Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Singu]

There's not much point in having data that "everyone agrees upon". That's not the difficult part. The problem is, what are you going to do with that data? Do you think that if types unquestionably "exist", then that's all that there is? You are and will always be limited to the current and previous observations of that "type". You can never predict what that type is going to do in the future. Or even in different situations that are yet to be observed, for that matter.

The problem has always been that this is simply Inductivism.

[sbbds]

You are and will always be limited to the current and previous observations of that "type". You can never predict what that type is going to do in the future.

How is this particularly limiting? That is how forecasting is done.

Of course, you need to also take into account current and previous observations of the particular situation and people in question.

[Singu]

How is this particularly limiting? That is how forecasting is done.

Of course, you need to also take into account current and previous observations of the particular situation and people in question.

Then tell me how that type can be predicted on what he's going to do in the future, or even in different situations or circumstances that are yet to be observed. You have no other data than what you have previously observed in him.

The only answer is going to be, "he's going to be doing the same thing as he has done before". But what if he does something new? And indeed he must, because he's going to be influenced by things like his environment, his new situations, etc, in ways that we can't exactly predict.

[sbbds]

Then tell me how that type can be predicted on what he's going to do in the future, or even in different situations or circumstances that are yet to be observed. You have no other data than what you have previously observed in him.

The only answer is going to be, "he's going to be doing the same thing as he has done before". But what if he does something new? And indeed he must, because he's going to be influenced by things like his environment, his new situations, etc, in ways that we can't exactly predict.

Think about it, use your brain and guess lol.

I don’t think very specific behaviours with lots of unknowns influencing can usually be predicted, only general behaviour patterns and overarching attitudes of people. But that alone is very informational. Many people pick up on these things intuitively, but there are many others who don’t, and even for those who do pick up on these things more easily than others, they can make mistakes if they don’t consciously think through things.

[Singu]

I'm not saying that it's impossible to predict people. But I'm saying that in order to predict something, then certain variables will have to stay the same. That's the only way to "predict" things. In science, theories usually refer to certain natural laws that stay the same over time. In psychology, it's difficult to find such laws because not many "psychological laws" haven't been found yet. Nevertheless, it's a little silly to say that it's the entire person or the entire personality stays the same over time, under any circumstances.

But we can say that for instance, if people's certain thoughts and beliefs stay the same, then perhaps that translates into certain behavior, and hence it creates predictable behavior if we could analyze their thoughts and beliefs.

[sbbds]

Now we’re talking.

And yeah, people’s personalities have overall been shown to be stable.

[Singu]

Now we’re talking.

And yeah, people’s personalities have overall been shown to be stable.

Gauging people's general personality isn't going to be much useful in accurately predicting anything.

[sbbds]

Gauging people's general personality isn't going to be much useful in accurately predicting anything.

....

[Not A Communist Shill]

I see what you are saying but that’s meant to be prevented against by setting agreed upon working definitions to be tested for.

How would you make a working definition that is not true by definition?: i.e. how would you make a definition that is falsifiable?

Also I don’t see what the problem with this is.

That does not help with the aim of making Socionics scientific.

[sbbds]

How would you make a working definition that is not true by definition?: i.e. how would you make a definition that is falsifiable?

....

Are you seriously asking this question? It’s like setting a target that you can’t be sure you’ll hit.

If something were to be true already in the way you’re proposing, then you’d have to collect a bunch of accurate data and derive your definitions from that. But we don’t have that right now. We only have the vague claims made by Socionics which we don’t know are true (as in will remain true after careful examination and measurement) as our definitions, which is how they’re falsifiable.

That does not help with the aim of making Socionics scientific.

It’s not detrimental to it in any way either though.

[sbbds]

I’m sorry but I think all the relevant questions have been asked already. I don’t have time to go back and forth and explain this anymore. If you have relevant content like Dingu often inadvertently does then do help by posting it, but otherwise I’ll be waiting for ajsindri to come back and reply to move forward.

[Not A Communist Shill]

....

Are you seriously asking this question? It’s like setting a target that you can’t be sure you’ll hit.

If something were to be true already in the way you’re proposing, then you’d have to collect a bunch of accurate data and derive your definitions from that. But we don’t have that right now. We only have the vague claims made by Socionics which we don’t know are true (as in will remain true after careful examination and measurement) as our definitions, which is how they’re falsifiable.

As I said earlier in this thread (probably), a problem seems to be that we do not know how to prove Socionics to be false because we do not know what we are talking about.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I’m sorry but I think all the relevant questions have been asked already. I don’t have time to go back and forth and explain this anymore.

Very well. Yes, I suspected that I should have stopped posting further in this thread a long time ago.

[Singu]

@sbbds you'll need to study (the definition of) what a theory is, because you seem to not understand what the point of a theory is.

[sbbds]

@sbbds you'll need to study (the definition of) what a theory is, because you seem to not understand what the point of a theory is.

LOL I do understand it, and more importantly I can use it

[Singu]

LOL I do understand it, and more importantly I can use it

What do you think is the point of a theory is?

[sbbds]

What do you think is the point of a theory is?

It depends on the theory.

Even if the entire point of Socionics were to explain to me why you come to so many dumb conclusions, it would be enough for me and it will have fulfilled its purpose.

[Singu]

It doesn't "depend on the theory"... The point of having a theory presupposes the theory having already made.

You'll need to understand what the whole point of having a theory is.

[sbbds]

It doesn't "depend on the theory"... The point of having a theory presupposes the theory having already made.

You'll need to understand what the whole point of having a theory is.

I avoided entertaining you because it always goes down the same rabbit hole of Jung’s anus and your stubbornness.

If you think about it, Socionics is even more theoretical than a normal theory. The only reason you don’t think it is one is because you personally don’t think it explains anything.

[Singu]

If you think about it, Socionics is even more theoretical than a normal theory. The only reason you don’t think it is one is because you personally don’t think it explains anything.

So your point is... to make Socionics even less theoretical?

[sbbds]

So your point is... to make Socionics even less theoretical?

...
No, it’s to test the theory. Why are you even asking this?

[Singu]

...
No, it’s to test the theory. Why are you even asking this?

...Because you clearly don't even understand what a "theory" means.

Your view of "testing" the theory is to see if it is "accurately describing" the observation of reality or not. Your view of a (successful) "theory" is if it's accurately descriptive of multiple people's observations.

But that creates a new problem: How should we know about what the person is going to do in the future? Or how should we know about what the person's going to do in different, yet-to-be-observed situations? How do we even know that what we have observed of the person so far, is the entirety of a person's personality?

In other words, how should we know about what we have yet to know? As in, what we have yet to observe?

[sbbds]

...Because you clearly don't even understand what a "theory" means.

Your view of "testing" the theory is to see if it is "accurately describing" the observation of reality or not. Your view of a (successful) "theory" is if it's accurately descriptive of multiple people's observations.

But that creates a new problem: How should we know about what the person is going to do in the future? Or how should we know about what the person's going to do in different, yet-to-be-observed situations? How do we even know that what we have observed of the person so far, is the entirety of a person's personality?

Reproduceabiliy of the experiment. Cross-situational, cross-cultural studies. Peer review and critical analysis.

[Desert Financial]

Just gonna... set the mood in here.

[Singu]

Reproduceabiliy of the experiment. Cross-situational, cross-cultural studies.

So, if we reproduce the data in different time-intervals, in different situations, then it would produce the same type and ITR data? Doubtful.

[sbbds]

I suggest you knock it off with the repetitive, unhelpful annoying questions before ajsindri gets you threadbanned and me too for entertaining you @Singu . Our fun here is over. </3

[Singu]

I suggest you knock it off with the repetitive, unhelpful annoying questions before ajsindri gets you threadbanned and me too for entertaining you @Singu . Our fun here is over. </3

LOL inconvenient criticisms are "unhelpful annoying questions". It's only repetitive because you're unwilling to accept that Socionics has any flaws. Too bad though, since neither you nor ajsindri knows what a theory even means.

Apparently in Socionics, types and ITR are the variables in which it stays consistent over time and over different situations. And yet how many "NTR factors" and other ad-hoc modifications do we have to come up with, so that the assumptions made by the theory stay intact and are not refuted?

If people act differently over time and/or in different situations, then we'll need to analyze why they do act differently. The Socionics framework obviously doesn't provide the necessary tools and the theoretical frameworks in which to analyze such situations from.

It's so full of holes that why would any psychologist or scientist take this stuff seriously?

[sbbds]

Just because you’re set on being negative and you think it’s too hard doesn’t mean it’s not still a theory lol. @Singu

So we have to solidify some definitions and the internal mathematical work will help fill in the holes. We are well aware already and that’s the entire point of this exercise. Your comments are totally just redundant.

[Singu]

Well we're conflicting now, does that mean that we're Conflictors? Obviously, not. Socionics can't even find out the reason for even the most obvious of human behaviors.

The question of "Do humans really exist, or not?" does not at all answer the question of "Why do humans conflict?". Nor does pointing out the fact that the conflict is objectively happening, answers the question of why that conflict is occurring.

All we can say is that Socionics is totally inadequate in explaining the reasons, motivations and causes behind people's behaviors, and the question of whether types really "exist" or not is completely irrelevant in finding out the causes for such matters.

[sbbds]

Bending over for my tentacles isn’t conflict

[Singu]

There have already been plenty of criticisms of "Psychodynamic theory" (i.e. Freudian psychology) from "scientific psychology", and as an offshoot of Freudian psychology, the exact same criticism could be applied to Jungian psychology and Socionics:

PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY

Human behavior is commonly viewed as motivated from within by various needs, drives, impulses, and instincts. In psychodynamic theory, for example, human behavior is the manifestation of the dynamic interplay of inner forces, most of which operate below the level of consciousness (Freud 1917, 1933). Since the proponents of this school of thought consider the principal causes of behavior to be drives within an individual, that is where they look for the explanations of why people behave as they do. Although this theory has gained widespread acceptance and is deeply entrenched in the public view of human behavior, it has not gone unchallenged.

This is saying that according to Psychodynamic theory, practically all of human behavior could be explained from inner forces, such as Model A, Functions, Fe, Fi, etc.

Theories of this sort are criticized on both conceptual and empirical grounds. The inner determinants are often inferred from the very behavior they supposedly caused, creating interpretive circularities in which the description becomes the causal explanation. A hostile impulse, for example is deduced from a person's irascible behavior, which is then attributed to the action of an underlying hostile impulse. Similarly, the existence of achievement motives is deduced from achievement behavior; dependency motives from dependent behavior; curiosity motives from inquisitive behavior; power motives from domineering behavior, and so on. There is no limit to the number of drives one can find by inferring them from behavior. Indeed, different theories propose diverse lists of motivators, some containing a few all-purpose drives, others encompassing an assortment of specific drives.

In Socionics, one simply labels behaviors that had already occurred, such as saying "This is Fe, this is Ti", etc. But this is obviously a circular description, as both the cause and the effect are the same thing.

If causal propositions concerning drives are to be empirically testable, then drives must be specified by the antecedent conditions that activate them and govern their strength, rather than being inferred from the behavior they supposedly produce.

If you were to empirically "test" a theory, then first you must state the cause of something which would be predicted to create a certain behavior. But you cannot say that "Fe is the cause and will cause such and such behavior", because the description of the "Fe" is the very description of the behavior that it supposedly caused, and therefore it creates interpretive circularity.

The conceptual structure of theories that invoke drives or impulses as the principal motivators of behavior has been further criticized for disregarding the complex and changeable patterning of human action. An internal motivator cannot adequately account for marked shifts in a given behavior under differing situational circumstances. When varying social conditions produce predictable changes in behavior, the postulated cause cannot reside mainly in a drive in the organism, nor can the cause be less complex than its diverse effects.

Saying that the inner factors such as Model A or functions or ITR are the main causal factor of practically every human behaviors, would be to disregard the situational, circumstantial and environmental factors. Model A or ITR cannot explain the changes in behaviors under different circumstances. And if different social conditions do change the behavior, then it cannot be said that functions or ITR are the cause.

Psychodynamic theory assumes a thorough psychic determinism, but it does not as a rule, postulate definite relationships between the unconscious inner life and human thought and action. In fact, the inner dynamics are said to produce any variety of effects, even opposite forms of behavior. Such formulations are, therefore, not easily testable nor refutable by empirical evidence. While the conceptual adequacy of psychodynamic drive theories could be debated at length, their empirical limitations cannot be ignored indefinitely. They provide ready interpretations of behavior that has already happened, but, as we shall see shortly, they are deficient in predicting future behavior. Almost any theory can explain things after the fact. Findings from research conducted from other perspectives have underscored the need to shift the focus of causal analysis from internal dynamics to reciprocal causation between personal and environmental factors. Behavior patterns commonly attributed to unconscious inner causes can be instated, eliminated, and reinstated by varying appropriate social influences and by altering people's ways of thinking. Such findings indicate that the major determinants of behavior arise from transactional dynamics, rather than flow unidirectionally from inner dynamics of unconscious mental functions.

In order for it to become a proper scientific theory, it is necessary for it to at the very least properly predict future behavior in relatively accurate and reliable ways. This is highly lacking in Socionics, as the relationship between the inner world and human thought and action are not made clear.

And to only focus on inner factors would be inadequate, as analysis between how both the personal and environmental factors affect each other in complex ways would be needed.

And this can be done and tested by creating various social influences in people and by changing and altering their thought patterns.

The explanatory power of a psychological theory is gauged in several ways. First, theories must demonstrate predictive theories power. Second, the methods the theories yield must be capable of effecting significant changes in human affect, thought, and action. Weaknesses in theories become readily apparent when they are put to work and can be judged by the results they produce. One can predict and change events without knowing the basis for the successes. So third, theories must identify the determinants of human behavior and the intervening mechanisms by which they produce their effects. But explanations that have no predictive value will be pseudo-explanations. The adequacy of explanation is, therefore, judged largely in terms of predictive accuracy. Psychodynamic formulations have been found wanting on all these counts.

This is somewhat self-explanatory.

[sbbds]

My dream is to translate this and ask a psych lab at Tokyo U where I now have some connections to do cross-cultural studies with it if it all pans out in the US

[Singu]

The thought of any psychologist taking this seriously is just lol.

They must be thinking, "Oh boy, here we go again, yet another idiot who thinks that he has figured out the secret of the human psyche, just because he has read some ancient texts of Jung. Deep breath... this shouldn't take too long."

[Number 9 large]

The thought of any psychologist taking this seriously is just lol.

They must be thinking, "Oh boy, here we go again, yet another idiot who thinks that he has figured out the secret of the human psyche, just because he has read some ancient texts of Jung. Deep breath... this shouldn't take too long."

yeah just cuz somebody who read ancient university texts for 4 years makes them better than somebody who studied jung

[sbbds]

The thought of any psychologist taking this seriously is just lol.

They must be thinking, "Oh boy, here we go again, yet another idiot who thinks that he has figured out the secret of the human psyche, just because he has read some ancient texts of Jung. Deep breath... this shouldn't take too long."

...

The MBTI is practiced and administered to people by real psychologists.

It’s also administered by many organizations to recruit and train their staff with, particularly in the US. When I underwent psychological counseling, my IEI psychologist talked to me about it (she typed depressed me ISTP then). When I studied business, my HR instructor (also happened to be an IEI) brought it, and other personality classification systems up too, as part of our course material.

Personality psychology is a full blown field. Every psychology class I took in university referenced and touched upon it.

Not to mention the other day when I went to a concert in Japan, the very famous, respected musician ended his concert with a quote from Carl Jung.

Jung and his works and philosophies are actively used and respected worldwide. Be aware that if you don’t acknowledge this, it becomes apparent that you live in a hole and are a dumbass, for talking out of your ass.

[Singu]

And all I can say is lol.

MBTI or Jung isn't taken seriously by academic psychologists. Unless you're Jordan Peterson. But then he's just a clinical psychologist, and they tend to take whatever that helps with "therapy".

Of course psychology touches upon Jung and Freud, since they were a part of history of psychology. But they only mention about how much they don't work, and how they've been plenty of alternative theories since then.

[sbbds]

And all I can say is lol.

Laugh all you want. We are all fine with watching you laugh like a retard in lieu of the world’s reality.

Also what the fuck at “just a clinical psychologist”.

[WVBRY]

We are all fine with watching you laugh like a retard in lieu of the world’s reality.

Maybe it's best you not speak for anyone but yourself, eh?

I think his points are valid.

It sounds to me like you are using intimidation to get your point across.

[idontgiveaf]

Imposiburu

[sbbds]

Maybe it's best you not speak for anyone but yourself, eh?

I think his points are valid.

It sounds to me like you are using intimidation to get your point across.

You just come across as being really easily intimidated tbh.

Which of his points are valid? The one where he said at first “any psychologists”, yet later changed it to “academic psychologists, except for clinical psychologists”???