Socionics describes what almost anybody can see for themselves (with practice). You can call it a model if you want but if you use the words "just a model" it kindof implies that it is very distant from reality. I disagree with this.Originally Posted by Myst
The functions and elements can be seen everywhere. And Socionics gives so many hints of what to look for. It's not like you lack possibilities to test it.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
lol
let's add peace nobels to american presidents
and literature ones to singers
If you are asking about Sol's type - dunno, I don't have much data on him. Yah the comparison wasn't meant to be negativelol tbh I was thinking the same thing, what do you think Myst? and good point about Bertrand and mbti similarities... you're so good at noticing things! @super we all like Bertrand, and you're just as cool in some very weird similar ways... that was a nice comparison to me
No, academic research deals with how the normal brain/mind functions.
Actually the criteria is supposed to be based on research, including how medication affects clusters of symptoms. And the sets of criteria for the disorders are much more explicitly put than criteria for determining types in typology. And, you aren't to diagnose someone if you didn't have years of study with the required degrees earned first (and then preferably years of professional practice).
A tiny little bit more objective than Socionics overall...
I'm not trying to say that it's perfect or anything like that, far from that. But just a tiny tiny little bit more objectivity...
I've tested stuff before that didn't work out.
And yeah, it's a model. It doesn't interface directly with reality in that sense.
Why not though? Seriously, some song lyrics are brilliant. Better than concluding everyone is being kidnapped by UFOs and forced to make human-alien babies, and deciding how often to believe liars about how much they lie at least.
Could you get me some examples of this? Other than the nobel prizes.
Just get on any psychological research journal's site online, they have at least the abstracts available for the published articles. There is an um, unofficial site that does allow you to download the full articles too though, lol.
Im really not interested in the depth of it, just some examples that prove your claim.
This is (Neo-)Romanticism though. How can I trust you to type my inner motivations if you can't even correctly recognize my stance?
How do you decide what's aggressive though? Maybe someone's clueless, maybe they're drunk, maybe they're under the impression that they have to do what they're doing now to stop something later like that infamous trolley problem in philosophy 101. I could interpret a lot of things you do as aggressive, even if that's actually a horrible misinterpretation.Typing based on your relationship with someone is not a very good idea. As an LII I can realize that overly aggressive behavior is something that irritates me, but why does this prevent me from recognizing behavior as aggressive or passive in the first place? This is something that is objectively observable, as is level of expressiveness, the presence of logical/systematic thinking, character judgment, etc. How much people use something will tell you a lot about their relationship with it.
Proving my claim... lol OK I went on sciencedirect, clicked on journal list, selected a few psychology categories, then randomly picked one of the journals listed, and clicked on last full issue:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...00285/97?sdc=1
I won't lift my fingers further, sry, just go browse through the articles.
Most of them are like that, researching how the normal brain/mind works.
Ok so pretty much what they are doing with GoogleAi, how words are learned with context.
There's a lot of other stuff that gets researched but that too, sure. Cognitive psychology research can share some results with other cognitive science/AI research sure.
In the AI area they do it so they can ease the interaction between human and computer. Im not sure they base it in those papers but sure. When it come to Socionics and being objective I guess it is the same league as those papers. At least those who touch the subject. But what it really lack is people being paid (like having the highest IQ people on the case) so until that happen Socionics will always be a mess. MBTI is like childsplay imo.
By shared results I meant it being part of cognitive science but I didn't mean to say they directly build AI off that research. And nooo, it's not the same league. Socionics is childsplay compared to cognitive psychology/cognitive science
Like MBTI is childsplay to Socionics. But that's not to say there aren't some interesting ideas in Socionics, just the model is childsplay compared to cognitive psychology/science. The latter do way more thorough investigation into things with complex models. Socionics does have some ideas I didn't see anywhere else in psychology tho' (or I wouldn't be here).
Dylan's a sensitive spot for me. A little before the nobel assignation I came to listen to Leonard Cohen, and thought "he's so old, he won't live much, wouldn't it be nice if they gave a recognition to him?" And a few months later they gave it to Dylan and I thought "what a shame, Cohen was better a poet than Dylan!..", then Cohen died, and Dylan acted like a total jerk, increasing my sense of injustice.
Dylan won because of his character, because he's always been the cool dude, while his tests were describing the political atmosphere of his times, he's deeply connected to a movement, but there were so many other authors as worth as him, from other countries too... why deciding he was the best voice of his lost generation? Ugh. Pretentious, as his not showing up, yet taking the money... lolz
Cohen was a writer as well... and his texts were really beautiful, out of a political content too, they were more human.
The nobel price is a farse anyway.. the list by Tiger was kinda fun.
How is this Romanticism? You're denying that there is an objective reality that can be recognized and agreed upon, everything is subjective narratives, etc. etc., this is classic postmodernism.
ok, you've presented several confounding factors.How do you decide what's aggressive though? Maybe someone's clueless, maybe they're drunk, maybe they're under the impression that they have to do what they're doing now to stop something later like that infamous trolley problem in philosophy 101. I could interpret a lot of things you do as aggressive, even if that's actually a horrible misinterpretation.
1. They're clueless
Being clueless might result in, say, somebody bumping into you on the subway. It wouldn't cause someone to punch you in the face.
2. They're drunk
Why is this hard to tell? 99% of the time when I'm typing someone they aren't drunk, so this isn't an issue.
3. they're under the impression that they have to do what they're doing now to stop something later like that infamous trolley problem in philosophy 101
This is an example of an extenuating circumstance. Sure, in highly unusual circumstances people can engage e.g. vulnerable or suggestive functions for short bursts of time. But they are still going to be bad at it and observing their behavior over a long period of time will make it clear that it was an unusual situation.
This idea that you can't obtain any evidence about people's motivations is absurd.
That's not what I said though. If you're LII, you're LII. You're not LII to you and SEE to me. But the way to tell what type you are depends on recognizing subjectivity. It's like what this paper says, why should the self be thought of as an object at all? It's sort of a paradox since the type itself is an object so you're making subjectivity itself an object, but the alternative is basically the "totalitarian nightmare" Phil Osifer described. People always complain about Nazism and/or Communism, and those were literally just German Romanticism stripped of the unacceptable individualistic elements. It's the fact that they didn't allow for subjectivity that made them so problematic. The subject is the one who does things and the object is the one who has things done to them, after all. But subjectivity in this sense doesn't mean people can think whatever they want and have it be true.
Of course you can "obtain evidence," just not in a super concrete way. You really need empathy to know what someone means with how they act, and you need to know what someone means to be able to type them. At the very least you'd be easily confused between types with the same function strengths but opposite values like LSI and SLI.ok, you've presented several confounding factors.
1. They're clueless
Being clueless might result in, say, somebody bumping into you on the subway. It wouldn't cause someone to punch you in the face.
2. They're drunk
Why is this hard to tell? 99% of the time when I'm typing someone they aren't drunk, so this isn't an issue.
3. they're under the impression that they have to do what they're doing now to stop something later like that infamous trolley problem in philosophy 101
This is an example of an extenuating circumstance. Sure, in highly unusual circumstances people can engage e.g. vulnerable or suggestive functions for short bursts of time. But they are still going to be bad at it and observing their behavior over a long period of time will make it clear that it was an unusual situation.
This idea that you can't obtain any evidence about people's motivations is absurd.
1. I don't see why someone clueless couldn't punch you in the face. What if they mistook you for a robber or their crazy ex or something for a moment?
2. Sure, but there are still lots of outside influences in general.
3. Isn't that type-related itself? Like strong Ni types would think about non-immediate contexts less, so you could end up with basically opposite types doing the same thing for opposite reasons.
Most of psychology these days is statistical... you come up with a hypothesis, perform verifiable experiments on people and gather statistical data.
There is a lot of statistics involved. It gets pretty math-y in terms of statistics, so that might put a lot of people off.
I guess psychology today is the mix of cognitive psychology, the "study of the mind", and behaviorism, "study of outward behaviors". The Freudian, Jungian "pondering of the mind", "studying of the cause and effect of psychic phenomenons", "psychoanalysis", "various psychological disorders" are attractive to the masses, because they're easy to swallow and think about. The problem is that most of them simply remain in the world of assumptions and unverified claims.
Psst, but I think they're attractive because they're attempts to re-insert the soul ("psyche") into the conception of the world, and all the other stuff is hard because it's boring, not because it's convoluted.Most of psychology these days is statistical... you come up with a hypothesis, perform verifiable experiments on people and gather statistical data.
There is a lot of statistics involved
I guess psychology today is the mix of cognitive psychology, the "study of the mind", and behaviorism, "study of outward behaviors". The Freudian, Jungian "pondering of the mind", "studying of the cause and effect of psychic phenomenons", "psychoanalysis", "various psychological disorders" are attractive to the masses, because they're easy to swallow and think about. The problem is that most of them simply remain in the world of assumptions and unverified claims.
When scholars study a thing, they strive
To kill it first, if its alive;
Then they have the parts and they’ve lost the whole
For the link that’s missing was the living soul.
The problem is that psychology studies the soul. Once you take the soul out of the soul, you're just studying common-sense behaviors and cognitions uselessly and pretending it's profound, like Mark Twain's Jumping Frog that was trained to JUMP! and EAT FLIES! Hence all the hilarious psychology Nobel prizes.
O_o Psychoanalytic theories are not supposed to be easy for "the masses" to swallow and think about lol. Maybe in some very simplified form you mean?Most of psychology these days is statistical... you come up with a hypothesis, perform verifiable experiments on people and gather statistical data.
There is a lot of statistics involved
I guess psychology today is the mix of cognitive psychology, the "study of the mind", and behaviorism, "study of outward behaviors". The Freudian, Jungian "pondering of the mind", "studying of the cause and effect of psychic phenomenons", "psychoanalysis", "various psychological disorders" are attractive to the masses, because they're easy to swallow and think about. The problem is that most of them simply remain in the world of assumptions and unverified claims.
I don't think that generally it's easy to think about "the cause and effect of psychic phenomenons". It's not a trivial topic. Nothing wrong with that ofc. And no, right, it's not easy to connect it to more objective investigation for now.
The stats needed for experiments are usually not math-y at all, it's just running the data through some stats programs. Some studies do analyze data in a more mathematical way but that's far from the common approach...
As for what psychology is today. Which psychology, academic or applied psychology? They are very different areas.
Not all psychology studies the soul. Some psychologists do go for the qualitative approach though, for sure. Then others go for quantitative approach which is not about studying the soul, but I see nothing wrong with this either, it does lead to good insights on many things.
I don't think I understand what you were trying to express with these statements. If you want to elaborate, cool.
lol. I used to feel limited by socionics, like once i'd realize someone was a certain type it's as if the relationship would freeze (and i'd slightly panic if say a disfavourable type). Recently however I find that little piece of knowledge liberating, like the small challenges that may arise from someone being a certain type amuse me
Okay
Even if somebody did mistake you for a robber, different types may have vastly different reactions. The very act of physical violence is something that Se Vulnerable types are loathe to do, even in cases where it is "logical" and necessary. Likewise, Se leading types tend to apply force and extra willpower in situations where it doesn't make sense to. The same thing goes for all the other elements, people act irrationally because they are unaware of certain aspects of life.1. I don't see why someone clueless couldn't punch you in the face. What if they mistook you for a robber or their crazy ex or something for a moment?
I think you mean they would think about non-immediate contexts more?3. Isn't that type-related itself? Like strong Ni types would think about non-immediate contexts less, so you could end up with basically opposite types doing the same thing for opposite reasons.
The answer is simple, at least theoretically: Ni means recognizing something bad might happen, but Se is what you need to actually take action to stop it. Types with high Ni and low Se are more likely to just comment on the possibility rather than acting on it, while types with some ability in both (e.g. Ni mobilizing and Se creative, or Ni creative and Se mobilizing) are more likely to use them together fruitfully. Although I agree this can be tricky to distinguish in practice.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote