Socionics is fundamentally flawed

[Petter]

Socionics is about information metabolism and Jungian typology. In order to combine these two theories you must define eight kinds of information (aspects), and they must correspond perfectly with eight cognitive processes.* Unfortunately, Aushra based the information aspects on space, energy, time etc. instead of cognitive processes, and consequently they do not match up.

Here's an example:

Logical deductions (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) fit neither Socionics P nor L according to me. Socionists claim that logical deductions belong to L. Why is that a problem? A conversation between SSS and me illustrates this:

I: Which TIMs are most suited to work as an accountant according to SSS?

SSS: This one is easy. What is accountancy about? About counting. Counting is related to system logic. So the answer is - any type with L in Ego block. Like LSI, LII, SLE, ILE. Note: I understand the term 'suited' in the sense 'more capable'. However there can be other criteria of 'suitedness'. And intuitive types like LII and ILE risk to get bored and leave for lack of creative tasks in this profession.

Aushra, P = "the activity of object and subject, their ability to work."
Aushra, L = "the objective relationship between two entities and their separate properties - the relation of objects or object measurement object".
Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject

SRSI, P = Logics of actions: technology, function, action, deed, fact, knowledge, use, benefit, business, method, reason, instrument, tool, expediency, business team, effectiveness, price, movement, mechanism
SRSI, L = Logics of relationships: system, analysis, instruction, mathematics, structure, classification, register, parameter, regularity, law, synthesis, proof, understanding, right, duty, responsibilities

Wikisocion, information aspects
L: Statement X follows logically from Statement Y or does not
P: Something is useful or not



*School of System Socionics:
"The trick is that we believe that there is no information existing outside of the perceiver, hence no information can be independent from psyche. That follows from the definition of the term "information" which we use. We define information as metrics of interaction between the perceiver and the perceived."

However, this implies that either a) information can appear from nothing, or b) you must define that part of information which is stored on hard drives etc.

[Aylen]

"The Inquisition warns you. Plots are made to be enjoyed. Do not analyze. Do not criticize. Eat your Filler and read your mantras daily."

[Cerelict]

le typology is incomplete meme xD

[Jeremy8419]

"Logical deductions (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) fit neither Socionics P nor L according to me. Socionists claim that logical deductions belong to L. Why is that a problem?"

You never showed why it is a problem, simply that you have a different viewpoint.

[mu4]

Socionics is about information metabolism and Jungian typology. In order to combine these two theories you must define eight kinds of information (aspects), and they must correspond perfectly with eight cognitive processes.* Unfortunately, Aushra based the information aspects on space, energy, time etc. instead of cognitive processes, and consequently they do not match up.

Going to deal with a few misconceptions here.

Socionics is more than this. Socionics is information metabolism, Freudian (ID-Ego-Super-Ego) + Super-ID, information preference.

The prediction of socionic model is 8 base types and 16 types. These roughly correspond with Jungian observations.

Socionics explains jungian typology, but it is not jungian typology. It does not combine with Jungian typology, but rather explains/predicts it.

In order to have 8 kind of information aspects, you have to have information processing(which is in stages within the socionic model), and specialization/preference in information processing which produces the 8 base types.

There are 4 extratim stagesand the associated introtim stages which combine to form 8 stages. These do not need to correspond perfectly with eight cognitive processes. These just need to operate as a stable information feedback mechanism. Perfect is not a word you need to use in describing a mechanism such as this. It simply needs to be operational and stable.

Aushra does not necessarily base information aspects on space, energy, time, etc. This is more Gulenko, her original writing only deals with an analogy to stages of thermodynamic transformation, of which information stages roughly correspond to. Aushra is also not up to date on modern neuroscience or cognitive science and we don't need to deal with the details as sacred truths. They're just place holders for some unknown stage of information processing.

Here's an example:

Logical deductions (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) fit neither Socionics P nor L according to me. Socionists claim that logical deductions belong to L. Why is that a problem? A conversation between SSS and me illustrates this:

I: Which TIMs are most suited to work as an accountant according to SSS?

SSS: This one is easy. What is accountancy about? About counting. Counting is related to system logic. So the answer is - any type with L in Ego block. Like LSI, LII, SLE, ILE. Note: I understand the term 'suited' in the sense 'more capable'. However there can be other criteria of 'suitedness'. And intuitive types like LII and ILE risk to get bored and leave for lack of creative tasks in this profession.

Aushra, P = "the activity of object and subject, their ability to work."
Aushra, L = "the objective relationship between two entities and their separate properties - the relation of objects or object measurement object".
Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject

SRSI, P = Logics of actions: technology, function, action, deed, fact, knowledge, use, benefit, business, method, reason, instrument, tool, expediency, business team, effectiveness, price, movement, mechanism
SRSI, L = Logics of relationships: system, analysis, instruction, mathematics, structure, classification, register, parameter, regularity, law, synthesis, proof, understanding, right, duty, responsibilities

Wikisocion, information aspects
L: Statement X follows logically from Statement Y or does not
P: Something is useful or not



*School of System Socionics:
"The trick is that we believe that there is no information existing outside of the perceiver, hence no information can be independent from psyche. That follows from the definition of the term "information" which we use. We define information as metrics of interaction between the perceiver and the perceived."

However, this implies that either a) information can appear from nothing, or b) you must define that part of information which is stored on hard drives etc.

You're only dealing with one school and you'll find a lot of differences.

Socionics has a lot of ideas from the people that have learned it and think about it, some of which reflect deep philosophical differences about the nature of information, humanity, etc. And there are some common misconceptions about the nature of socionics and what it is saying. You cannot resolve this with socionics but only thru philosophy and meta-analysis of the study. Some misconceptions like Socionics as a Jungian typology is nominally true but it misses the important part of what makes socionics different from other typologies, and that it is a explanatory mechanism for Jung's observations but it is not Jung's typology. It is a explanation mechanism rooted in cognitive science, information theory and Freudian psychoanalysis.

As we would have it in today's modern neuroscience and psychoanalysis many things are being discovered which roughly correspond with Freud's observations, not the details or character of his writings as these were metaphorical but architecturally, many things are being found as architectural components in neuroscience.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...fields/401999/
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/apr...-sigmund-freud

The new field of neuropsychoanalysis is really getting into the biological architecture which indicates something like the ID, and something like the Ego, and hopefully in the future, more about the super-ego/super-id. From this structural standpoint, if information specialization and preferences arise, type will emerge and from this emergence, sociotype and all the intertype relations which socionics predicts.

At this sort of speculative border of cognitive science, personality theory, there's a lot of unknowns but Freudian psychoanalysis and structure of the mind is encountering a resurgence due to the findings of scientists such as Mark Solm and Eric Kandel(Nobel Prize winning neuropsychiatrist). Jung is fairly poor in the therapy department and theoretical department, his work is more an artistic impression of Freudian psychoanalysis. Luckily, psychoanalysis seems to be more than just metaphor despite it's shortcomings. Hopefully future neuroscience advancements will show more structures in the mind which correspond with socionic architecture and the resulting architecture will be similar.

For the last 50 years, psychoanalysis has taken a back seat to CBT and medication and although these are very important therapeutically, it does not deal with the experiential aspects which can only be grasped via more subjective methods. What is happening in neuroscience is that these experiential aspects are being shown to have some physical correspondence which gives them a certain weight in our investigations.

[Petter]

"Logical deductions (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) fit neither Socionics P nor L according to me. Socionists claim that logical deductions belong to L. Why is that a problem?"

You never showed why it is a problem, simply that you have a different viewpoint.

Well, I think it is obvious that LSI and SLE are NOT suited to work as accountants. LSI and SLE are action-oriented... We know that SiTe (Jungian functions) is the stereotypical accountant. Does SiTe correspond to LF or FL? No, of course not!

Logical deductions are objective processes, so external statics of FIELDS (L) does not fit.

[Jeremy8419]

Well, I think it is obvious that LSI and SLE are NOT suited to work as accountants. LSI and SLE are action-oriented... We know that SiTe (Jungian functions) is the stereotypical accountant. Does SiTe correspond to LF or FL? No, of course not!

Logical deductions are objective processes, so external statics of FIELDS (L) does not fit.

The root cause to your dilemma is that you don't know what "objectivity vs subjectivity" objectively is, which Mu4 tried to describe to you. Most of the logical gaps in Socionics and it's various schools are due to the same issue. Until you grasp the objectivity of it, and leave the subjectivity, you won't understand how to appropriately apply objectivity vs subjectivity well enough to form an objective logical view of Socionics, typology, or, really, people in general. You shouldn't take this as a criticism, though, as virtually everyone involved with typology doesn't know it correctly either.

Would you say this is accurate, Mu4?

[Petter]

You're only dealing with one school and you'll find a lot of differences.
Socionics has a lot of ideas from the people that have learned it and think about it, some of which reflect deep philosophical differences about the nature of information, humanity, etc. And there are some common misconceptions about the nature of socionics and what it is saying. You cannot resolve this with socionics but only thru philosophy and meta-analysis of the study. Some misconceptions like Socionics as a Jungian typology is nominally true but it misses the important part of what makes socionics different from other typologies, and that it is a explanatory mechanism for Jung's observations but it is not Jung's typology. It is a explanation mechanism rooted in cognitive science, information theory and Freudian psychoanalysis.
-------------
There are 4 extratim stagesand the associated introtim stages which combine to form 8 stages. These do not need to correspond perfectly with eight cognitive processes. These just need to operate as a stable information feedback mechanism. Perfect is not a word you need to use in describing a mechanism such as this. It simply needs to be operational and stable.

Do you claim there are Socionics schools which do not think logical deductions belong to L? If yes, which ones?

Do you agree with SSS that LSI and SLE actually are the most suited/capable TIMs to work as accountants?

I disagree with you. They do need to correspond perfectly with cognitive processes, otherwise we get types that do not exist in reality.

[Petter]

The root cause to your dilemma is that you don't know what "objectivity vs subjectivity" objectively is, which Mu4 tried to describe to you. Most of the logical gaps in Socionics and it's various schools are due to the same issue. Until you grasp the objectivity of it, and leave the subjectivity, you won't understand how to appropriately apply objectivity vs subjectivity well enough to form an objective logical view of Socionics, typology, or, really, people in general. You shouldn't take this as a criticism, though, as virtually everyone involved with typology doesn't know it correctly either.

Would you say this is accurate, Mu4?

Let me rephrase my comment. These are Aushra's descriptions of objects and fields, right?

Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject

Now let's consider 'A=B, B=C, therefore A=C'. Is this about objects or fields?

[Petter]

Aushra does not necessarily base information aspects on space, energy, time, etc. This is more Gulenko, her original writing only deals with an analogy to stages of thermodynamic transformation, of which information stages roughly correspond to. Aushra is also not up to date on modern neuroscience or cognitive science and we don't need to deal with the details as sacred truths. They're just place holders for some unknown stage of information processing.

I disagree with you. It is obvious that Aushra based the information aspects on energy etc. However, it is quite irrelevant. My point is that she based the information aspects on something else than cognitive processes, which would have been the natural thing to do.


Dual Nature of Man:

In order to meet their own needs to the person about the whole idea of ​​reality. In the service of society people co-operate. The mechanism of this phenomenon on our current understanding, is quite simple: some aspects of reality are reflected in the brain with varying degrees of differentiation and awareness. Those aspects, which uses only the individual himself, reflected relatively generalized, stored as images, experience, and skills. Those whose information is transferred to the community, are perceived differentially, with great precision, allowing to interpret this information and pass it in words.

What are these aspects?

Adaptation of the organism to the environment - never-ending chain of acts of physical activity. All that is happening around the person in the objective world, too, is nothing but a chain of acts of physical activity. We can say that everything that happens to us and around us - the same chain of acts of physical activity. A chain of acts of physical activity is not nothing but a four stroke internal combustion engine:

1) the potential energy;
2) the conversion of potential into kinetic energy;
3) the kinetic energy;
4) the use of kinetic energy.

This is the four aspects of perception of the world, which, because of its tipnoy nature, a person perceives a different awareness, one better understands the potential of another person's abilities (1 cycle), the other in his emotional life (2 cycle) third - how it works (4 cycle). Each of these aspects and assign the symbol we call them the elements of information metabolism extrovert person:

I - the potential energy;
E - the transformation of potential into kinetic energy;
F - kinetic energy;
P - the use of kinetic energy.

With these elements a person receives information about:

I - the potential energy of the observed object and the subject's physical and mental capabilities;
E - excitement and excitability of the object, moods and emotions;
F - mobilizovannosti, will and strength and beauty of the observed objects and subjects;
P - the activity of object and subject, their ability to work.

However, the world around us consists not only of moving bodies, but also the fields of their interaction. They can be called a psychological fields. The components of these fields - the relationship between objects and processes which are perceived by people as a certain feeling. So there are four measurements of the outside world, which, because of its tipnoy nature, man, too, takes a different awareness. Each of them also assign a symbol, and we will call them the introverted elements of information of human metabolism.

S - the relationship between the processes occurring in the same time - space;
T - the relationship between successive processes - time;
L - the objective relationship between two entities and their separate properties - the relation of objects or object measurement object;
R - a subjective relationship between two objects or subjects - attraction - repulsion.

With these elements of IM, the person receives the information:

S - the qualities of space, that is, that it occurs on well-being are in this space, people;
T - the relationship between processes, events and actions in time, the presence or absence of time, danger, or safety of the future;
L - the objective relations between objects, their weight, size, value, etc., that is of any commensurate parameters;
R - on attractive or repulsive force of objects and subjects, their relevance and irrelevance to each other likes and dislikes, love or hate.

[Petter]

Going to deal with a few misconceptions here.
Socionics is more than this. Socionics is information metabolism, Freudian (ID-Ego-Super-Ego) + Super-ID, information preference.
The prediction of socionic model is 8 base types and 16 types. These roughly correspond with Jungian observations.
In order to have 8 kind of information aspects, you have to have information processing(which is in stages within the socionic model), and specialization/preference in information processing which produces the 8 base types.
which gives them a certain weight in our investigations.

I agree with all of this, but I do not see the relevance to OP.

Socionics explains jungian typology, but it is not jungian typology. It does not combine with Jungian typology, but rather explains/predicts it.

Well, Socionics builds on information metabolism and Jungian typology, and Model A is the accurate model of the psyche.

[Petter]

"The Inquisition warns you. Plots are made to be enjoyed. Do not analyze. Do not criticize. Eat your Filler and read your mantras daily."

[Jeremy8419]

Let me rephrase my comment. These are Aushra's descriptions of objects and fields, right?

Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject

Now let's consider 'A=B, B=C, therefore A=C'. Is this about objects or fields?

It's both. Everything is both. The only difference is vector of focus.

[mu4]

I disagree with you. It is obvious that Aushra based the information aspects on energy etc. However, it is quite irrelevant. My point is that she based the information aspects on something else than cognitive processes, which would have been the natural thing to do.

I never said it was only cognitive processes, what I said it is not necessary(in the mind) for the information aspects to correspond with specific concepts. Each mind differentiates these aspects imperfectly and roughly. No real engine is perfect, no real mind is perfect. Do not confuse the model ideals for anything real or interpreted.

You can disagree with school of system socionics if you want as well but that's just 1 perspective. From your earlier post it seems you need these aspect to correspond perfectly and it's simply not true. The mind does not perceive aspects perfectly, nor has it ever.

In a sense socionics is also about how each mind distorts due to it's own cognitive strengths and preferences. Sociotype is the distortion.

[Jeremy8419]

Sounds right to me.

/waves Mu4 fan-club banner
Yay!

[Soupman]

Do you claim there are Socionics schools which do not think logical deductions belong to L? If yes, which ones?

Do you agree with SSS that LSI and SLE actually are the most suited/capable TIMs to work as accountants?

I disagree with you. They do need to correspond perfectly with cognitive processes, otherwise we get types that do not exist in reality.

Bingo, well come to socionics as psuedoscience if you expect 16 types of people to actually exist. Hopefully you've been told before but MBTI Si convolutedly corresponds to L. MBTI ISTJ matches socionics ISTj, socionists have long accepted the theories are not compatible.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

[Sol]

Socionics is about information metabolism and Jungian typology.

Socionics is about Jung's types - what information prevails in consciousness. IR may be explained by hypothesis of complement functions. Forget about "metabolism".

[Beautiful sky]

The multitude of American authors and takes on mbti have created fragments and several opinions that don't align whereas in the Russian socionics and mbti world they both.merged in a harmonious manner. Americans mess everything up