I’m asking you what your criteria are for a theory being timeless. So are you saying you think it’s just that there is logic behind the theory, or...?Originally Posted by Singu
I’m asking you what your criteria are for a theory being timeless. So are you saying you think it’s just that there is logic behind the theory, or...?
I don't think any theory is timeless, since all theories will eventually be proven wrong and replaced by another one. And if we're talking about things like Laws, then they're also like theories in that they will eventually be either proven wrong or replaced by a better law that can better explain things or explain things more. Or they may be unified with the other laws.
Or if you mean "objective", then the theory has to explain everything that it purports to explain, in an objective way. A universal theory can explain virtually anything under its theoretical field.
Regularity, Singu...
Why are you avoiding answering the thing I’m obviously asking?
Because you're being vague about it?
A regularity is an observation, which either we don't know why there is a regularity, or whether if it's a genuine regularity, or not.
If there is a reason behind the observed regularity, then there is a cause, which means that we can change the regularity if we change the cause. So it does not become a "law". It doesn't seem like any observation can become a regularity, as there will always be an explanation which supposes a cause, which the explanation comes in forms of theories and laws.
I’m not. I’m bringing up an axiom your views are supposedly built upon, which you have referenced many times in this conversation, just using layman’s terms. You (or I guess others can, although they may have likely already noticed) should look at the way you used “regularity” before in this thread.
You haven’t answered the point of my question yet either. What separates Socionics theory from being able to fit with your criteria here?
The laws of Statistical Mechanics will never be superseded. Einstein was proud of his Theories of Relativity, but he thought they would eventually be modified, while Statistical Mechanics never will be.
Well now I realize that I probably used the word "regularity" in the wrong way. By definition, a regularity can be nothing but an observation of repeated patterns (physical or otherwise). An abstract law can't obviously be a regularity, but a law can explain a regularity.
Anyway, this is the Socionics approach:
- Socionics is a series of repeated observations, which then becomes something like a "law" or a "regularity" (as in types, ITR, etc.)
- The more and more of the same repeated observations that we observe, the more certain that this "law" is likely to be true.
This so far is the "Inductivist" approach.
The approach that I'm advocating, which is the scientific approach (Popperian epsitemology), is this:
- We're supposed to explain the data or observations, and not derive anything from them, or make summarization of them. And the explanation will occur in the form of theories.
- Theories are not based on any data or observations, they're the explanations of data and observations.
- Explanations are purely the result of human creativity, imagination and intellect, and therefore they reside only in the mind of the person who came up with the explanation (and others who understand the explanation).
- Theories are not based on any data, they're based on other theories or previous theories. And if we keep tracing back theories to its roots, then it will eventually lead back to our inborn expectations, such as our ability to see the world with our eyes, our values in logic and objectivity, and so on, which are all a kind of theories about the world (you are free to theorize that logic is not real, the world is an illusion, etc.).
- Theories don't need to have any basis, because we are free to criticize any theories, if we find them to be wrong.
- If the theory can no longer explain something (newly discovered), then there is a problem within the theory, which then the theory might be either modified or abandoned in favor of an alternative theory.
- The purpose of testing a theory is to choose between two or more alternative theories that are explaining the same phenomena. The theory that can explain things more or better is preferred.
- The cycle is repeated to #1.
The main difference is that one is after deriving, and the other is after explaining. Which comes back to the main point: "Science is the organization of knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions". You could say that science is one gigantic theory about how the world works.
So what is wrong with deriving? Well evidently, the logical conclusion of deriving a theory from observations, is to only expect the current observation to keep repeating itself. And that's obviously not what happens in reality, because the future is different from the past.
And what's so special about explanations? Well I think the main thing is that it allows us to understand how the world or reality works. And we naturally want to understand how the world works. This can't be done anything other than coming up with explanations.
It doesn't really matter which dichotomies you chose as long as they generate the complete 32 Reinin+Tencer set first. I chose 3 orbital dichotomies (extrovert/introvert, irrational/rational, democratic/aristocratic) 1 reinin only (intuitive/sensory) and one Tencer only (abstract base/involved base).
The way that program works is it take the full list of 32 dichotomies and intersects with itself to generate small groups, and then again and again to create dyad and types. When ever it makes an intersection, it divides each part into its own dichotomy. For example, club has 4 parts, and so would be divided into researcher/not-research, humanitarian/not-humanitarian, socialite/not-socialite and pragmatist/not-pragmatist. Its a lot to process, so I'm not sure which groups are meaningful and which are mathimatical coincidences, but even if you limited yourself to categories socionist have already published descriptions about, there is a ton of cross checking already in the system that can be used to test socionics.
Those four dichotomies are enough to define a type in socionics, but not the intertype relationship structure, which is the basis of Model A. If you read the paper @thehotelambush wrote on group theory, he mentions this is a critical difference between the MBTI's four dichotomy approach and socionics. One reason the MBTI could be inaccurate is it is using a fundamentally wrong scheme.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/73jddzvuu8..._Ectsul68soyds
I'm not sure how many dichotomies we need for socionics. Five dichotomies are enough to generate its dihedral four cross cyclic two structure, but it might not be conceptually balanced unless you include more. Also, it might make more sense to use higher order objects like a cyclic four group, or a dihedral four group, but I don't know how you would test them.
Holy shit did you just admit you were wrong?
I hope you don’t have a fever or something.
I think as long as the Big Five is largely descriptive rather than explanatory, there is not much immediate hope of Socionics conjectures qualifying as hypotheses.
Just accept my Archetypes and go in peace.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
Socionics and the big 5 are totally different approaches and the only thing they have in common is they are describing personality differences. Why are you equating them?
Yeah, something that you definitely don't do.
The fact is, Jung's functions started out as observations of his patients, which may have included his own conscious or unconscious theories about people and how they worked. But Jung didn't systematize his observations, he didn't try to explain how they worked or the mechanisms behind how they worked, and he deliberately took a non-systematic approach. He didn't for instance, explain why all the "Fe" that he was observing and labeled under the same umbrella, were related to each other, other than the fact that they all apparently came from the same person or similar persons (which in itself is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction). It was all rather arbitrary, and Jung himself admitted that it was arbitrary.
So I think "Model A" created another kind of a confusion, when they tried to say that these "observations" were now somehow something to do with things that are located somewhere in our minds. But they're just observations, they're observations about people, not about how the mind works internally (do you categorize a bunch of different dog breeds, and create and organize a model out of it and claim that's what the mind of a dog looks like?).
--
So I really don't understand why should anyone make things more complicated out of Jung's writings. People can simply focus on what Jung is saying about his observations, and not the observations themselves (which are not some sort of an "Absolute Truth"), that are interesting or not interesting.
Last edited by Singu; 12-13-2018 at 08:21 PM.
You need to read psychological types because you consistently have no idea what you are talking about.
Both systems intend to describe the same thing (i.e. personality) & the Big Five is far more widely known than Socionics, thus the Big Five serves as a barometer telling us what state Socionics is in.
Um, no. Socionics is not a factor analysis model. Socionics cannot take credit for the 5 five's success or failures.
Socionics in its current form is inferior to the Big Five. I agree that Socionics cannot take credit for the Big Five's success or failures. It is possible that the Big Five has research to at least show its factors have some explanatory power. Hopefully in the future Socionics will also be able to define itself in a way that has explanatory power.
That's funny, because I just did. It's literally what Jung is saying.
I just don't understand why the focus is on "How do we know that Jung's observations are correct?", and not "How do we know that what Jung was saying about his observations are correct?".
In the same way, the Socionics test is "How do we know that our observations are correct?", and not "How do we know that what we're saying about our observations are correct?".
So we're saying that the observations are self-explanatory. But they're not. Observations are only a very small part of the explanation, not the explanation of everything that is final.
I've never looked into the big 5 because I was under the impression it was only a test. I use socionics all the time in my daily life and I couldn't do that if I had to compute a factor model in my head. Unless I'm mistaken about the big 5, I much prefer socionics because I can actually use it. Plus, it sounds like knowing how someone ranks in the big 5 doesn't give you much useful information. No need to be judgmental about which one you prefer.
And to all people who like the big 5, that's cool, but please go to a big 5 forum to discuss it.
At any rate, if you want to turn Socionics into a "science", and since theories are not actually based on anything other than other pre-existing theories, you must build up the theory on top of already existing scientific theories. That's how science makes progress. And that would mean decades of worth of psychological theories built up on decades of worth of researches and studies.
Is Socionics just going to show up, and disprove all of those theories? Unlikely. And since theories must stay consistent and can't contradict each other, is Socionics going to incorporate all the existing psychological and sociological theories, and modify the original theory so much that it becomes almost unrecognizable from the original inception? Again, unlikely.
What's most likely to happen is that Socionics is at best, going to be some "philosophy" that might be something interesting to talk about, but nothing more.
Needless to say, that this hope of making Socionics "scientific" is nothing but a pipe-dream of a few amateurs and crackpots. It's just not going to happen. You can't just show up and say, "Here's the data. We've proved it". All they would reply is, "Yes, and so what? You don't have a theory. Come back when you have one that could explain what that data even means. Also, don't contradict any of the already existing theories, unless you could significantly improve upon them".
Just because I haven’t had to to you far
Meh, you only think it’s hard because you’re lame.
@sbbds you can keep on giving attention to singu if you want, but he is troll level not being productive. I can't tell if he is doing this for attention, he just likes to argue, or if he needs an outlet for failed expectations. You responding to every stupid thing he says is just egging him on.
Well I just like him and want his attention too lol sorry if that makes you jelly
I think one can convert in many instances between MBTI, Socionics, and Big Five when looking at dichotomies, as long as you don't fall in the middle. In this way, you can use a "type" as a heuristic. People should know what you mean when you say "i'm type x."
It still doesn't overcome the issues of definitions in typology. For instance, ISFjs. Big Five would likely convert as low on extroversion and openness to experience, but high on conscientiousness and agreeableness. However, functionally, Fi isn't necessarily an agreeable function. Also, they are supposed to be heavy socials, which contradicts introversion. This is why I think it more useful to rid of functions; there are too many inconsistencies. Everyone has personal values and ethics(most anyways) and most would not be agreeable when those values are threatened. If one is constantly reactive emotionally, I would say that person isn't really an agreeable type. They would be low on agreeableness and high on neuroticism.
I don't especially like the Big Five, my point was focused on it being far more widely covered than Socionics, and thus possibly a good guide for how far Socionics has to go before it qualifies as a hypothesis.
What observation would prove Socionics to be false?
If you cannot answer that, it may show that you don't know how to show Socionics to be true.
(That is not intended as a criticism at others: it is a question I have asked of myself during many sleepless nights)
Socionics can be proven wrong if you can show the functions are not directly correlated with each other. Without the function structure, you don't have type and you don't have intertype relations. If you prove that wrong, model A collapses.
Then to a lesser degree, you can prove specific linear dependent parts of the model false if the theoretic correlations don't exist in practice. For example, consider temperament. Temperament is defined with 3 dichotomies, but there are only 4 temperaments, even though there are 8 possible dichotomy combinations.
Valid temperaments:
extrovert + irrational + static = Flexible-Maneuvering
extrovert + rational + dynamic = Linear-Assertive
introvert + irrational + dynamic = Receptive-Adaptive
introvert + rational + static = Stable-rigid
Theoretically impossible combinations:
extrovert + irrational + dynamic = Null
extrovert + rational + static = Null
introvert + irrational + static = Null
introvert + rational + dynamic = Null
Every part of socionics has this property, which means every part is falsifiable. We need statistics to decide at what point each of these relationships are cohesive, and at what point they collapse.
How would a trait like "extroverted thinking" be falsifiable?
The root of the 8 information elements are Jung's 8 types. If you prove the scales that define the 8 types don't exist, you eliminate the information elements.
I'm sure you can "prove" that there are 16 types of people. But you can't "prove" that there are not any more than 16 types of people. There might be 17, 18, 19... types. So unless you can explain why there should be exactly 16 types of people and not anything else (such as finding the specific mechanisms or laws explaining why that should be the case), then you have proven nothing. Just by arbitrarily declaring that there are 8 functions doesn't cut it, as Jung did (again, why are there only 8 functions, and not any more?).
The problem is that if you actively look for something, then you will likely find it. It's just not the right approach.
Other hypotheses work this way too though.
You’re right though in that yes, that is a valid issue and no, it wouldn’t be hard to come up with an explanation for it and way to test it. Nobody is expecting it to be airtight though like a theory from hard science. That’s definitely not in the foreseeable future.
How would you prove that the Socionics grouping of traits or behaviours are anything but arbitrary?
Show inverse correlation between the dichotomy traits and linear dependence in higher order networks (for example, temperament)
Wouldn't that just mean that Socionics is internally consistent, rather than anything other than arbitrary?
(I don't think there is much more I can say without becoming vexatious, and I don't think I could say anything further that would be especially helpful to any short-term goals to making Socionics scientific).
If you had a large network of theoretical relationships that are consistent with reality, that is meaningful. If you didn't like the socionics explanation for why those correlations exist, you'd have to come up with an alternative explanation that has more utility. The more complex the correlation structure, the harder it is to invent a fictional narrative that fits the facts until it becomes impossible, and the only explanation that fits is the what is actually happening.
Well look at the way how Mendeleev came up with his Periodic Table (which you could say has a superficial resemblance to Model A). The way he did it, wasn't by just arranging and rearranging the known elements at the time in a certain way. He did it by predicting that we would be discovering more unknown elements that were undiscovered at the time, and he could also do it with an incredible accuracy, too.
So how did he do it? How could he just predict things, as if by magic?
Well there's nothing mysterious about it, all he did was that more or less, he could explain how certain atomic configurations must lead to certain kinds of elements. Basically, he explained the mechanisms of how things worked, and namely in this case, how the elements and atoms worked. If you could explain the mechanisms behind how things work, then it becomes necessarily that you can see how one thing would lead to another thing (cause and effect). In the same way, if you could explain how reality works, then it becomes necessary that you can predict things in reality. And the fact that Mendeleev could predict that we would be discovering all the unknown elements with such stunning accuracy, must meant that he was describing reality in the correct way. And That. Is. Science. (and the whole point of "predicting" things, which is to check if our explanations are correct. It's not the other way around)
All the chemists before him failed in making a comprehensible and coherent Periodic Table, because all they were doing was that they were arranging and rearranging the known elements. But what made Mendeleev so genius was that he also included the unknown elements, which he thought that they must have existed somewhere, and we just haven't discovered them yet. And because the totality of reality consists of not just the known elements (our current observations), but also the unknown elements (unobserved entities), Mendeleev could explain the full extent of reality, and not just partial reality, the reality that's limited to our observations. And our observations are always going to be limited to anthropological explanations, and reality is not anthropological. It doesn't care about what we see or think.
Well done, you can take two stars today @Singu .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote