If you can't tell the difference between MBTI and socionics then either 1) you essentially don't know anything about socionics (and not nearly enough to criticize it) or 2) this thread may be applicable to you.
If you can't tell the difference between MBTI and socionics then either 1) you essentially don't know anything about socionics (and not nearly enough to criticize it) or 2) this thread may be applicable to you.
Last edited by Exodus; 10-24-2017 at 11:46 PM.
The OFC's existence is not really proof for the nuances of the function model of MBTI's or Socionics's.
Even studies like the ones proving that processing emotional information suppresses processing of mechanical information* and vice versa don't prove any such nuances and they never will because those are incorrect.
Some generalities are true about Jung's/MBTI's/Socionics's ideas yes and a few observations about cognition are interesting also but these models are not ok for classification of concrete things. They are only ok for observing trends of patterns of preferences.
*: Study for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23110882 (Full text https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...hms-424462.pdf)
It is largely, but that doesn't make it uninteresting or unuseful either. Not everything needs to be purely "scientific." That said, some people around here rely on this stuff like it's a religion and that is far from a balanced or healthy perspective either.
I believe the answer is no. There has been research into the theory behind it, although mostly in Eastern Europe, and it probably is good enough. I haven't really checked any of their research though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
it's less pseudo-scientific than race realism.
It is 100% real & objective. We just don't have the tools to discover it fully enough yet.
Of course just because it's real doesn't mean people need to nerdily obsess about it 24/7 or anything. I mean feces is also real, do you talk about it all day too?
That doesn't mean it is not an area worthy of research/time spent thinking about it or making observations related to it, though. Especially if it is a useful tool for people.
I'm not sure if the line blurs - but no, I don't care about calling socionics as science, because in the layman term, no one will buy that, and rightly so.
For talking, it's an interesting subject to discuss, and it sometimes works: but dangerous too, I've told people about it who think it does more than what it really can do.
For me, socionics is useful for,
explaining and locating my ideal mate (it seems to bear out from my experiments)
some traits of people (eg is that person really depressed or are they the negative type of ILI)
some awarenesses and coping mechs for weak areas (good advices by Gulenko on managing weaker function).
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Anything that can't be empirically observed or logically inferred from observation fails to meet the criteria for science. This includes a good chunk of psychology, parts of the softer "sciences", and the cognitive portion of typology.
For this reason, I don't think socionics is ever going to satisfy all of the criteria needed to be a science.
The map is not the territory. However, the map still has its uses.
Should we start embracing that we actually use magic? Would be interesting for sure.
If socionics would not fit in any of these criteria, we would have theory for general artificial inteligence, which would revolutionize everything around us. Apparently humanity does not understand the nature of general intelligence in such precise way and we are still very far from that. Anyway, socionics is the best what we have and it's about something very significant, it's about brain, the most mysterious thing after the theory of everything if not before.
Also, what is said to be not pseudo science is relatively simple and obvious to the point it is testable in easy way (sometimes less easy but still doable). And socionics is very complex and therefore it's hard to test it in simple way and good testing methods have not been invented yet but they may emerge. For example, DNA testing may reveal precise type which is scientifically testable. There might be Artifical Intelligence which would be able to precisely type everyone based on the simple interactions and VI.
MBTI is false science because once invented it haven't changed or improved in many ways and contains some mistakes which were already disproved (like J/P). This theory is not also very liked by western academics and this might be the reason. Socionics is evolving and matures over time, there are many new ideas and new proposals to it. For example, subtypes, 16 functions (along with negatives). Socionics also predicts relationships and I can confirm that this is very true and testable, but testing is not easy because of complex nature of the theory itself, therefore there are people saying it's pseudoscience. It is active science, and it's not everything properly explained because it's extremely difficult subject and if we knew what every mental function precisely does and how connects with others we would be ruled by AI overlord by now.
My take on this:
Neither Socionics nor MBTI are verifiable, because they are based on the theory of cognitive functions of C.G. Jung, an other hypothesis. It is not achievable to proof if cognitive functions are for real, neither you can disproove their existence.
For now it's a workable theory to sort people based on their cognitive similarities.
But it's quite common in science that scientists work with pure hypothesis merely based on mathematical models, if they don't contradict existing experience and known, proven laws of nature.
(e.g. the existence of quarks as buildung blocks of atomic particles or the string theory)
Post modernist socionics: everything is everything. All angles are correct, not correct, and non-exsistant all at the same time, depending on which way you look. One persons LII is another's IEE and that's okay.
This is liberal arts, not science, not even pseudoscience. It's psychological in that it takes place - sometimes but not really and yes really - in the mind. People that practise it have no consensus. Art is endlessly interpretable depending on the observer.