Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Axioms of Socionics

  1. #1
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Axioms of Socionics

    Something we can assume to be true to the degree it become a fact.

    Those I can come up with:
    Each individual have a singular type
    A type can not be changed
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

  2. #2
    δ Orionis Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    2,721
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    A good thread! Here's another one: Each individual metabolizes 8 information elements. Some are very strong, some intermediate, some weak. Some are valued, some are unvalued.
    3w4 7w6 8w7 SX/SO

  3. #3
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    1,837
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Youre likely going to get some reverb from the type cant be changed thing.

    Axiom: Two Elements of the same orientation and direction (Pe, Pi, Ji, Je) cannot be used at the same time.

    Axiom: Element strength grows from use.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  4. #4
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,077
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't believe there are any axioms of Socionics that are not derived from psychology as a whole, e.g. that each individual has a personality. We may have a model that we hold to be true in the absence of empirical verification, but that is not something to be considered as undeniably correct and not needing testing.
    EII-Ne
    9w1 or 5w4 Sp/So

  5. #5
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I don't believe there are any axioms of Socionics that are not derived from psychology as a whole, e.g. that each individual has a personality. We may have a model that we hold to be true in the absence of empirical verification, but that is not something to be considered as undeniably correct and not needing testing.
    Personality yes, yet Socionics is far not just personality. A personality can have a lot of traits and routines and such which is not necessary related directly to Socionics but might be in some cases a byproduct of how that person deal with the information elements. Socionics is something a bit more stiff, it is suppose to be used to calculate with and to explain dynamics between people and as such, it have a defined purpose and not just "personality" which can be far bigger, or smaller, and have millions of interpretation and takes on it.
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

  6. #6
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,077
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Personality yes, yet Socionics is far not just personality. A personality can have a lot of traits and routines and such which is not necessary related directly to Socionics but might be in some cases a byproduct of how that person deal with the information elements. Socionics is something a bit more stiff, it is suppose to be used to calculate with and to explain dynamics between people and as such, it have a defined purpose and not just "personality" which can be far bigger, or smaller, and have millions of interpretation and takes on it.
    Perhaps a key axiom of Socionics is that there is an assumption (backed with subjective impressions) that the four IM dyads are complementary, including in interpersonal terms. I have not seen any strong empirical evidence that this is the case.
    EII-Ne
    9w1 or 5w4 Sp/So

  7. #7
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Perhaps a key axiom of Socionics is that there is an assumption (backed with subjective impressions) that the four IM dyads are complementary, including in interpersonal terms. I have not seen any strong empirical evidence that this is the case.
    Ya! People are always learning, changing and adjusting which makes it hard to get the exact same results two times in a row. They say supervision is one of those ITR which are almost visual. At some interactions we might find that the chemical cocktail, or what they call it, change after a while being in interaction with some types. Maybe if two people spend, lets say two weeks, closed from everything else but got each other, we might find out what is really happening in each ITR. Experiments have been done when they closed in people without contact with the outer world and find that the people synced towards a 25 hour circle of sleep/awake.
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

  8. #8
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,923
    Mentioned
    517 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only real axiom which is self evident I see in socionics is that informational order emerges in the same way as physical order and this is thru the laws of thermodynamics.

    There are observations which take this premise into Model A such as unconscious/conscious, the information blocks, ego-super-ego-id-super-id, reinin+jung dichotomies and other parts that cannot be deduced entirely from this basic axiom. It requires viewing the IM as a 4 stage engine which behave like the carnot cycle as well. However the carnot cycle is only a "efficient" thermodynamic process, it does not define what is possible, but it does predict the more efficient a IM becomes the more pronounced the more it should emerge towards this processing model. This may not necessarily be true for undeveloped minds such as those of animals. It also requires viewing the IM as having both object/field characteristic which is another physics analogy.

    However what is a axiom and what is a theorem is different based on what from where you're observing. Within Model A the axioms only valid based on the model, but they are merely theorems in relation to reality.

    Type not being able to change is not a axiom as physical damage can alter brain physiology and psychology. And a individual having a single type is already hard to justify as disorders such as dissociative identity disorder and such make it possible for a person to develop different personalities or at the very least different fragment of personalities. These are also unneccessary assumptions as the information metabolism is not something intrinsic but something that develops and emerges.

  9. #9
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,923
    Mentioned
    517 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Youre likely going to get some reverb from the type cant be changed thing.

    Axiom: Two Elements of the same orientation and direction (Pe, Pi, Ji, Je) cannot be used at the same time.

    Axiom: Element strength grows from use.
    Both axioms here are not neccessary imo.

    It's possible and perhaps even probable that a Pe element can be used in one way and a different Pe element can be used in another way at the same time, but perhaps it's not possible for both elements to be used simultaneously in the same way.

    Element strength is a hard thing to quantify and it's possible element strength may be reduced due to aversion or pain during use. Even elements that are preferred could become repressed due to conditioning despite the use being natural and with little effort.

  10. #10
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mu4 View Post
    Type not being able to change is not a axiom as physical damage can alter brain physiology and psychology. And a individual having a single type is already hard to justify as disorders such as dissociative identity disorder and such make it possible for a person to develop different personalities or at the very least different fragment of personalities. These are also unneccessary assumptions as the information metabolism is not something intrinsic but something that develops and emerges.
    Ya but, do you really think the LSE become LSI from being kicked in the head really hard?
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

  11. #11
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,923
    Mentioned
    517 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Perhaps a key axiom of Socionics is that there is an assumption (backed with subjective impressions) that the four IM dyads are complementary, including in interpersonal terms. I have not seen any strong empirical evidence that this is the case.
    This key hypothesis is based on the emergent properties of information elements as they differentiate akin to thermodynamic mechanism, and this differentiation also occurs between object and field characteristics of the elements. There is a particle wave duality here which is akin to physics and as such this observation is intrinsic the core hypothesis in socionics. The hypothesis is something inter-subjective, subjective in a sense but formed from much objective constructs.

    The long and short of socionics is that, the psycho-dynamic becomes thermodynamic-like as it orders more fully and the entire basis comes from this, the decorations comes from psycho-dynamic/psychoanalytic psychology but this basis allows for the model to exist in a coherent model.

    I say -like because there is no fully efficient thermodynamic engine and there is also from this analogy there is no fully efficient psycho dynamic engine and in this sense you have to distance the model from reality and theory from individuals.

  12. #12
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,923
    Mentioned
    517 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Ya but, do you really think the LSE become LSI from being kicked in the head really hard?
    It's possible but maybe they become something which is neither LSE or LSI.

  13. #13
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    1,837
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Ya but, do you really think the LSE become LSI from being kicked in the head really hard?
    Phineas Gage.

    Im of the belief that type theoretically could change, but more than likely wont for the vast majority of people. If trauma is associated with an element, they may use the mirror element(ni -> si) in its stead, and over the course of many years, if youre not using an ego function whos to say that it fundamentally doesnt change your personality to a point where a seperate type would apply to you better. Axioms have to way more concrete than the arguments against it.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  14. #14
    Poster Nutbag chips and underwear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne, 6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    3,927
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is not the same thing as MBTI.





  15. #15
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    Phineas Gage.

    Im of the belief that type theoretically could change, but more than likely wont for the vast majority of people. If trauma is associated with an element, they may use the mirror element(ni -> si) in its stead, and over the course of many years, if youre not using an ego function whos to say that it fundamentally doesnt change your personality to a point where a seperate type would apply to you better. Axioms have to way more concrete than the arguments against it.
    No. It is not the same. The guy who got a spear in his head and started to beat his wife? I believe we can look at this as which mu4 stated it was possible that the closer we function according to our type, the more effective we become. (something like this, the system works best when all elements sync as predicted by type, the less we work like that clockwork we lose grasp).

    So would you suggest that Phineas Gage went from one type to an other? Maybe he became the SLE! O.o
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

  16. #16
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,013
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Each person has a type, and their type does not change.
    2. Types are either introverted or extroverted, intuitive or sensing, logical or ethical etc. (You can add more dichotomies so the number of types may change.)
    3. Information is divided into different categories: either introverted or extroverted, rational or irrational, etc.
    4. Each person has different innate abilities, tendencies, and preferences to process information of the different kinds, which is correlated with their type. They experience discomfort when confronted with information or demands that are not suited to their type.
    5. Informational interchange, and the mismatches between people's preferred approaches to processing information, are responsible for some conflicts and misunderstandings that people experience, and their positive interactions as well (though not all).

    That is pretty much the classical foundation as I see it. You also have to include the structure of the relationship group but it is a bit tedious to write down.
    I also see the IM elements as being about goals but not everyone shares that view probably.

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

    يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا

    O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.

  17. #17
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,077
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    That type does not change probably is an axiom of Socionics in practice, in the same sense that psychology considers personality to be like climate, and moods to be like weather. But I would not consider it an axiom of essential importance in the sense that it is unique to Socionics and essential to its model.
    EII-Ne
    9w1 or 5w4 Sp/So

  18. #18
    unsuccessfull Alphamale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Land of Fe PoLR
    TIM
    Alpha prob. ILE-Ne
    Posts
    571
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Phineas Gage: 'non standard' type. It is obvious that major brain damage will damage your original type. Loosing your inhibitions? Your normal beta ST? Really? Obviously he lost lot of his rational capabilities.
    From me one can not demand and expect:
    • practicality of ideas;
    • punctuality and diligence;
    • consistency and completeness;
    • constant order in the home and in the workplace;
    • quality of routine work;
    • soft skills to adapt to the interlocutor.


    Anal Expulsive personality (no hyphens for you)

    So called false dual logic that actually reveals some remote potentials:
    "sure crocodiles can fly, but very, very close to the ground"
    Just think about it.

Posting Permissions

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