Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 521 to 534 of 534

Thread: Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

  1. #521
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,494
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @sbbds and start small. If you can figure out how to analyze a small group system, like temperament, then we can scale that up to all of socionics.
    Yes, sir!

  2. #522

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,061
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Why are you continuing to consider this even if Socionics doesn’t have a theory apparently?
    Everything has a theory, even if it's implicit and unexpressed. The "theory" of Socionics is expecting the current observation of types to stay consistent in the future and in different situations.

    That theory will be refuted if it changes over time or in differe situations. And that must, because people change over time and will act differently in different situations.

  3. #523
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @sbbds I met someone who is a stats major, and he gave me links to books that can teach you basic structural equation modeling and R programming!
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=122...ggy0-kwd4kBqHJ
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  4. #524
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,494
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @sbbds I met someone who is a stats major, and he gave me links to books that can teach you basic structural equation modeling and R programming!
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=122...ggy0-kwd4kBqHJ
    LOL you’re awesome, nice work!

    Let’s ofc open this up to anybody else interested too. I don’t exactly have the most time or resources to spend at the moment.

  5. #525

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,061
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's really required is an alternative theory to compare it to, not any more tests. It doesn't matter how rigorous and scientific the test is, if there's no alternative theory where we could choose which theory performs and survives the test better.

    Even if the tests proves Socionics wrong in some ways, I doubt that most people would start abandoning Socionics en masse. That's because they could either blame the test as being flawed, or say that the basic premise of Socionics is correct, but it needs more research.

    The fact is that there already are some alternatives theories in scientific psychology, which most people are either aren't aware of, or they deliberately ignore them. Or they would incorporate those theories into Socionics and start making ad-hoc modifications, and see no conflict or contradictions between them.

    The reason why it's so easy to make ad-hoc modifications in Socionics, is because it has no systematic and theoretical skeletal framework. It has no mechanistic explanations as such. The more rigorous and scientific the theory is, the harder it is to make arbitrary ad-hoc modifications without ruining the entire thing. That's because each of the explanations have their own functions and have internal consistency with the other explanations, just as each of the components in a mechanical clock have their own use, and if you change 1 thing then it ruins the entire thing.

    If it's so easy to modify a theory, then it's a bad theory, i.e. a bad explanation. A good theory or an explanation is hard-to-vary. You can't make arbitrary changes to how reality actually is.

  6. #526
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,494
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Singu is a big nub

  7. #527
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,494
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok. Finally I'm going to start working on this this weekend.

    Always make use of the placebo effect. Blind faith and confidence that you'll succeed increases your odds beyond what's assumed to be reasonable. It's not just a new age motivational meme, it"s an actual thing that's ingrained in the scientific process. Scientists go to great lengths to get away from it because it messes up the numbers. Today we use it in an ironic way. Fuck the odds, don't let them fuck you.

    Even if we fail it will be educational and fun. Anybody welcome to join me, if only to help me make fun of Singu.

  8. #528

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    What's really required is an alternative theory to compare it to, not any more tests. It doesn't matter how rigorous and scientific the test is, if there's no alternative theory where we could choose which theory performs and survives the test better.
    You don't need an alternative theory to be able to check whether the hypothesis based on the theory is true or false.


    Even if the tests proves Socionics wrong in some ways, I doubt that most people would start abandoning Socionics en masse. That's because they could either blame the test as being flawed, or say that the basic premise of Socionics is correct, but it needs more research.

    The fact is that there already are some alternatives theories in scientific psychology, which most people are either aren't aware of, or they deliberately ignore them. Or they would incorporate those theories into Socionics and start making ad-hoc modifications, and see no conflict or contradictions between them.
    There are no psychological theories that deal in depth with the compatibility of how different people interact with each other. There are observations in Western psychology on there being patterns but I have not seen anyone investigate it in depth like Socionists have.


    The reason why it's so easy to make ad-hoc modifications in Socionics, is because it has no systematic and theoretical skeletal framework. It has no mechanistic explanations as such. The more rigorous and scientific the theory is, the harder it is to make arbitrary ad-hoc modifications without ruining the entire thing. That's because each of the explanations have their own functions and have internal consistency with the other explanations, just as each of the components in a mechanical clock have their own use, and if you change 1 thing then it ruins the entire thing.
    That's exactly what I was telling you about science.

    BTW Socionics's model does have a systematic framework that can be operationalised and be testable even in its current form for the ITR. The problem is the model as it is now is only capable to deal with a few things in a truly systematic way while it just claims to do so for the rest and it's too easy for people to go beyond that into the apophenic thinking - that's bad.


    If it's so easy to modify a theory, then it's a bad theory, i.e. a bad explanation. A good theory or an explanation is hard-to-vary. You can't make arbitrary changes to how reality actually is.
    I can't believe I'm actually hearing the last sentence from you of all people.

  9. #529

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    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.
    I'm not a clinical psychologist, but I am a psychologist as I have a masters in cognitive psychology with a cognitive neuropsychology leaning.

    I don't take Socionics, MBTI, or Jung "as is" seriously. What I take seriously is certain ideas from these that have not been investigated in depth by the science of psychology. Certain bases for these ideas have already been corroborated by neurocognitive research. But the real ideas themselves about how people differ in certain things and how these differences affect people in interactions have not been checked out.

    As for the thread OP, I have thought of specific ways to test these things by utilising brain imaging tools. It would be interesting for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    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?
    The entire model as it's put is full of holes yeah. No, Socionics doesn't provide all the necessary tools for such analysis, however it does provide a tool that other frameworks have not yet. I do strongly encourage Socionics users to first always try and explain things about people and interactions by general psychology, but general psychology won't explain all of it either, those ideas in Socionics that seem valid do definitely add more.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    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.
    It is not completely irrelevant. This is what I am convinced about and observations in Western psychology have corroborated this already. Beyond my own experience, of course.

    You may try to deny my own experiences and what I'm going to say is not objectively shareable scientific proof, but I will mention this anyhow: studying Socionics (and even Jung) most definitely increased my own metacognitive abilities in aspects that studying general cognitive psychology has not. And trust me I studied it a lot lol. Those studies have also contributed a lot in other aspects yes, but not for the aspects that Socionics (and Jung) has.

  10. #530

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I'm definitely not against it.

    There are two main ways socionics can be quantified in the empirical sense:

    1) Through neurological observations that correspond to type and information metabolism. This seems completely out of reach at the moment.
    It's not at all out of reach, I have had specific thoughts on how to design EEG experiments properly for the aspects I find valid, etc.


    ]2) Through clinical study and statistical analysis: Likert-style or multiple-choice questionnaires, behavioral task analysis, surveys of relationship quality, etc. While it is more accessible, and it could be used to get "cred" in psychology circles, this seems like a lot of work for very little payoff (given that #1 hasn't been done yet and we don't have a 100% guaranteed way to type): at best it will tell me what I already know with less certainty than I already have, which is that Model A is valid. Given that the typings are valid it could tell us something interesting about relationships, I guess. The Soviets claim to have done studies like this but there is good reason to be skeptical of their claims, as mentioned above (the most obvious of which is that their interpretations of socionics are a bit wacky in the first place).

    My point is just that socionics also deserves to be seen as a rational, metaphysical theory, and this aspect deserves to be fleshed out just as much as the empirical one.
    With less certainty (as per the bolded)? How is that possible? What gives you the extra certainty? I'd like to hear your thoughts specifically, let's check if whatever you have in mind is explainable by general psychology better.

    I have extra certainty about model A being invalid as it is put now. Only certain aspects are valid and they must be put in new models.


    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You could show that someone is good at Fe and Ti, or Se and Ni, etc.

    You could show that someone's abilities or values changed from one type to another over time (doesn't necessarily disprove socionics but the hypothesis that types remain the same)

    You could show that someone has positive reactions to conflicting elements such as Te and Ti, Fe and Fi, etc. (This one seems pretty self-evident though since they are opposite priorities.)

    In practice the model is still being refined and we deal with minor flaws (such as, misunderstandings of particular functions or dichotomies) by refining it. I haven't noticed any fatal contradictions as yet.
    I've noticed a few fatal contradictions. Actually, taking your examples here, I've had positive reactions to various things that all can be attributed to the 8 IEs. Even if you say that over time certain IEs remain more favourable on average than others, you will have to explain why they are not always more favourable. At that point you must create a very different model than what we have now. The model A (or Gulenko's additional models etc) is really too lightweight and fails miserably if you try to (over)apply it as much as most people dealing with Socionics tend to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu
    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.
    Yes it's better if we have the tools to investigate more than just behaviour (for example brain imaging is better than nothing), but I don't really see where you got the idea that "Fe" = description of the behaviour it supposedly caused.

    Even though yeah, you can't just label a whole complex system of information processing with just one IE label out of 8 IEs like Socionics does it, I don't think it does what you claimed here. Socionics's model does attempt to say "Fe is X thing and this is the cause of Y thing because Z", and it's not simply "Fe = X thing", or "Fe = X thing and then Y thing happens too so it must be due to Fe".

  11. #531
    ajsindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst, as a psychologist, what evidence would socionics have to present for you to take it seriously?
    Check out my socionics work [link]

  12. #532
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,494
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @Myst, as a psychologist, what evidence would socionics have to present for you to take it seriously?
    She’s not just another psychologist. She’s also cognitive psych leaning. That’s scientific concrete thinking realm.

    These opinions don’t always come easily and for free like they do from Gulenko caliber people.

  13. #533
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,774
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    It's not at all out of reach, I have had specific thoughts on how to design EEG experiments properly for the aspects I find valid, etc.
    That's good that there are experiments you can do. Whether they'll come up with anything is another story.

    With less certainty (as per the bolded)? How is that possible? What gives you the extra certainty? I'd like to hear your thoughts specifically, let's check if whatever you have in mind is explainable by general psychology better.
    It's just my experience of how socionics works in real life. Neurological observations establishing e.g. that Model A exists as a structure in the brain or wherever would only be the first step, it would have to "catch up" to the existing theory with all its insight. More confirmation is of course welcome.

    I've noticed a few fatal contradictions. Actually, taking your examples here, I've had positive reactions to various things that all can be attributed to the 8 IEs. Even if you say that over time certain IEs remain more favourable on average than others, you will have to explain why they are not always more favourable. At that point you must create a very different model than what we have now. The model A (or Gulenko's additional models etc) is really too lightweight and fails miserably if you try to (over)apply it as much as most people dealing with Socionics tend to.
    I don't see this as a contradiction - as you say, it's about the overall long-term response. Every theory is incomplete and leaves some questions unanswered by necessity.

    That said, this is one of the questions I have been investigating - Model A is static as it stands, it doesn't address the dynamics of the mind / information processing.

    Also, to be more precise, we primarily have a negative reactions to the lack of valued (or prioritized) elements rather than a presence of unvalued elements. (My interpretation, not the classical one.)
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  14. #534
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,774
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst btw, I'd be interested to hear about those experiments, and what you mentioned in the other thread -

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    OK so we are on the same page now. Uh about my perspective, I'm in general just interested in how to add those valid bits from Socionics to what science already got about how the brain and the mind works. There are a few more recent research results (neurocognitive) where I very strongly recognised things that I've seen from Socionics too. It's however definitely not like Model A anymore.

    I could start another thread for more specifics, but I'd like to do a write up on the whole thing anyway and post that when ready.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •