Originally Posted by Cody
This is really interesting.
So interesting why people think somehow Socionics should be excused from being applied the same standards.
YEAH BRO DARIO NARDI'S WORK IS SO UNSCIENTIFIC. I read it about it on some forum post on the Internet, so it must be true.
Socionics is not SUPPOSED TO BE scientific! It's more like, uh, an art.
I wonder if these people suffer from some sort of brain damage.
Last edited by Singu; 01-31-2019 at 04:56 AM.
we might consider our own experience as sufficiently valid, that's something we do on a daily basis. it's another thing to test our "experience" scientifically though, we have to meet the scientific standards, and there things might crumble. it happens all the times, even within the already established scientific theories, things do crumble.
Dario Nardi's work is good, but not yet perfect. we can't draw results from it because it lacks the numbers to be a valid standpoint.
At least in the context of socionics, people who put out books on typology without previous expertise or engagement with the community are usually just trying to make a quick buck off of it. (This includes probably every English-language book on socionics except Filatova's.) They rebrand it as their own and spread misinformation because they care more about reputation and money than intellectual honesty or actual insight.
See the above post. It's because he's charging money for it.
Gulenko also charges money for training, courses and seminars:
https://translate.google.co.jp/trans...%2Ftraining%2F
Maybe he’s a rich boy week, but for his main education, a SUNY school and USC are decidedly unfancy.
Last edited by golden; 02-03-2019 at 04:52 PM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
;p US tuition fees are all expensive to me. Although I'm aware yeah it could be a lot fancier.
This is what I like: we have someone with an actual Ph.D. doing real personality research, research that even involves the brain! Most of the 'real' research on personality usually just involves the Big Five, and that touches on what I was saying here. I.e., the usual approach to academic personality typing is just "shut up and calculate" without any understanding of the psychological mechanisms behind the behaviour. That is why it was comparable to quantum mechanics to me... It also touches on here in that his results show that the traits are simply correlated, and therefore not like the hard sciences. Anyway, I suspect the research is not perfect, but it is a big step forward over the Big Five approach or something which is simply subjective, with no scientific basis at all. If I remember correctly, he won an award for his research and he was teacher of the year at UCLA... That's far better than someone guding the research subjectively with no qualifications! (Which is unfortunately the case for almost all Jungian personality typing and the Enneagram - and including myself!...)
Last edited by jason_m; 02-16-2019 at 08:01 AM.
This is the most painfully stereotypically Te valuing thing (in the bad blind appeal to authority way, to the point of masochism) I have ever read. Are you an IEE?
I'm sorry, do you know what I get from you? I get 'Donald Trump'... That's my message to the rest of the forum about him and his type...
And what I get from this post is “yeah I am an IEE”, lel.
For me, not any different from before... And Trump is dead honest to boot...
PS I think I have you on Facebook and have spoken to you before on Google video
If you're not joking, it must be someone else, because I have facebook but I haven't used Google video..
Oh yeah his last name doesn’t start with an M nevermind. I just remembered because he was lowkey abrasive at first too lol before warming up more, and was IEE too.
I see. He sounds like a nice fellow, but is not me.
This subject seems akin to mapping what areas of a computer are activated during specific subroutines of an app. I doubt that accurate determinations could be made of where the separation is between app and computer when all one has to work with is energy emissions from a brain and software that can interpret and operate on input in a myriad of ways. Even when scientists fully understand how the brain works, its software will still be separate and distinct, and will have to always be treated as such. Knowing very specifically how an Apple computer works doesn't often help us fix software problems. The neuroscience of personality would seem to have no real objective other than perhaps producing impressive looking MRIs.......
a.k.a. I/O
It's interesting and I'd like to see more of this research done under more rigorously controlled conditions, but I have to wonder how anyone can ever be fully certain of their typing, especially after only a few days' worth of research online, which likely includes links to "experts" MBTI blogs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
