted by Person
A friend of mind did a degree in education, and she talked about this crazy prof who wouldn't even talk to people before they told her their Myers Briggs type... yeah.
I don't think anyone is claiming MBTI to be a know-all end-all system. MBTI is really just there for having easy, convenient way for at least getting someone in the right ball park. Unlike socionics MBTI hardly even attempts at understanding the motives and inner working behind people's behavior and how it all fits together, so I don't think it is fair to put them in same level, and especially not on the same level as astrology/fortune telling which don't even use scientific research at all.
Yes there are a lot of type inconsistencies in socionics, but a lot that has to do with either people not fully understanding the system yet or with the more loose theoretical extensions of socionics like romantic attitudes, subtypes, temperaments, etc. The are definitely some flaws within socionics that need to worked out, but I've seen too much that has socionics has been correct with to just say its all bullshit/useless. I'm well aware how some psuedo-sciences use vagueness to make it seem like they have predictive power when they actually don't, but with socionics I've actually been able to use it to pre-determine people's traits with undeniable accuracy.
That's crazy who would do such a thing to people!!! Nutz
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias.
Well aware of all and already took it into account. I've got a pretty good sense of what is bullshit is and what is not. Some of the outer socionics subjects may be a bit sketchy but I think socionics at its core is alot more solid then a lot of the other psuedo-scientific bullshit out there.
Of course it would be wonderful if there was more empirical evidence to please thevaluers, but that takes time, money, and people willing to run and conduct experiments, which are not exactly things that are easy to come by most people. Unless your willing to provide the resources to help gather statistical information, criticizing socionics for lacking "tangible evidence" is just beating the dead horse.
Lol@ your inability to understand that psychology studies subjective experience. It doesn't need to be falsifiable; get a new slogan.
good bye
This is like dr.Brennan - Sweets argument all over:
"Psychology is false because it has no proofs, it is subjective and can't be falsified-everything can be explained with a "...depends how you look on it" trick."
Sometimes i do think it is all false and just a screen for flogging Xanax and stuff(so pharmacoshitty industry could continue poisoning people and making them addicted to their poisons).
Psychology studies conscious reality, how we perceive and understand and deal with our experiences, etc., our qualia. The Scientific Method is for verifying reality independent from our thoughts about.
So saying a study of human thoughts requires scientific falsifiability is really contradictory. If someone wants falsifiability, then they don't care about people's subjective experiences; they'd rather objectify people apart from their personal experiences, as some sort of lifeless machines. It's just so meaningless to me, but whatever.
i don't understand why people feel threatened and react defensively when its pointed out typology isn't science. they know this already, right? it doesn't mean you're wrong for feeling like/having the belief that its a good theory. feelings & beliefs are totally fine for forming your own lens through which to view the world. how are you limited in your use of socionics by the acknowledgment that its a psuedoscience?
It's more than finding coincidences in numbers. I think you underestimate that you are creating the entire foundation for interpreting many things that the tools aren't there to measure and nobody has described a mechanism that explains the data. It's never going to be science.Of course it would be wonderful if there was more empirical evidence to please the
Psychology is a broad field of study, with many interesting cross-disciplinary approaches. I'm not sure which one you're promoting here, but good luck. I understand that psychology has suffered in the past as an applied science.
It won't stop people from being obsessed/interested with it though. Religion/the occult hasn't been falsified or whatever either, and it still drives people crazy...so I agree with cpig but I don't really think reminding this to people will have any outcome other then kind of getting under their skin a bit for awhile. There is no leading people to the light of logic.
You are essentially going up to little children and telling them there is no santa claus. Yeah you are right, but you are also an asshole. Hehe.
Also the tv shows/stories you personally like, none of them are real or scientific either- but you still watch them. Even if you are a logical type. So humans obviously aren't motivated/influenced by rational crap.
This is why I say , I give socionics up not because of its lack of logic of feasibility or other Te words- but because there comes a point where it just isn't emotionally satisfying to me anymore.
It wasn't that so much faith in a make-believe deity made the person stupid as it made them hateful and closed off. Fight their emotional fantasy with emotional strength of your own.
Oh no!!!! My life now is totally devoid of meaning.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Arguing whether or not MBTI/socionics/ related fields are factually correct or qualifies as science is debatable. The part I disagree with is your claim that they are "useless" and should disregarded in the same manner as astrology or crazy religion. Just because a system doesn't operate perfectly doesn't mean that there isn't knowledge to gained. Even something that is completely broken may still have some salvageable parts within it. The trick is it takes some skill to be able to pick apart the good information from the junk information. People who lack this ability may simply give up and just say it's all bullshit in order to maintain their self-esteem.
It's not. They aren't science.
I'm sure fortune tellers and astrologists would feel the same.
And it takes skill to be a profitable fortune teller.
lol
I don't know if you're talking to me at all. But personally I think Socionics kind of sucks. It stereotypes as much as mbti. But that's a seperate issue from expecting psychology to follow an objective method, such as the scientific method, when it is geared towards understanding the subjective.
Last edited by strangeling; 10-13-2015 at 06:09 AM.
good bye
@Capitalist Pig You need a little more then mockery and vague technicalities to make a logical argument as to why MBTI/socionics is "useless". I agree that they aren't really science by standard definition, but that does not automatically translate to the whole thing being wrong. The only solid point you brought up between both the video and your post was how 50% of people tested by MBTI arrive at a different type. MBTI however only measures external qualities and doesn't attempt to explain the causes of type behavior therefore I would expect it to be somewhat inaccurate. There are multiple factors that could play a role in type inconsistencies other then system itself being non-functional.
Socionics is social science theory. Its social science, albet underground. Its not typology as it has a model and different personality configurations are predicted abd different information preferences are associated with this prediction. You can dismiss the type descriptions but you can not dismiss the powerful influence of information prefereence on human cognition. Ultimately this study predicts how you think cpig, it predicts your skepticism, your neurotic attachment to a study and group of ppl you disagreement with as well as your stubborness. It also predicts you negative attention seeking. Its easy to dismiss this study as not a physical science. Its hard to dismiss the infomation science if yor psyche which produces your current skepticism, stubborness, negative attention seekjng, disregard for others feelings and thoughts.
So why do you continue to behave as you do as predicted by socionics and the way it models information preference? Its not star signs its the brain and thought patterns.
I think it's useless because it has no objective measure of validity. If you find value in it, more power to you.
Correct, though you also share that distinction in common with astrology, numerology, palm reading, and other systems of fortune telling.
I never said anything about statistics, that was the video. It's a valid point because of the low retest reliability. There's no way to control for bias or deception in respondents of self-reporting questionnaires.
lol
yeah, this typology business is no science... but it helped me figure out some stuff and it's kind've interesting, I guess.
that's a little dysfunctional...
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Here is a potentially falsifiable prediction for you:
People will tend to enjoy spending time with their dual more than they will tend to enjoy spending time with their conflictor.
Now would Karl Popper agree that socionics is scientific by his strict falsifiability criteria? Probably not, but then he also didn't believe that Darwinian Evolution was scientific either. Socionics currently lacks rigorous evidence and experiments backing it up, but that in no way implies that such evidence will never exist in the future.
I think ppl are trying too hard to convince Cpig that Socionics is useful. The reality is he is simply trapped by a powerful delusion which makes believing this impossible.
For him "X is not science, therefore, x is useless" This is essentially the video, and the sentiment he has adopted in response to socionics.
This is entirely not scientific either, but nonetheless he believes that this is true. From the begining this was never a discussion based on reason but one based on sentiment.
We know very clearly that all sorts of non scientific things are not useless, but nonetheless he wishes to persist in this delusion.
The criteria that something has to be scientific to be useful is a very powerful delusion, when all it says is that. All he can say without relying on sentiment is that the validity of socionics is not scientific. Beyond that, any causal relation between science and usefulness is sentimental and ethical. He has chosen to take a road with socionics that is not scientific but ethical, but his theory about the usefulness of socionics is also unscientific and therefore in his worldview, "Useless".
He negates his own points with this delusion, but it's unlikely he doesn't realizes this because he's not trained in philosophy or science. He's at best a meme repeater, which he has consistently shown himself to be.
This applies in fact to a good number of people who engage in this sort of behavior, going to religious forums and trolling them, going to gay pride pride parade to tell them that they're going to hell, they have adopted a delusion of something as a "One true belief" and act on this with disregard to all cognitive dissonance.
The fact of the matter is that information processing, information preference are sciences and part of mainstream scientific studies.
If the human organism is a information metabolism that processes information and has information preference then you can construct a typology out of it(and this is what is assumed in all Big Data market tools which creates typologies for specific predictions). So up until this point, the explanation mechanism of socionics is entirely scientific and applicable in a real sense. This is being done at a massive level resulting in trillions of dollars of value.
Beyond this point socionics stops being a science because a model of information processing and preference is applied to jungian observations on psychological types, and it's validity/usefulness/etc is currently impossible to determine.
One cannot reasonably say that socionics is useless, useful, valid, invalid, these are simply unknowns.
Of course this perspective is no fun to promote or market, so different groups will market "X is useless", "X is the best", "X is funny", "X is boring". These powerful sentiments and delusions essentially drive the discourse and the drama.
Now how do we explain the nature of these sentimental actions and the delusions which people adopt in order to promote them?
nope
Of course you are, this is why you continue to be on this forum and haven't spent your time doing something else. You've spent like so many years here without any advancement in your knowledge of this topic or how to criticize this topic. You're basically on the same treadmill you've been on since the beginning.
You can't leave, you waste your time incessantly around something you seem to hate and antagonizing people genuinely interest in this topic with way more knowledge and training than you? Why is that?
If one of your main interests in life is to antagonize people of a fringe theory about the fact their fringe theory isn't science, how small and petty and deranged is that. You've spent what? Around 1/3 of your life doing this. I don't seem any difference between your psychology and say Westboro Baptist. Why define yourself here as just a nuisance?
lol
I do kind of wonder why you only choose to rebuke socionics. I haven't read a post of yours in a very long time that participates in any kind of discussion, other than criticism.
I can imagine that you're looking for someone to convince you you are wrong or you would have left already. Or perhaps you want people to agree with you and gain some kind of social approval, to find people that think similarly. Or I don't understand at all. But I don't suppose you even know why anyway, as you don't seem the type to question those kinds of things. Maybe I will get a "lol" and I can consider that your strange way of social love. Come Cpig, we will gently buttrape you into the primal ecstasy of love. You can forget your abrasive ways and make gay love in the glowing light of astrology, socionics, mbti, and all that you love to hate.
good bye
i do what i want
You've spent the better part of 9 years here, with the same placard that says, "Socionics isn't science, it's useless" or some variation. I don't see any advancement in your understanding of psychology, science, any applicable knowledge either. Neither have you applied much of anything with your life. Instead of repeating the same refrain which you continue to repeat from the beginning. With any understanding of psychology, philosophy, science, etc, you could surely come up with something more or at least alternative explanations of human cognition. I can give you many more explainations about this topic of psychology and cognitive science and many other typologies some of which are entirely empirical in nature and used by major technology vendors. Even other detractors like ath/n0ki routinely introduce new theories and new approaches which inevitably become discussed at some level and he certainly has his share of issues.
This study is certainly useless to you, but it's certainly not meaningless to you either because of your continued fascination with it and your years and years of neurotic attachment.
So is that lol at yourself or the rest of us, wasting our times learning various studies to understand the human mind. I mean all we did is read books, articles, share them and discuss things with openness. Surely that is entirely meaningless and worthless endeavor compared to holding a placard that says "Socionics is not science, it is useless". Surely exploring the world and what exists in it is meaningless compared to occasionally being a nuisance on this forum with the same old tired refrain. Surely? At least some of us had enjoyed some of it, small things in life eh..
expectedly vague,
good bye
I somehow knew @mu4 was going to show up here and completely pwn this thread. These kind of threads are like a Broken Arrow transmission for us alpha NTs. Expect to get bombed to hell and back 100x over whenever you challenge a theory's factual basis yet lack logical arguments yourself.
Accepting Jung's CFT comes down to belief in its premises without proof of their existence. There is absolutely no proof that people are born as Ti, Ni, Se dominants, etc. However, most people will recognize that they have certain traits that overlap with one or more of the type descriptions and that is enough for some people to say it is true because it describes them. Real, measurable human traits are present in the theory, even if the sources of the traits are incorrect. Recognizing traits in the theory that seem to describe you is not proof that the theory is true. Many people make the logical fallacy and think that just because the theory is true for them and describes their subjective experience, that it must apply to everyone else as well. It is a theory full of personal biases and hence, pseudoscientific. The people that often get mad are often those that really don't understand science, that it is not a "cognitive bias", or "just Te", it is the attempt to remove personal biases in the quest for knowledge. A person who is scientific recognizes that everyone is biased and seeks knowledge that tries to reduce the influence of personal biases.
One of the strengths of the Jungian worldview is that it recognizes that everyone has a subjective experience and it helps form one's worldview, opinions, and beliefs. But this strength is also a weakness because it treats every subjective experience as a valid way toward Truth. Jung basically said that everything subjective and everything objective adds up to reality as it is, which makes intuitive sense, but it creates whole new problems because the definition of Truth and Knowledge become in themselves subjective. As a result, there will be irreconcilable worldviews that are attributed to cognitive functions. For example, if you think that vaccinating your child is putting them at risk for autism, you are likely not interested in empiricism and more interested in anecdotal evidence that supports a personal bias. In typology, this is a perfectly reasonable position to have and is explained away by the person being a Ti or Ni users, and serves to go against the more empirical Te users, despite the fact that many of the most famous empiricists, or scientists, were Ti dominants!
My point is, typology can be used to argue any viewpoint you may have. People get mad because when you ask for evidence, they say "(insert function) user" which reinforces their personal bias that the theory is true. It's kind of like a religion or cult, even though it is not really either. I have no doubt that the 16 types(or 32) describe the personalities of some people. They may very well be spot on for them. But, it does not mean that everyone can be categorized or described in the same way. In other word, there are more basic personalities than Jung theorized, if there are any basic ones at all(as seen in people's attempt to mix a host of different, often contradictory theories(big five, mbti, socionics, enneagram) to describe their true personality).
Also, just because Socionics is more sophisticated than MBTI, doesn't mean it is true. What it certainly is, is more interesting.
It is kind of an art: a way of interpreting the world by the conscious mind, with an element of shared commonalities. Socionics/MBTI is a shared language to cross the sound barrier.
I like socionics more for several reasons, one of which is that it also describes the negative, shallow, petty and pathetic sides of personalities.
It is though, all just art.
you make a lot of assumptions
yea, carpetbombing with ad hominems!!! go go alpha NT circlejerk!
I'm completely open towards discussing flaws within socionics so please tell me them. So far you have provided no logical arguments to tackle in the first place other then whether or not mbti/socionics can technically be considered science, which we already discussed. You accuse me/other alpha NTs of avoiding the main topic yet here you are attempting to lower psychology to the same level as fortune telling instead of providing hard factual reasons of why you don't think it is bullshit. If you don't like socionics for whatever reason then don't like it, but when you stick around making the same old criticisms without ever contributing anything new and constructive expect these kind of replies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
