No it’s not lol. Big Five is statistical, by contrast. Socionics actually has a structure and explanation behind it, albeit a mostly philosophical one.Originally Posted by Singu
Also we were talking about the internal statistics of it mainly there with application of it.
As usual, you’re taking out of your ass.
All I can say is, it's amazing that you think Socionics is fundamentally any different from Big Five.
It's just a fact that 16 types, 8 functions and ITR are all summarization of observations. Yes, that makes it statistical.
"This person fits this type description! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of observations of people
"These two types are so similar to each other, amazing!" -> Correlation made between two potentially similar people
"What this person is saying fits the description of Fe! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of what people say
"This relationship unfolded in the exact way predicted by ITR! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of certain kinds of relationships
--
Those are all based on some previously observed statistical trend, that will apparently continue into the future. So you haven't answered that question, of why should that trend continue. That's because you can't, because Socionics is statistical and not explanatory.
Come up with an explanation for why should there be a type, or why should a certain kind of a relationship should unfold in a certain way and so on.
... It’s like 3 or 4 people discussing this lightly as a hobby. What do you expect LOL. We just started too. I’m glad you’re interested, why don’t you add something then.
Big Five was derived from statistical analysis alone, while Socionics is derived from the concept of duality of information and information processing. If you are honestly putting all forms of empirical observation under the umbrella of “statistical” though, I can’t help you.
A core tenet of Socionics is that you can predict how well people interact with each other by knowing their psycho-types. I've never been satisfied that there has been any study to show this conjecture has any merit that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal. I am also unaware of any study that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal which shows that people are compatible with each other as Socionics speculates with the eight Jungian functions.
That part would be statistical if anybody actually carried out that research but it hasn’t happened yet like you said. There are no legit statistics to be seen as of yet in Socionics. The only statistician I’ve seen in Socionics so far has been @Director Abbie with her charts. At most you could say it has elements of that in theory, but technically it has yet to be proven. Statistics implies some level of analysis of actual data that is quantifiable. The origins of Socionics concepts are the exact opposite of quantifiable.
We may have our observations, but they are far too impartial and limited in scope. I think for the conjecture regarding Socionics psycho-type relations to be even considered a hypothesis in any meaningful sense, we need a rigorous method of typing individuals and a quantifiable measure of relationship quality. At the same time, I would expect non-Socionics research to be congruous with the conjecture. Research into the quality of relationships using the Big Five for example contradicts what the conjecture predicts.
Assuming you mean Socionics conjecture, what parallels are you drawing between the two systems?
Do you have a link or key search terms?
I was referring to this:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1134376
I made my comment on the basis that the Big Five factors of Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, are somewhat comparable to Socionics dichotomies of Extraversion, Intuition, Ethics, and Rationality.
Thank you. This is a gold mine for all sort of crazy shit. In one of the articles with a total lack of irony he claimed that two functions were the most correlated to sex hormones and the most diametrically opposed. https://translate.googleusercontent....iIZ7GX9LyTKsGg
I mean this is definitely statistical work LOL and some of it may potentially be pretty accurate but I don’t see very many details about their methods. Honestly I feel like Director Abbie’s conclusions are probably more reliable and meaningful than these. Of course it could just be the way this stuff is being presented and the unscientific discourse it’s steeped in but idk if I would consider this “legit”. I’d personally trust @ajsindri , who I think has been in contact with Gulenko and SSS who he could consult for guidance, to do design of and carry out some quick experiments and analysis on a couple hundred people and glean conclusions from them, over this guy. He’s also studying a hard science atm IIRC so he has some incentive and the means to make something legit out of it and not do a shit job.
How does this contradict Socionics conjecture?
For example, to be in tune with Socionics conjecture, I might expect relationships with mutual high levels of Conscientiousness to be especially beneficial, and relationships with mutual low levels of Conscientiousness to be especially beneficial.
But that research only shows that relationships with mutual high levels of Conscientiousness are especially beneficial, and that relationships with mutual low levels of Conscientiousness are especially detrimental.
The research also does not show that extroverts have especially beneficial relationships with introverts: instead, it shows that relationships are more beneficial when both individuals are extroverts, and are less beneficial when both individuals are introverts.
The research also shows that those who are highly agreeable have especially beneficial relationships with those who are also highly agreeable, and that relationships are less beneficial when both individuals are less agreeable than average, which may be contrary to what you'd expect from Socionics conjecture.
Having said that, I don't believe the research assesses how beneficial relationships with two individuals of opposite polarity compared to an average relationship.
Actually again even if this part panned out statistically ideally, the concept of ITR is backed up with the explanation of Model A and the IEs and TIM are based on concepts that are more complex than what can be associated with statistical probability. We could/should definitely use statistics to investigate these things, but it’s definitely outside the scope of the origins and beyond the point. IMHO. @Singu
This is good thinking, but then this being correct assumes a lot of things. In particular: maybe duals don’t necessarily have polarity in most of the Big 5 traits. Also maybe Irrational types literally do have worse relationships, or for some reason are more prone to entering poor ITR relationships. Also maybe Agreeableness isn’t necessarily associated with Ethicalness, what about ESIs lol. Etc.
If types cannot be rigorously defined, and if what Socionics conjecture says about relationship dynamics cannot be measured in significant and quantifiable terms, then Model A cannot be considered an explanation of something that has not be observed to meaningfully exist.
Oh, I completely agree. Sorry, to clarify, with my last statement I meant that about the last part of my first sentence, that is, about the theoretical concepts of Model A, TIM etc.
It’s just that Singu seems to believe that Socionics is just some kind of huge statistical number crunching machine and sees this as a problem. My main point was in response to him about that, that it isn’t that at all in terms of what it was created from and how people have been using it it in practice so far, for the most part. It should be like that though in some ways to prove its existence.
I actually agree with @Singu's general sentiment. As far as I can see, at best, that is how Socionics is in its current state. People may believe they get some practical utility out of Socionics conjecture, but the conjecture has not been substantiated to a significant degree.
If the conjecture hasn’t been substantiated statistically then how can this sentiment be correct?
The conjecture has not been substantiated statistically, but I believe @Singu means that people identifying as a particular type in Socionics is about as meaningful as saying that 50% of LIIs choose heads, and 50% of LIIs choose tails.
I’m sure Singu would agree that Socionics is (statistically and generally) meaningless but that’s sort of a given he’d think that IMO.
The 8 functions are summarization of Jung's observation of his patients. He believed that the entirety of human cognition could be summarized into those 8 functions. That's what it was "created from".
The question is, would Jung have come to the same conclusion today in 2018, as he made the conclusion in 1914? Given that we know slightly more about the human cognition that Jung couldn't have possibly observed back then, the answer is probably not.
So again, the problem is simply expecting the present to continue into the future. What Jung knew at the time couldn't have possibly stayed the same as an objective knowledge, because of scientific advancements, people finding new things, etc.
Put simply, there exists things which can fall under science. Then there exists things which don't fall under science, but could. Then there exists things which don't fall under science, but also can't; Socionics belongs here.
Because...although the mind is built upon objective phenomena, the mind plays with subjective relationships. Somebody mentioned hardware in a computer and how it organizes and manipulates 1s and 0s as programs are run as being an equivalent relationship. The cpu and memory and other hardware can be studied with science, but it won't infer how software will run on that hardware because it all depends on how that software is initially structured and how it changes as time goes on.
But depending on the hardware, it limits what the software can do to. This is probably similar to Socrates answer to Meno's Paradox, in that rather than recalling knowledge, you are simply bound by your hardware to be capable of even knowing certain things. So they depend on each other as well.
Then to have the full picture of someone's running software, you'd need to be a God viewing that software running in its entirety in a simulation that you have full control of that nobody can manipulate, but you. Obviously, none of us are that God and we have to instead frame other people in certain ways in order to make better sense of them in relation to ourselves. Doing so will always be scientifically and logically flawed because we can not know the whole picture. The best you can do then is come up with something that makes the most sense. The only other seeming solution is to kill yourself if it bothers you that much.
I haven’t paid attention to your narrative about this in detail but what exactly do you think doesn’t fall under this category?
Do you mean to say that EVERYTHING is just an expectation of the present continuing into the future?
Well let's go back to the example, of why would the conclusion made by Jung in 1914, and the conclusion made by Jung in 2018, be different? Well for one, it's because we have newer theories about the human cognition today, which would update the various theories that were previously held by Jung, in his mind. Or we have newer philosophical theories that would debunk the previous theories and make us look at the world in a whole new way. So in short, things have changed, and therefore so would Jung's general outlook have also changed.
So we cannot say that Jung's observation is a REGULARITY, because Jung himself changes over time. And hence, we cannot say that the summarization of his observation made in 1914 is a regularity, either, because that also must change over time. And hence, "types" are not a regularity.
So we must make a distinction between what is a regularity, and what is not. So how DO we find a regularity? How do we know that one has stumbled upon a regularity?
In short, we can't ever "know" in principle, because we can't exactly predict the future in a true sense. Some things may always suddenly change in an unexpected way. But again, science is about explanations, not observations. We claim to have stumbled upon a regularity, if it makes sense in the light of explaining a phenomena. For instance, it makes sense if we say that the reason why objects move around in a certain way, is because there is a certain regularity in nature (which are the laws of physics), that would make the objects move around in a certain way. Again, we're explaining how and why the objects move around in a certain way, not just that we're observing the objects moving around in a certain way. And of course, we can keep predicting how the objects would move around according to how it is dictated by the laws of physics.
So I would think that knowing when one has stumbled upon a regularity, must be understood in relation to a certain context. And also in terms of explaining something. We're not just going to say, "Ah, I have discovered a certain regularity", as in we have discovered it by merely continuously observing the same thing.
For anyone who's actually interested in how the brain works: a book exploring the implications of the left and right hemispheres, as the implications involve the development of society and culture.
https://www.amazon.com/Master-His-Em.../dp/0300188374
...
And Socionics doesn’t make sense to you. Idk, congratulations I guess.
I’m sorry, please don’t let that deter you. Please keep talking to me @Singu , this is hilarious.
How were the laws of physics discovered and proven, @Singu ?
That's a great point, universal standards are the goal. The question is how we create them.
This problem reminds me of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. It goes: a group of blind men in India heard a merchant had brought an elephant to their town square. Curious, because they had never heard of an elephant, they went to find out what it was. They all were able to get close enough to touch a part of the elephant before being shooed away by the owner. Later, they all started arguing because they had pictured something totally different depending on what part of the body they had touched. The tusk felt like a spear, the trunk like a snake, the ear like a fan, the leg like a tree, the side like a wall, and the tail like a rope.
The point being that all their observations were correct, but they were fighting because they couldn't conceptually synthesize all the perspectives into one picture.
If you cut through all the meta, there seems to be two main positions:
1. Socionics is describing a major and real phenomena that can be described from many different perspectives but has one source, and
2. Socionics is an arbitrary construction that was imagined, and then imposed on reality. The categories are meaningless, and you get different groups depending on the specific details.
I'm definitely in the first group, because I've applied socionics in my own life, and it definitely works. However, that is anecdotal, so if someone tried socionics, and got bad results, it would makes sense that they'd trust their own experience over mine. But, that's a two way street - I don't take their experience seriously, because you have to be very intelligent to understand socionics, and I don't know if they are applying it right, or if their issue is a personal problem they bring to every aspect of their life.
So the root of this conflict is anecdotal opinions and the only solution is objective testing. I'm not here to listen to people complain and do nothing, I'm here to do my part in solving the problem. It doesn't matter what side you are on, you should be in favor of testing socionics.
I calculated that there are 4432 binary divisions in socionics today (not including information metabolism):
https://repl.it/@ajsindri/Total-Group-Generator
That means potentially 4432 basic criteria, hundreds of thousands of predicted correlations, and only 16 types. In this way, socionics is extremely restrictive, meaning it is extremely falsifiable. If you are against socionics, first of all, why are you wasting your time on this forum, and second, test those correlations and show that its structure collapses under scrutiny. If you think socionics works, test the those correlations and show that the model is objective and coherent with reality, and the different parts can be synthesized into a single picture, because socionics is a language describing something real. Either way, the solution is to test!
@ajsindri “I calculated that there are 4432 binary divisions in socionics today (not including information metabolism):”
Erm, from what? Sorry if it says, I only really go on here on my phone so view is limited.
I used 5 Renin / Tencer dichotomies to generate the entire structure of socionics. If you follow the Repl.It link, you'll see the python algorythm. Its not very efficient, so it takes a minute, but it might work on your phone.
https://repl.it/@ajsindri/Total-Group-Generator
Well too bad though, because science is #2. However instead of throwing them all out and decide that it's all meaningless and random nonsense, we use (rational) arguments to keep the ones that "work", and to cut the wheat from the chaff. One is done through criticism, the other is experimental testing. And experimental testing is just a kind of a criticism.
Well you should take it from the physicist Feynman:
https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
Unfortunately Socionics, and maybe the popular culture in general, is so... stuck in empiricism, so stuck in the myth and the misconception that we "derive" things from "carefully observing nature" or something like that, that they just can't see that that's how it's really done.
Also you should take out the "proven" part, because we can never really prove anything.
You realize deciding a hypothesis is right or wrong, and cannot be questioned, regardless of evidence is the definition of psuedoscience, right? Why are you advocating psuedoscience?
Ok. What you quoted involved computations and comparing to real observation.
...
You don’t realize this is what we’re trying to do, and what you claim Socionics is all about too, yet as if it’s a problem? I don’t see how you aren’t putting two and two together here, seeing this as somehow any different.
And where do you think guesses come from too btw? Completely random data divorced from anything in reality?
This is unbelievable.
Last edited by sbbds; 12-09-2018 at 08:04 AM.
Even if bits and pieces of his ideas are correct, I don’t believe in pitying and coddling Singu. Maybe he needs a few people to do that too, but it’s not going to be me.
I don't really understand this whole argument with @Singu. If Socionics has some truth to it, then its claims will be demonstrable. Of course the online Socionics community may not have the skill or the resources to verify its claims to a significant degree. But there is no conspiracy preventing anyone from submitting research to a scientific journal.
When he said "computation", he meant calculating the result of the consequence of what would happen, if the guesses being made were correct.
No, the point is that the "random" guess sometimes, happens to be "miraculously" describing the reality in some ways. That's the whole point of an experimental testing, to see if the guess is correctly describing reality or not.
It's so unbelievable, that a Nobel-prize winning physicist is telling you that's exactly how it's done?
I'm no fan of appeal to authority, but all I'm telling you is that that's just how it's really done. If you can't believe it, then well I'm sorry, but you're the one who has to change your view, not reality.
I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not, but why did you miss the part that 1) it's criticized and 2) it's tested?
Indeed, the only thing that separates science from pseudoscience, is that the theory is criticized and tested. That's why the Popper's demarcation of science is falsification: that the theory is testable.
I've talked with Bukalov and he's open to letting me publish in his journal. I'm not surprised that no one has worked on this before (that we know of) - most psychologists are not also theoretical mathematicians. Reinin was the exception.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
