Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 107

Thread: Cognitive psychology vs. Socionics

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post Cognitive psychology vs. Socionics

    How is Socionics better than cognitive psychology?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cognitive psychology
    Cognitive psychology is the scientific investigation of human cognition, that is, all our mental abilities – perceiving, learning, remembering, thinking, reasoning, and understanding. The term “cognition” stems from the Latin word “ cognoscere” or "to know". Fundamentally, cognitive psychology studies how people acquire and apply knowledge or information. It is closely related to the highly interdisciplinary cognitive science and influenced by artificial intelligence, computer science, philosophy, anthropology, linguistics, biology, physics, and neuroscience.

    Traditionally, cognitive psychology includes human perception, attention, learning, memory, concept formation, reasoning, judgment and decision-making, problem solving, and language processing. For some, social and cultural factors, emotion, consciousness, animal cognition, evolutionary approaches have also become part of cognitive psychology.
    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/...ive_psychology

    https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive.html


    Also, cognitive neuroscience:

    Cognitive neuroscience is the scientific field that is concerned with the study of the biological processes and aspects that underlie cognition,[2] with a specific focus on the neural connections in the brain which are involved in mental processes. It addresses the questions of how cognitive activities are affected or controlled by neural circuits in the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both neuroscience and psychology, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuropsychology.[3]

    Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in
    cognitive sciencecoupled with evidence from neuropsychology, and computational modeling.[3]Parts of the brain play an important role in this field. Neurons play the most vital role, since the main point is to establish an understanding of cognition from a neural perspective, along with the different lobes of the Cerebral cortex.

    Methods employed in cognitive neuroscience include experimental procedures from psychophysics and cognitive psychology, functional neuroimaging, electrophysiology, cognitive genomics, and behavioral genetics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Only discipline of psychology that hasn't gotten so fluffy and divorced from empiricism as to become a pseudoscience tbh.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only pseudoscience is Socionics.

  4. #4
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are you studying psychology and trying to convince yourself that it's worth it, or what exactly? Whose approval do you need? Study what you want to study and measure the worth of it for yourself. No need to try to convince anyone else.

  5. #5
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    TIM
    IEI 4w5 2w1
    Posts
    102
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Only discipline of psychology that hasn't gotten so fluffy and divorced from empiricism as to become a pseudoscience tbh.
    Behaviorism???

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Limitless View Post
    Behaviorism???
    Cognitive. If that's the same as behaviorism, sure, why not.


    I'm not an expert, I just know that over the decades mainstream psychology has been so overinflated with fluffy self-serving concepts of the "self" and the patients' feewings, it's become incapable of seeing the mind objectively. Hell, that's probably why I never bothered trying to become an expert. At least behavioral approaches attempt to look at the mind analytically by trying to reduce it to some kind of algorithm.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Are you studying psychology and trying to convince yourself that it's worth it, or what exactly? Whose approval do you need? Study what you want to study and measure the worth of it for yourself. No need to try to convince anyone else.
    I just want to know if Socionics is any superior to cognitive psychology. It just seems like cognitive psychology does everything Socionics does, but better. Wouldn't that make Socionics obsolete?

  8. #8
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I just want to know if Socionics is any superior to cognitive psychology. It just seems like cognitive psychology does everything Socionics does, but better. Wouldn't that make Socionics obsolete?
    Socionics is that oldschool idea that there is elements in the world. ;p But at this stage in time there is no good theory of personalities what i found. and there is obviously types. The lady at the bank resemble my cousin in a way that make you think of intelligent design. lol!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, but there is no proof! We can talk endlessly about how there are types, but it's pointless if there's no proof and it's not backed up by evidence. At least cognitive psychology looks at proof and evidence.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just made a helpful list, to decide which is better:

    Cognitive psychology:

    Employs the scientific method: ✔️
    Scientific research: ✔️
    Backed by proof and evidence: ✔️
    Peer-reviewed: ✔️
    Lots of funding: ✔️
    Practical application: ✔️

    Socionics:

    Employs the scientific method: ❌
    Scientific research: ❌
    Backed by proof and evidence: ❌
    Peer-reviewed: ❌
    Lots of funding: ❌
    Practical application: ?
    Crazy Jung shit: ✔️
    Crazed fans on the Internet: ✔️
    Cult of Jung: ✔️
    Self-righteous opinions: ✔️
    Battle typing: ✔️

    The choice is obvious.

  11. #11
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    that's it. no more shooting the shit on this website. I'm deleting my account and getting a degree in neuroscience.

  12. #12
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I just made a helpful list
    sorry, that is not how you spell "retarded"
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Come on, you've got to admit that it's funny.

  14. #14
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah it was hilarious, have u tried saturday night live?
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no "proof" in science. There is only disproof, and the tentative elimination of all reasonable disproof. And even then, disproof often sneaks up into that region years later.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics — indeed, of modern science altogether." - Albert Einstein

    Well I guess Einstein is a Te type then.

  17. #17
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    TIM
    IEI 4w5 2w1
    Posts
    102
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I just made a helpful list, to decide which is better:

    Cognitive psychology:

    Employs the scientific method: ✔️
    Scientific research: ✔️
    Backed by proof and evidence: ✔️
    Peer-reviewed: ✔️
    Lots of funding: ✔️
    Practical application: ✔️

    Socionics:

    Employs the scientific method: ❌
    Scientific research: ❌
    Backed by proof and evidence: ❌
    Peer-reviewed: ❌
    Lots of funding: ❌
    Practical application: ?
    Crazy Jung shit: ✔️
    Crazed fans on the Internet: ✔️
    Cult of Jung: ✔️
    Self-righteous opinions: ✔️
    Battle typing: ✔️

    The choice is obvious.
    Awesome.

  18. #18
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought they're the same. Only socionics has matchmaking

  19. #19
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    TIM
    IEI 4w5 2w1
    Posts
    102
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idontgiveaf View Post
    I thought they're the same. Only socionics has matchmaking
    We're a match made in heaven!

  20. #20
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    CT or CBT > socionics but socionics is still an interesting and useful tool since it gets people thinking not only about other people's behavior and attitudes but ideally their own. I see that as a positive.

    Having had several years, on and off, of CBT (starting at age 13), not to mention other therapies, and psychoanalysis, socionics is kind of limited in its usefulness to me since I am not learning anything that is really new, just a different, simplified, perspective on things I know about human behavior. I still like it here and have no problem adjusting my language to be understood on this forum while also inserting some ideas I learned through other concepts. CBT only took me so far... I had to do the rest on my own.

    I feel I have a better grasp on how I process information than any cognitive psychologist so with that information I think it is easy to understand why I am dismissive of armchair psychologists evaluating my cognitive processes and/or fears and motivations. When I was 13 they called in a specialist from another state to deal with me when those in my state were at a loss to explain what was going on inside my head. Even the "specialist" was confused so it is amusing when people here try to evaluate me. Years of this learning about myself and why I do the things I do lead me to the conclusion that nothing is wrong with me, which was therapist approved and agreed upon. I am grateful for all of it though. Even socionics.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/
    Last edited by Aylen; 10-21-2017 at 05:10 PM. Reason: type o negative

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  21. #21
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yeah, but there is no proof! We can talk endlessly about how there are types, but it's pointless if there's no proof and it's not backed up by evidence. At least cognitive psychology looks at proof and evidence.
    I know what you are saying but I don't experience any cognitive dissonance in relation to it and cognitive psychology.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  22. #22

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is there a scenario - even in principle - that Socionics can be proven wrong?

    Actually yes, there appears to be a testable hypothesis of Socionics. Socionics claims that you can predict relationships via inter-type relations. And yet, there is no data on how anybody has managed to predict relationships accurately using the inter-type relations. And this obviously shouldn't be merely confined to "In my experience..." "Based on 5 friends that I know..." etc. It should be a real statistical evidence based on real and proper experiments, to eliminate all kinds of biases and errors.

    But, however! Even if the person manage to get their predictions completely wrong, there would still be "explanations" on as to why, so that the theory is not refuted and proven to be wrong. "Perhaps they were mistyped" "Perhaps the person didn't know the theory deep enough, and is a bad typer" "Perhaps it's due to some other conditions... non-Socionics related factors...". This eliminates the possibility of the theory ever being wrong - even in principle. It is essentially saying "The theory is always true, because it's always true", which is circular.

    The fact that the theory always appears to confirming the observation is not necessarily because the theory is correct, but it's because the theory is made in such a way that it always confirms the observation. The fact that the theory can't ever be proven wrong even in principle, is a problem. It only says that the theory can't be wrong, ever. Again, that is circular.

  23. #23
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    socionics will be proven wrong when everyone forgets about it

  24. #24
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Limitless View Post
    We're a match made in heaven!
    Lol yeah..

    Because still, you know, it's really weirdly funny..

    Because i can also somehow feel I'm SEE.. And then the thought of that, that my dual is an ILI.. And my coworker is an ILI.. Makes me think, omg... I can't believe we're a match made in heaven.. If I'm gonna kiss him, will he like it? Lolololololol.

    It's actually weird. Because there's this also thoughts, just because of socionics alone,

    ..Wondering if an ILI can actually have an eye for SEE...

    Because you know i sometimes overanalyze,

    Really, ILI and SEE? How come... But this ILI guy seems cold to me, how could he even express his likeness to a girl? Does he like me?

    Lololololol. I kinda develop those stupid thoughts.

    Then, well, i actually secretly and by default, without knowing socionics, i would really hate this nerd. Because i cannot understand him and he's always cold to me by default.

    But, past that default coldness, trying to associate socionics, i can see he's also kind. And he's willing to help me everytime, because of his Te. It's like, he's just explain everything to me, and teach me how to do something and all i do is listen. And he will finish his assigned task to me while teaching it how to do it while me, i am just listening but ofcourse I'm not doing anything because he's the one who's doing it already lol so i have saved my energy from mundane task because he already did it for me..

    And, you know, he's actually really nice because he's always concerned of me actually, like if there's a meeting, he always tries to include me. Omg I'm falling in love with him already. Jk.

    Then on the bus, yes he seems weird because we're like strangers outside lol. Because whenever I'm greeting him, he's like, "nod" xD so i don't greet him anymore and just act as nothing..

    Then in the bus, at work. I am so lazy that i made it a habit to be the one who go down last, and i always sit on the back.

    I don't know, i feel like i can control my environment and i can see everyone i guess. Hehe.

    Then, it's weird, that i thought i am the last one who go down but i saw him, still not standing up.. So i just went down, and he's the one who stood last. It's weird.

    That's all. Socionics is really weird. For me.

    But actually as an intj, as my "dual", he's really an interesting piece of shit to me. Because his actions amuses me. Like, i don't really hate him, but studying how he behaves is interesting. But it doesn't mean I'm romantically interested with him.

    Right now, i still cannot figure out how duals can be your romantic partner.

    It's either, I'm really not an SEE.. Or, this ILI i know is a special case, because he's not that cute to me. Hehehehehehehe.

    But even if he's cute and he acts like that, omg it would still frustrate me. Lol.

    But intuitively level, we can talk. I don't think we can even talk in a sensory level. He will just *nod* at me.

  25. #25
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think CBT doesn't work for highly intuitive people.

    I had an ENFP friend, and he told me how CBT doesn't work for him.. He's already aware of his mistakes, but he cannot change it, and cannot help himself overanalyze.

  26. #26
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think thats the trick to SEE/ILI: their behavior greatly stimulates one to make adjustments to the other, but their nature is such that polite society tells them that to indulge those provocations is mean (because normally they engage their program directed at their dual on their non dual and the feedback flows accordingly), so they're sort of trained to think less of themselves. but really the beauty is if they just could get over that and be themselves around eachother, assuming things don't go off the rails right at the start (they might), then they'll find out that the other doesn't view their behavior as unacceptable, as society has lead them to believe, but rather it is welcome... they are unique individuals, but opposite sides of the same coin. both have struggles with broader society, and the message is not to be themselves, but around eachother that's precisely what they need to, and are free to, be

    the one SEE I knew had a real self loathing streak, because society had taught her that she was bad for basically just being a SEE. this wrong lesson really fucks over their chances to harmonize with a dual, especially since their dual likewise goes through their own version of the process
    Last edited by Bertrand; 10-22-2017 at 12:53 AM.

  27. #27
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    i think thats the trick to SEE/ILI: their behavior greatly stimulates one to make adjustments to the other, but their nature is such that polite society tells them that to indulge those provocations is mean (because normally they engage their program directed at their dual on their non dual and the feedback flows accordingly), so they're sort of trained to think less of themselves. but really the beauty is if they just could get over that and be themselves around eachother, assuming things don't go off the rails right at the start (they might), then they'll find out that the other doesn't view their behavior as unacceptable, as society has lead them to believe, but rather it is welcome... they are unique individuals, but opposite sides of the same coin. both have struggles with broader society, and the message is not to be themselves, but around eachother that's precisely what they need to, and are free to, be

    the one SEE I knew had a real self loathing streak, because society had taught her that she was bad for basically just being a SEE. this wrong lesson really fucks over their chances to harmonize with a dual, especially since their dual likewise goes through their own version of the process
    Make sense. Socionics is like, "opposite attracts"

    But you know, if i really don't know socionics, i will always believe ili hates me.

  28. #28
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    naw if ILI hates anyone its themselves, they just need someone to show them they're loveable

  29. #29
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    naw if ILI hates anyone its themselves, they just need someone to show them they're loveable
    Awwwwww.... *boob hugs*

  30. #30
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,472
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Troll thread.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    How is Socionics better than cognitive psychology?
    Well many of the Socionics ideas are found in cognitive and neurocognitive psychology research yeah, but the approach with studying differences in people isn't emphasized enough IMO.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Troll thread.
    What seems like trolling in the OP?

  33. #33
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,472
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    What seems like trolling in the OP?
    Singu here has been posting numerous threads just to bash socionics as "not science", as he clearly doesn't understand it. He will probably get tired of it in a few days.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Singu here has been posting numerous threads just to bash socionics as "not science", as he clearly doesn't understand it. He will probably get tired of it in a few days.
    It's clearly not science. You yourself want to rework the model in a way that can be properly tested, as far as I understood you.

  35. #35
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,472
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    It's clearly not science. You yourself want to rework the model in a way that can be properly tested, as far as I understood you.
    It's still protoscience and describes reality accurately - very different from pseudoscience.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    It's still protoscience and describes reality accurately - very different from pseudoscience.
    That's wishful thinking to say it describes reality accurately. A model of 8 broad functions cannot be expected to describe much accurately. A few global trends in a significant number of people, sure, that's all.

    Don't get me wrong, I found some of that quite good myself. But it's very limited beyond the above really.

    There are also a few fragments of observations on cognition that are good but I would prefer to fit those in a different model, not Socionics's 8 function-model.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Well many of the Socionics ideas are found in cognitive and neurocognitive psychology research yeah, but the approach with studying differences in people isn't emphasized enough IMO.
    Yeah that's a good point, science is more about finding what's universally applicable than finding some small differences. But it seems pretty implausible or impractical to find "degree" of differences in say, strengths of emotions, as they are in a continuum and it's not bimodal.

    We can perhaps find the difference between a "neurotypical" brain and an autistic brain, but there are significant differences in cognition and social behaviors among those two types of brains, so we have a real reason for having those two brains as completely separate categories. We can also perhaps find the difference between a psychopathic person and a person who is otherwise "normal", as we can find the area of the brain where it makes the person have a conscience or not. But we can't really measure the "degree" of conscientiousness in a person, saying that a person with 70% conscientiousness is Type A, 50% conscientiousness is Type B, 30% conscientiousness is Type C, and so on.

    I mean we CAN arbitrarily separate people based on these scientific data, but it doesn't seem like a "personality theory" will ever be a scientific theory. It will always be more or less based on arbitrary categorization of people.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Yeah that's a good point, science is more about finding what's universally applicable than finding some small differences. But it seems pretty implausible or impractical to find "degree" of differences in say, strengths of emotions, as they are in a continuum and it's not bimodal.

    We can perhaps find the difference between a "neurotypical" brain and an autistic brain, but there are significant differences in cognition and social behaviors among those two types of brains, so we have a real reason for having those two brains as completely separate categories. We can also perhaps find the difference between a psychopathic person and a person who is otherwise "normal", as we can find the area of the brain where it makes the person have a conscience or not. But we can't really measure the "degree" of conscientiousness in a person, saying that a person with 70% conscientiousness is Type A, 50% conscientiousness is Type B, 30% conscientiousness is Type C, and so on.

    I mean we CAN arbitrarily separate people based on these scientific data, but it doesn't seem like a "personality theory" will ever be a scientific theory. It will always be more or less based on arbitrary categorization of people.
    It doesn't necessarily have to be a typology, but I think some actually significant structural differences exist between some "normal" people and that's not simply someone being "70% conscientious" and someone else being "30% conscientious". These differences would not be any more arbitrary than any other kind of categorization utilized in science. (That sentence was tongue in cheek - I'd actually see them as substantiated enough by having a real explanation for them rooted in actual research.) I'd find such research interesting and I believe it'd have practical implications too (for applied psychology).
    Last edited by Myst; 10-27-2017 at 04:22 PM.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    It's still protoscience and describes reality accurately - very different from pseudoscience.
    "Protoscience in this sense is sometimes distinguished from pseudoscience by a genuine willingness to be changed through new evidence, as opposed to having a theory that can always find a way to rationalize a predetermined belief."

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience)

    The problem, I don't see this willingness with regard to Socionics. Its model doesn't ensure that this bad pseudoscientific practice be avoided. And it's very telling that there's been an absolute lack of progress in Socionics.

    This is from a study on MBTI but I liked this way of putting it that I do think applies to Socionics too: "We (...) suggest that perhaps the rigid dichotomising inherent within the fucntional typolog as so far conceived, has served as a kind of conceptual strait-jacket, inhibiting growth and development of the model."

    (From: Towards a reformulation of the typology of functions, Metzner et al., Journal of Analytical Psychology. I can upload the full text of the article if anyone wants it. Not that I agree with all of it.)

    Protoscience just seems like science that's still too new to have sorted out everything sensibly enough but otherwise uses the scientific method as much as possible. I think Socionics is much more like a fringe science as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science. It's a bit better than outright pseudoscience, but it's not good with how while its model has certain good ideas, the model on the whole really screams for fixing, which no socionist seems to want to do for some reason.

    I guess you could say the good bits are protosciencey but that gets lost in the rest...

  40. #40
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My views are that its good until something better replace it. The peak of psychology when it comes to types are disorders. Socionics is a good body for bits of knowledge so thats about it. Science is suppose to be about facts and knowledge we can say is true for sure and the model or theories are the body that best put those pieces together. Im still not sure what this thread is going at.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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