Cognitive biases vs. Socionics

[Singu]

Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and hindsight bias, are a fairly recent phenomenon discovered during decades of research in cognitive psychology. Cognitive biases are kind of like one of those optical illusions, where you THINK that you are completely certain that you're seeing a certain thing, but after a careful analysis, it turns out that you were wrong. It turns out that our own cognition is full of errors and can't be relied upon all the time.

As a system of mostly "introspection", Socionics couldn't have come up with the discovery of cognitive biases, even if Socionics claims to be an all-encompassing, reductionist theory that can virtually explain all social behaviors and motives and human cognition (because the "functions" are reduced into our most basic thoughts), because introspection itself includes cognitive biases. Basically, you could have never discovered cognitive biases on your own, it required a "third-eye" view in order to discover cognitive biases in yourself.

In hindsight, you might say "Well, perhaps cognitive bias is low Ti", but that in itself is hindsight bias. With Socionics, you are only ever discovering things in hindsight, it's the "I-knew-it-all-along" phenomena of hindsight bias. It seems like Socionics can't be used come up with any new discoveries. It certainly couldn't ever have come up with the discovery of cognitive bias.

[Tigerfadder]

So when people say they discover things about the universe when doing LSD trips... its this Cognitive bias? xd

[hatchback176]

You're lucky I can't undo a post 'Like' because this is another misfire on your part. I still think I'm 10 years ahead of you.

Neurologists have actually identified the location of this core ‘hidden observer’ aspect of Facilitator cognition, which remains conscious when all else is hypnotized, and that can then take over the mind:

“This medial PFC [prefrontal cortex] region, corresponding to BA 32 [area 32 is in the frontal region of the anterior cingulate], has been associated with selfreferential judgments (e.g. Kelley et al, 2002), and more generally with processes thought to reflect a default self-monitoring state of brain activation (Gusnard & Raichle, 2001). When adopting a detached and distanced perspective, participants may have continuously monitored the self-relevance of aversive scenes to ensure that they were remaining distant from them.”

This metacognitive faculty is what's hidden by the psychologists conception of typology and allows them to stand outside the system and monitor it's operation without introverted long-term memory storage or extraverted expression.

It appears that it really is possible for Facilitator strategy to ‘hijack the cortex’—the process would be a form of partial hypnosis, in which the Facilitator ‘hidden observer’ region would become ‘detached and observing,’ and intercept signals that normally go to other modes. Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised—this is simply the ‘idling mode’ of Facilitator ‘working memory’ coming alive and deciding to be the only mode.

[Singu]

Fuck off hatchback. I've had enough of your shit.


Here are some interesting list of cognitive biases...:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Base rate fallacy or Base rate neglect

The tendency to ignore base rate information (generic, general information) and focus on specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case).[21]

Belief bias

An effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.[22]

Bias blind spot

The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[23]

Omission bias

The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).[62]

Social biases:

Actor-observer bias

The tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also Fundamental attribution error), and for explanations of one's own behaviors to do the opposite (that is, to overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality).

Fundamental attribution error

The tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior[59] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).[60]

Group attribution error

The biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.

Ingroup bias

The tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.

Naïve realism

The belief that we see reality as it really is – objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.

Outgroup homogeneity bias

Individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.[85]

Trait ascription bias

The tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.

Ultimate attribution error

Similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.

Memory biases:

Google effect

The tendency to forget information that can be found readily online by using Internet search engines.

Hindsight bias

The inclination to see past events as being more predictable than they actually were; also called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect.

Illusion of truth effect

That people are more likely to identify as true statements those they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one.

[Pookie]

Cognitive biases are recent? Aren't there like entire religions built around that very concept of getting past self delusion and lessening preconceived notions?

[Bertrand]

obviously you're confused. religion is about suppressing the truth and generally being an asshole

[ashlesha]

i was excited thinking this thread was about how cognitive biases are present in the use of socionics bcuz I think that's an important topic.
as for the OP, eh, yea if socionics is intended to cover every single sort of thought & behavior then it really sucks

[Skepsis]

Cognitive bias exists for all people except socionics typists, who exist outside space and time. Their Astral visits with Jung while sleeping, meditating, or just when typing others online, allow them complete objectivity that cannot be questioned. The few, the humble, the chosen ones.

[Skepsis]

I honestly like and hate socionics. I like that it offers a language to understand your mind and thoughts, and to help understand others. What I hate is the top down, typologist to client attitude of certainty. In this way it becomes too arrogant, rigid, dogmatic, and filled with questionable assertions.

[ashlesha]

I honestly like and hate socionics. I like that it offers a language to understand your mind and thoughts, and to help understand others. What I hate is the top down, typologist to client attitude of certainty. In this way it becomes too arrogant, rigid, dogmatic, and filled with questionable assertions.

yeah, I've only really been able to use it as a language to describe things I already observe w/o it & I don't find it incredibly useful for that reason. using it to assume unseen things about others or predict the future strikes me as either delusional or presumptuous.

[squark]

I honestly like and hate socionics. I like that it offers a language to understand your mind and thoughts, and to help understand others. What I hate is the top down, typologist to client attitude of certainty. In this way it becomes too arrogant, rigid, dogmatic, and filled with questionable assertions.

Yes. It often comes across as though people are being diagnosed with various different diseases. And any objection gets "I am the doctor, I know what I'm seeing here" as a response.

In fairness and in recognition of my own hypocrisy, I've engaged in this kind of thing too. I tend to be more on the end of pushing my understanding of the elements and theory on people rather than insisting they're some type or another. Not sure that's any better though. It's not personal, but it can be every bit as rigid.

[hatchback176]

I don't care what you think, Singu. I anticipated your claim of an outside circuit to Jungian function typological personality theories years and years ago. It's ridiculous watching someone without an integrated knowledge of Cognitive Neuroscience unable to follow brain circuits which actually trace real thought processes. This isn't a new development and you're not saying anything original.

[Singu]

I think the whole thing basically boils down to... "How do I know? How do I know that my typing is correct? How do I know that my own observations are correct? It could be a cognitive bias. In that case, how do I know that a type is something that even really 'exist'?" Nothing is certain, and you can make things up just as easily as you can discard them. Everything becomes a matter of differing opinions, not slowly finding out what could be really true.

If your approach isn't correct then all your results will be wrong. You'd have to come up with tools and heuristics to "overcome" your cognitive biases, like statistics and probabilities. Rigorous logic is important, but again if the initial starting point is wrong then all the result will also be wrong. You can have a beautifully consistent and logical system, such as ahem, Socionics, and it could still be wrong. I guess skilled experimenter can try to come up with all sorts of tools and methods to eliminate as much biases as possible.

[Singu]

Well I'm reading some stuff about this, and it does indeed seem like this whole phenomenon isn't exactly anything new, and it has been repeated throughout history.

In fact, the parallels between Socionics and Lacanian psychoanalysis which the author Lacan attempted to bring "math" into psychoanalysis, and its criticisms toward that it has generated, is striking.

Physicist Alan Sokal makes a scathing criticism of Lacan in his book Intellectual Impostures:

The most striking aspect of Lacan and his disciples is probably their attitude towards science, and the extreme privilege they accord to ‘theory’ (in actual fact, to formalism and wordplay) at the expense of observations and experiments. After all, psychoanalysis, assuming that it has a scientific basis, is a rather young science. Before launching into vast theoretical generalizations, it might be prudent to check the empirical adequacy of at least some of its propositions. But, in Lacan’s writings, one finds mainly quotations and analyses of texts and concepts.

Lacan’s defenders (as well as those of the other authors discussed here) tend to respond to these criticisms by resorting to a strategy that we shall call ‘neither/nor’: these writings should be evaluated neither as science, nor as philosophy, nor as poetry, nor ... One is then faced with what could be called a ‘secular mysticism’: mysticism because the discourse aims at producing mental effects that are not purely aesthetic, but without addressing itself to reason; secular because the cultural references (Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, mathematics, contemporary literature ...) have nothing to do with traditional religions and are attractive to the modern reader. Furthermore, Lacan’s writings became, over time, increasingly cryptic – a characteristic common to many sacred texts – by combining plays on words with fractured syntax; and they served as a basis for the reverent exegesis undertaken by his disciples. One may then wonder whether we are not, after all, dealing with a new religion.

- Jacques Lacan, Intellectual Impostures

[hatchback176]

I don't think you know how stupid it sounds to people when you try to imply they can't communicate a simple direction like reading the wikipedia article listing the cognitive biases on the subject forum Psychology.

[Singu]

I don't know what "communicate a simple direction" exactly means. I just listed a bunch of cognitive biases that I think were interesting and/or somewhat relevant to typologies. What's the problem?

Stop being so cognitively biased, fool!

[Singu]

More cognitive biases:

Taber and Lodge's Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs describes the confirmation of six predictions:

1. Prior attitude effect. Subjects who feel strongly about an issue—even when encouraged to be objective—will evaluate supportive arguments more favorably than contrary arguments.
2. Disconfirmation bias. Subjects will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating contrary arguments than supportive arguments.
3. Confirmation bias. Subjects free to choose their information sources will seek out supportive rather than contrary sources.
4. Attitude polarization. Exposing subjects to an apparently balanced set of pro and con arguments will exaggerate their initial polarization.
5. Attitude strength effect. Subjects voicing stronger attitudes will be more prone to the above biases.
6. Sophistication effect. Politically knowledgeable subjects, because they possess greater ammunition with which to counter-argue incongruent facts and arguments, will be more prone to the above biases.

If you're irrational to start with, having more knowledge can hurt you. For a true Bayesian, information would never have negative expected utility. But humans aren't perfect Bayes-wielders; if we're not careful, we can cut ourselves.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_a...n_hurt_people/

[hatchback176]

I don't know how your understanding has any relevance to Socionics

[Singu]

It is said that Ni can "plan things well" "good at managing time" "envisioning the future" etc... but is it true?

It turns out that people suck at planning, and this is universal:

The planning fallacy

Buehler et. al. (1995) asked their students for estimates of when they (the students) thought they would complete their personal academic projects. Specifically, the researchers asked for estimated times by which the students thought it was 50%, 75%, and 99% probable their personal projects would be done. Would you care to guess how many students finished on or before their estimated 50%, 75%, and 99% probability levels?

• 13% of subjects finished their project by the time they had assigned a 50% probability level;
• 19% finished by the time assigned a 75% probability level;
• and only 45% (less than half!) finished by the time of their 99% probability level.

As Buehler et. al. (2002) wrote, "The results for the 99% probability level are especially striking: Even when asked to make a highly conservative forecast, a prediction that they felt virtually certain that they would fulfill, students' confidence in their time estimates far exceeded their accomplishments."

More generally, this phenomenon is known as the "planning fallacy". The planning fallacy is that people think they can plan, ha ha.

When people are asked for a "realistic" scenario, they envision everything going exactly as planned, with no unexpected delays or unforeseen catastrophes - the same vision as their "best case". Reality, it turns out, usually delivers results somewhat worse than the "worst case".

Visualizing in MORE details actually give WORSE results:

But experiment has shown that the more detailed subjects' visualization, the more optimistic (and less accurate) they become. Buehler et. al. (2002) asked an experimental group of subjects to describe highly specific plans for their Christmas shopping - where, when, and how. On average, this group expected to finish shopping more than a week before Christmas. Another group was simply asked when they expected to finish their Christmas shopping, with an average response of 4 days. Both groups finished an average of 3 days before Christmas.

The answer to this is compare it to broadly similar projects that you have completed in the past. Or ask somebody else who has completed similar projects.

Sources:

Buehler, R., Griffin, D. and Ross, M. 1994. Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 366-381.

Buehler, R., Griffin, D. and Ross, M. 1995. It's about time: Optimistic predictions in work and love. Pp. 1-32 in European Review of Social Psychology, Volume 6, eds. W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Buehler, R., Griffin, D. and Ross, M. 2002. Inside the planning fallacy: The causes and consequences of optimistic time predictions. Pp. 250-270 in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds.) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

[Singu]

Fundamental attribution error, or correspondence bias:

Three decades of research in social psychology have shown that many of the mistakes people make are of a kind: When people observe behavior, they often conclude that the person who performed the behavior was predisposed to do so—that the person's behavior corresponds to the person's unique dispositions—and they draw such conclusions even when a logical analysis suggests they should not.

- http://www.danielgilbert.com/Gilbert...CE%20BIAS).pdf

Description When we see a person doing something, we tend to assume that they are doing this more because this is 'how they are' -- that is because of their internal disposition -- than the external environmental situational factors. There are four main reasons for this correspondence bias: Lack of awareness. If you do not know that a person is being threatened, then you are far more likely to assume they have a nervous disposition. This can easily happen when the situation is not physically apparent, such as when a person is in the first day of a new job. Unrealistic expectations. If I believe that a teacher is all-knowing, then I expect their first lesson to be as good as their hundredth. Likewise if they have just taught a lesson that bombed. Even if am aware of these factors, I expect them to perform consistently. Inflated categorization. My expectations of the teacher are made worse if I expect all teachers to be equally competent. Likewise, if I categorize all questions as showing that you don't know things, then I might assume that when the teacher asks the student questions it is because the teacher does not know the answer. Incomplete corrections. I can further infer incorrectly about the teachers questions, such as that they are asking the wrong questions and hence do no understand their subject. Research Jones and Harris found that people decided that students who had written pro- or anti-Castro essays were actually pro- or anti-Castro, even when the participants knew that the students had been instructed to write the essays in this way. Example When I buy something from the corner shop and the owner does not serve me with a smile, I assume it is because he is a miserable old fool. So what? Using it If you want a person to be perceived by others to have a certain disposition, maneuver them into a situation where they perform actions whereby it may easily be assume that this is because of their disposition. Defending When you do something and others are observing, think about how they are attributing to your disposition. Correct their perception as necessary.

--

In Socionics or typologies, I would think that most people think of a "type" first, and then that "typing" would affect how they see the person, even if that type may have very little correspondence with how the person actually is. This process is more or less automatic or unconscious, and hence why people fall into this bias. We should be careful because we never know what the person is actually like.

[lavos]

This you are describing is a problem only humans have. We aliens and/or synthetics do not have this problem.

[Singu]

Our brain capacities, resources and processing powers are not unlimited. These cognitive biases are the results and the errors of our heuristics, which are optimized processes for coming up with imperfect, but "good enough" optimal solutions. These are often called our "intuition".

Our brains didn't evolve to develop and create more mathematically and logically accurate heuristic models and algorithms, such as using probabilities or statistics. It turns out that we are terrible at intuitively using probabilities and statistics, and that's why we find it difficult to grasp those ideas intuitively, as well as make all sorts of probabilistic and statistical errors all the time in our daily lives (not to mention, it would be very taxing for our brains to be using careful probabilistic, statistical or logical analysis). Even if we are experts in those fields!

I would think that the whole point of "typologies" is to create mathematically, logically and factually accurate models of the mind as well as accurate predictors of human behaviors. But if these typologies offer no such tools or models, and fair little to no better than our (flawed) intuition can, then these theories would be quite pointless.

Here's something interesting from the conclusion of the correspondence bias research:

Coda

We may strive to see others as they really are, but all too often the charlatan wins our praise and the altruist our scorn. Juries misjudge defendants, voters misjudge candidates, lovers misjudge each other, and, as a consequence, the innocent are executed, the incompetent are elected, and the ignoble are embraced. In this article, we have examined one of the errors to which human beings are prone: the correspondence bias.

As with most intuitive appeals, this one rests on a tenuous assumption, namely, that people do just fine. In the past year, 1,000 people who thought they knew their acquaintances have been raped by them, 10,000 people who thought they knew their mates have divorced them, and 100,000 people who thought they knew their sovereigns have died as pawns in their wars. Just how capably do we navigate our social worlds? Just how accurate are our understandings of those around us? We do not know. Nobody does. But before we accept the stale contention that people do just fine when psychologists are not manipulating and measuring them, we should probably look around.

http://www.danielgilbert.com/Gilbert...CE%20BIAS).pdf

[Singu]

Cognitive bias #5 - Belief Bias Definition: Belief Bias is a tendency to assess the strength of an argument on the basis of how well the conclusion fits with our system of beliefs. This means that people often accept an argument because the conclusion is consistent with their beliefs without even considering the logic of the statement. People will tend to reject arguments that are outside of their belief systems, even though the assertion may be logical and feasible. The bias is especially noticeable with people who have experienced limited educational opportunities. Evidence: The Russian neuropsychologist Alexander Luria conducted research (1976) among illiterate farmers in Central Asia to evaluate their powers of deduction. He used statements like “There are no camels in Germany; the city of B is in German; are there camels there or not?” The kind of response he got was “I don’t know, I have never seen German villages. If it is a large city, there should be camels there.” He asked a further question; “But what if there aren’t any in all of Germany? Answer; “If B is a village, there is probably no room for camels.” Conclusion: Avoid using pure logic to persuade people when you outline the benefits of something that is outside of their beliefs. You are most likely to succeed if you focus on how it solves a concrete problem for them and keep within their existing belief system. People buy benefits and solutions, not features.

--

Rejecting a logical argument because one does not agree with the conclusion is not "Ti PoLR". Rejecting a fact because it does not agree with what they believe is not "Te PoLR", it's confirmation bias.

[Bertrand]

challenging a premise is a legit form of reasoning. asking farmers in central asia to accept that "all bears are white in the far north" by some foreign researcher, when they know better, makes me wonder who the idiot in this scenario is. the bottom line is people don't know to act like typewriters unless you explain that's what you're asking up front. that they don't default to that mode is to their credit

if they had simply said, "if we pretend all bears are white in the far north, what color are the bears in the far north?" pretty sure the farmers would have known how to answer

I can tell you all the consequences of your beliefs while not accepting any of them because I don't believe the underlying premises. that is not rejecting a logical argument. it is accepting the logical argument but rejecting the premise. if you think everyone is rejecting your logic when they're really disputing your premise you're in for a rough ride of assuming people are stupid when you're the dumb one

[Singu]

You know this is ironic, because it sounds like "How to talk to Te-valuers" or something like that in Socionics. Of course, that in of itself is biased.

[Singu]

if they had simply said, "if we pretend all bears are white in the far north, what color are the bears in the far north?" pretty sure the farmers would have known how to answer

Pretty sure that they wouldn't have, because he asked things like these:

“There are no camels in Germany; the city of B is in German; are there camels there or not?” The kind of response he got was “I don’t know, I have never seen German villages. If it is a large city, there should be camels there.” He asked a further question; “But what if there aren’t any in all of Germany? Answer; “If B is a village, there is probably no room for camels.”

The point is, people are not likely to believe in something that they haven't personally experienced or seen, something that is concrete. They already KNOW (or not know) the conclusion. Logical arguments are irrelevant.

[hatchback176]

Why don't you simply pick a concrete example from this forum of someone using Socionics? Stop implying we're ignoring reality and prove it.

[Tigerfadder]

Why don't you simply pick a concrete example from this forum of someone using Socionics? Stop implying we're ignoring reality and prove it.

He is troll ;p He made none solid points really

[Alomoes]

You're lucky I can't undo a post 'Like' because this is another misfire on your part. I still think I'm 10 years ahead of you.

This metacognitive faculty is what's hidden by the psychologists conception of typology and allows them to stand outside the system and monitor it's operation without introverted long-term memory storage or extraverted expression.

This reminds me of that troll video I was going to send to my mom about how people from mars came down and destroyed Atlantis, inbreeding with them, which made it so the hippo-campus shrank and Humanity's collective psychic ability went away. I'll go look for the video, it was hilarious because of the quality of it, like I mean it was actually entertaining. It ended by saying that there is a giant disc underneath the pyramids that every so often is activated by the chosen one to fight off space aliens.

Oh. https://www.aetherius.org/the-mother...emuria-maldek/

It's a religion? Huh.

[Alomoes]

Pretty sure that they wouldn't have, because he asked things like these:



The point is, people are not likely to believe in something that they haven't personally experienced or seen, something that is concrete. They already KNOW (or not know) the conclusion. Logical arguments are irrelevant.

Who is buried in Grant's Tomb? What color is George Washington's white horse?