Jung type and importance

[Tigerfadder]

After watching this he have this background smile/laughter in the beginning which I usually see as a SLI or IEE trait from experience. A lurking smile of sorts.

Is it true that Socionics can not be proven by the method of being sceptical? For example if you have some criteria of questionnaire with result in a type. If you use this method of typing you will find that SLI have a emoticon that is a lurking smile. If than people unrelated find similar result that is a proof?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AMu-G51yTY

[squark]

After watching this he have this background smile/laughter in the beginning which I usually see as a SLI or IEE trait from experience. A lurking smile of sorts.

Is it true that Socionics can not be proven by the method of being sceptical? For example if you have some criteria of questionnaire with result in a type. If you use this method of typing you will find that SLI have a emoticon that is a lurking smile. If than people unrelated find similar result that is a proof?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AMu-G51yTY

What do you mean re. being skeptical? The most empirical approach to socionics is what Talanov did -- huge sample size with extremely broad ranging questions, and then drew correlations. It becomes circular though, because if you're diagnosing type based on certain characteristics you see in a person, and then using those people to determine characteristics, it's just reinforcing a group you already made. Meaning, for it to be useful you first have to agree with the original groupings, and then it should work consistently.

[Tigerfadder]

What do you mean re. being skeptical? The most empirical approach to socionics is what Talanov did -- huge sample size with extremely broad ranging questions, and then drew correlations. It becomes circular though, because if you're diagnosing type based on certain characteristics you see in a person, and then using those people to determine characteristics, it's just reinforcing a group you already made. Meaning, for it to be useful you first have to agree with the original groupings, and then it should work consistently.

Thats why you use occam's razor method to basics, ie Jung and model A.

[falsehope]

No, single trait cannot be a proof. This way we would have tests with only one or 4 questions. By concluding a specific type of two based on smile you are making thinking error. To guess a type you need a lot of factors.

[squark]

Btw, watching video now, very interesting. Thanks for sharing it!

[Tigerfadder]

No, single trait cannot be a proof. This way we would have tests with only one or 4 questions. By concluding a specific type of two based on smile you are making thinking error. To guess a type you need a lot of factors.

For example you make the test based on basics and than make observations from a critical POV "I only trust this if I can find the result myself" and "if most people have seen this it is more likely true".

[WVBRY]

Thats why you use occam's razor method to basics, ie Jung and model A.

What makes you think Jung and model A are real?

We really need a method to confirm whether or not they are, and yet, psychology is not "hard" science. Since experience of the functions is subjective, ie, internal to our cognition we cannot "share" our cognitive process with others, we are left to assume what congitive functions are like. This is very tentative, there is no real method of bridging the internal experience and external proof of the existence of something to my knowledge. Aushra and Jung basically speculated about the existence of the functions and they may have been right, but how do we prove it externally? How do we bridge the gap between the esoteric and the exoteric?

[Bertrand]

I think a good way to go about it is evaluate it with an eye to its ability to make predictions. right now obviously its in kind of a shoddy state, but this might be a good aim to progressively develop it into something more rigorous

[WVBRY]

I guess the problem is knowing whether model A is real.

Most of us on here, myself included, think it is, because our experience with the definitions of the IMs are ITRs make sense from our experience. But how do we keep socionics from being so open to interpretation? I'm not talking about interpeting the descriptions of the functions as we can come a consensus as to a description of each function. Knowing your type requires self-knowledge, as in, knowing what you like and what makes you tick, what your strengths are and where you need help. I think this is why we can't come to a consenus as to whos type is what, Elvis notwithstanding, because human minds are much more unkown to us than human behaviors which can be measured (big 5). Socionics will always have some level of subjectivity as it is a theory of cogntition, not behavior (even if certain behaviors can correlate to certan types more or less than others) and cognition exists in our minds, it is not an object that can be measured.

[Tigerfadder]

I guess the problem is knowing whether model A is real.

Most of us on here, myself included, think it is, because our experience with the definitions of the IMs are ITRs make sense from our experience. But how do we keep socionics from being so open to interpretation? I'm not talking about interpeting the descriptions of the functions as we can come a consensus as to a description of each function. Knowing your type requires self-knowledge, as in, knowing what you like and what makes you tick, what your strengths are and where you need help. I think this is why we can't come to a consenus as to whos type is what, Elvis notwithstanding, because human minds are much more unkown to us than human behaviors which can be measured (big 5). Socionics will always have some level of subjectivity as it is a theory of cogntition, not behavior (even if certain behaviors can correlate to certan types more or less than others) and cognition exists in our minds, it is not an object that can be measured.

You can logically assume that cognition leads to behaviors. We assume that Model A is correct and maybe it does not have to be proven to be correct at all. If we use it it will be truth. You can think of it as a periodic system and structure to that which Jung discovered and wrote down.

[WVBRY]

@Tigerfadder, I will address your point one by one. I feel you condensed alot of point into a few sentences. : )

You can logically assume that cognition leads to behaviors.

Logical assumptions can be wrong.

We assume that Model A is correct

We do. Most based on our experiences, some seem to have a purely theoretical approach and reject empiricism, not sure why they believe in socionics.

and maybe it does not have to be proven to be correct at all.

Why not?

If we use it it will be truth.

An article of faith.

You can think of it as a period-system with give structure to that which Jung discovered and wrote down.

Assuming Jung is true is an article of faith.

Why is Jung right and not wrong? Because he's Jung? Because you want him to be? What valid reason do we have to assume anything Jung said to be true.

[Tigerfadder]

Why is Jung right and not wrong? Because he's Jung? Because you want him to be? What valid reason do we have to assume anything Jung said to be true.

Because he expressed something fundamental. Logic vs ethic. Sensing vs Intuition. And many big thinkers have read his work, many people have been encountered ideas which stems from Jung. Extrovertion vs Introvertion.

There are these collections of dead colibri birds and they have hundreds of the same size and such. They do this to study individual differences within the colibri. That is similar to what Jung started.

At some point it is "why not".

[Tigerfadder]

If we can not build on this I see nothin what can we do. Maybe this area is just not worth being explored more. I can see how teens want to know themselves and can accidentally stumble across this topic.... And there are environmental and science issues. I hope some better comes along than the fucking 5 thing.

[WVBRY]

I never said it wasn't worth being explored. : )

[Tigerfadder]

I never said it wasn't worth being explored. : )

What im saying its not given the proper attention. xd

[Exodus]

Lurking smile? This is some kind of voodoo socionics...

I would stick to identifying motivations and mental resources as much as possible, i.e. Model A. You may find some people of the same type that don't share some mannerisms, or people of different types who do. It's not proof because you don't know everyone of that type or have any way to explain how it arises from type.

[Exodus]

what type do you think buddy

Probably IEI

[Exodus]

I guess the problem is knowing whether model A is real.

Most of us on here, myself included, think it is, because our experience with the definitions of the IMs are ITRs make sense from our experience. But how do we keep socionics from being so open to interpretation? I'm not talking about interpeting the descriptions of the functions as we can come a consensus as to a description of each function. Knowing your type requires self-knowledge, as in, knowing what you like and what makes you tick, what your strengths are and where you need help. I think this is why we can't come to a consenus as to whos type is what, Elvis notwithstanding, because human minds are much more unkown to us than human behaviors which can be measured (big 5). Socionics will always have some level of subjectivity as it is a theory of cogntition, not behavior (even if certain behaviors can correlate to certan types more or less than others) and cognition exists in our minds, it is not an object that can be measured.

"as we can come [to] a consensus as to a description of each function"

lol, no we can't -- not yet. This goal is far more reachable than the other one but we haven't quite gotten there yet. If we can define the IM elements and functions correctly -- in a way that explains how they relate to each other -- this will be enough to prove the reality of Model A.