Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Lao Tzunami]

Part 1 is my experience getting into socionics and part 2 is what I'm trying to do to make socionics scientific (which I would appreciate help with)


1.
When I first got into socionics, I was offended by the deterministic presentation of the intertype relations and was skeptical if people even had a single type, but I figured if it was true, my opinion didn't really matter and I should learn about it to figure out if it was a good theory or not. I spent about half a year trying to figure out if I fit a type in the system and was surprised I could eliminate all except IEI, and the description generally fit me well. Then I spent another half a year trying to figure out my family members with the same degree of confidence, and again to my surprise, was able to eliminate all but one type, and the remaining type fit them very well. Then I checked the intertype relations and they were correct. This convinced me that socionics was describing something very real about people. Then over the next year, I typed all of my friends I knew well with the same results.


It this point, I decided to get involved with online socionics, mostly through the16types and World Socionics Society on Facebook. I was surprised (and still am) that there is normally mass disagreement about what type people are, and general cynicism that socionics has any utility at all. I started out very skeptical, but after the hard work of learning model A and applying it to people, I got the predicted result. Why are other people not having the same experience?


I think the reason is methodology. I use almost exclusively Model A when typing people, which takes a lot of work to learn enough to use. If people don't take the time to learn model A well, or use fringe theories like reinin dichotomies or the god awful visual identification method, there is a good chance they will get the wrong answer and confuse other people in the process. But in the reverse, if I'm talking to someone who has tried out socionics and found that it doesn't work, they can't accept my anecdotal success with socionics because maybe I've been taken in with the theory and am only confirming my bias.


2.
I am convinced the only way to solve this conflict, and improve socionics, is with scientific research. Reflecting back to how I apply model A, I look for evidence of all 8 functions together. It is not enough to see someone's base function, you also have to cross check against their suggestive, role and ignoring functions. Sometimes the functional position of an element is not clear, or sometimes I get it wrong, but as a whole my observations fit the system - this is what convinced me that socionics works.


A popular criteria for science is falsifiability - a prediction made by a theory that can be tested against reality. The more specific and many the predictions, the more falsifiable the theory is, and the more sure we can be it is a real effect rather than a philosophical bias. I'm not sure if you could falsify a single part of Model A, but you could definitely test if the different aspect are grouped together in practice in the way predicted by the system, i.e. do people who test as introverted intuitive base types also test as extroverted intuitive ignoring types?


I'm not saying this is the only way to test socionics, but it is the informal process I used to get success at applying model A, and it has the advantage that you can compare every approach in socionics with every other, and find the methods that are most consistent.


Right now, I'm trying to figure out a universal mathematical space that can record empirical observation of any approach. I think I'm close to finishing that. When I do, I want to make statistical tests specifically for socionics that can calculate the strengths of theoretical structural correlations in practice.


I'm posting to see if anyone here wants to help out? This is a fairly math heavy process, so it would help if you knew linear algebra and group theory, but I'm a very visual person, so everything I figure out I draw a diagram of it. If you are visual too, you could still learn everything, because socionics is relatively simple at its core.


For example, this is the group structure of the intertype relationship. It is called a dihedral four group crossed with a cyclic two group. Even though the implications of this structure is rather complex, if you know model A, that intuition should be enough to let you learn the more abstract properties.


If this sounds interesting, or you have your own ideas how we could test socionics, please leave a comment or search for 'socionics math' on facebook and join the conversation.

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, there are several models and I recommend learning all of them.


But then I come to the problem where lots of rationals (and bit less irrationals) fail to fuse complete mesh and framework where they can switch between and compare. As of now this search is still incomplete on my own part. This is not type specific at all. There are LII's such as Gulenko who seem to master it but then are lots of those who do not. My style of doing this kind of extrospection is probably alien to most. All of the models add something specific to the picture.


So how to find good basis and when there is a good place to ditch stereotypes?

It comes to play via vast amount of data. That is why I have started to examine Gulenko. He has his experiences. The problem with it is evolutionary nature of the process.

#1 problem is to figure out where to start the process and what are the next steps. It seems to be very hairy and jumbled. I watched some of the Ben Vaserlan's video interviews and after taking time to process perspectives I achieved the same conclusion even though the people who where interviewer and interviewee did not see it. Gulenko has at least good consistency. The format obviously has its drawbacks but it seems that with enough data it can significantly reduce the work.

Is it all about training our brains like neural networks?

[Lao Tzunami]

Well, there are several models and I recommend learning all of them.


But then I come to the problem where lots of rationals (and bit less irrationals) fail to fuse complete mesh and framework where they can switch between and compare...

Once you've mastered model A, I agree that learning other perspectives in socionics is a good thing and you can learn a lot.

The problem is when two schools of thought don't agree, like when Gulenko types Donald Trump as SEE using his energy model, but Jack from WSS types him SLE using model A. Does this mean one model is right and one is wrong, that they are different theories and are both right in the context of their own model, or that there is no definitive type? I think we've done a good job (as a community) to say the MBTI does not translate well to socionics. Is that also true between different schools of socionics? What if someone types themselves with the Reinin dichotomies, can you trust that? These are all questions we can speculate about, but I think we'll only get answers if we test it.

If you are familiar with statistics, there is something called a T test, which determines if two data sets have significant enough means to not be the same. I think we need something like that for socionics: if you get evaluated by school X, and then you want to read descriptions by school Y, can you assume you can use your diagnosis from X?

[Singu]

Not going to happen. Science is about first and foremost, coming up with explanations for proposed problems. It's about explaining the mechanisms of how things work. That is the most basic fundamental about science, and everything else is secondary. It's about explanatory POWER.

Socionics is yet to have any explanatory power. All it has right now, are observations. And observations are still problems yet to be analyzed and explained.

[Muddy]

If you want people to help you make socionics scientific the16types is not the best place.

[sbbds]

I’m always impressed by your passion, but I think approaching this from a theoretical “proof” standpoint is wrong, because it’s circular. At this stage anyway.

If you want to give Socionics a start in making it scientific, you need to take one of its small, specific concrete claims, such as “people who act in x way (implying they’re of a certain type(s)) will also later act in y way more than the control”, and find a way to reliably measure it. That’s how Big 5 / OCEAN built a name for itself. It took many years though.

@ajsindri

[Lao Tzunami]

I’m always impressed by your passion, but I think approaching this from a theoretical “proof” standpoint is wrong, because it’s circular. At this stage anyway...

First thanks! Second, I'm not sure what you mean by 'circular'. I've always heard that in the context of a argument where each step seems to be justified by the few step before it, but if you actually follow the train of thought, you realized it loops back on it self and has no stable foundation. Socionics is not like this. Even though socionics is theoretical, as it says in Psychological Types, Jung based his model on his own empirical observations of his patients and I assume August did the same. I'm simply wanting to recreate a good concrete version of their observations.

Learning anything requires a feedback loop. Science is based on this principle; knowledge is generated and refined with the scientific cycle. In a lot of ways, socionics is still at the starting line because the lack of empirical trials is a lack of evolution. This kind of circularity is good because it converges on the right answer.

...If you want to give Socionics a start in making it scientific, you need to take one of its small, specific concrete claims, such as “people who act in x way (implying they’re of a certain type(s)) will also later act in y way more than the control”, and find a way to reliably measure it. That’s how Big 5 / OCEAN built a name for itself. It took many years though.

I think socionics and the big 5 are fundamentally different, because socionics has a preconceived structure while the big five is brute force factor analysis. Not that working out a specific aspect of socionics is not essential. We need to do that! All standard psychological model analysis should be applied to socionics, like analyzing each dichotomy scale with cronbach's alpha. However, we need to not lose sight of the bigger picture by making small parts that work, but have lost their meaning

This is kind of what happened with the MBTI, because they degraded the theory with their strictly dichotomies approach, their system was too simplistic and drifted from Jung's original vision (in my opinion, for the worst).

I think we can avoid this drift if he have high level analysis as well as granular level, and they are evolved in balance with each other.

[Singu]

It's circular because you're saying that evidence IS the evidence. Empirical evidence is supposed to either support or disprove a theory, not that the evidence IS the theory, which is what Socionics is doing. A theory is of course, a pure conjecture, and not at all an observation. An observation can disprove a theory.

You want to "refine the observation more". You're saying that as long as we have the observation as "pure" and strict and close to reality as possible, then we can prove how correct the theory is.

But then what? What if we have a 100% close to reality observation? Then all we're saying is that the observation will, or should stay the same. And then what...?

This is just a common error of empiricism that has already been abandoned a long time ago. It's just not how science works.

[Rebelondeck]

I'd suggest going to an academic institution. If you're addressing this thread to adherents of existing models then you would be asking people inside the box to help tear it down; it isn't going to happen. Adherents won't likely give credence to those who propose that the current models aren't actually functional models. You may find many critics and some trolls on this site, but few, if any at all, who are actually willing and able to scientifically advance Socionics beyond simply talking about existing data and structures - discussion is usually about rearranging deck chairs......

a.k.a. I/O

[consentingadult]

The big problem in social and behavioral sciences nowadays is their tendency to take a positivist approach to scientific research. Socionics, in its current state, is very much an anti-positivist approach to psychology and sociology, and we run into the chicken-and-the-egg problem: In order to get other, mainstream scientists interested, they must first go through the anti-positivist road of learning what Socionics is and to get a feel for it, especially a feeling that it is something worth exploring, so that afterwards they can come up with positivist hypotheses and test these.

Now this is the biggest problem: that ant-positivist road of digging into Socionics easily takes about ten years of investigation, using up several hours a day. Friggin' difficult to get mainstream scientists to go there, especially since they probably are biased towards Socionics as a pseudo-science ("What are you telling me? It's very similar to MBTI, only much much better? GTFOOH!")

Socionics is going nowhere until someone in Western science rediscovers the same principles indepently of Socionics and then discovers they rediscovered the wheel.

[Lao Tzunami]

The big problem in social and behavioral sciences nowadays is their tendency to take a positivist approach to scientific research. Socionics, in its current state, is very much an anti-positivist approach to psychology and sociology, and we run into the chicken-and-the-egg problem: In order to get other, mainstream scientists interested, they must first go through the anti-positivist road of learning what Socionics is and to get a feel for it, especially a feeling that it is something worth exploring...

I think like with all promising but untested hypotheses, the burden of proof is on the socionics community, and we are lucky there is a whole academic field devoted to it in the old USSR area. Mathematical tests do not depend on language to use. If we could make it easy for socionic researchers to break down their theories, test and compare their results with mathematical tools, I think they would do the work themselves because they are honest, curious and want to get to the truth. If they got to a point where they were getting consistent high theoretic correlations, I think it will have shifted enough toward the positivism direction for western researchers to take note.

I think eventually, socionics will be researched scientifically. We need to take the burden of developing that science because we know the theory and can make the most fair experiments. I fear an unfair scientific rejection of socionics that gets popular momentum and prevents future research (like if socionics was judged based only on dichotomies rather than analytic Model A).

[Singu]

Please, for the love of God, get real. The reason why the mainstream scientists aren't interested in Socionics, let alone MBTI, is because the whole thing is just a bunch of fucking nonsense. It's like asking the scientists to become interested in astrology. Sure they can look into it, but it can be shown that it has nothing in it.

If you want to somehow write scientific papers on Socionics or something, then do it. It'll only be laughed off and not be taken seriously (and no, that's because the scientists are so unfair and secretly there's something to Socionics but they just don't know it or admit it). Anyway just do it instead of talking about it and circlejerking on this forum.

It's like as if you just want the "authority" of science to give Socionics a sign of approval, but you're not actually interested in it for the sake of the search for the truth. Because that also means giving up something that doesn't work.

[Lao Tzunami]

... If you're addressing this thread to adherents of existing models then you would be asking people inside the box to help tear it down; it isn't going to happen. Adherents won't likely give credence to those who propose that the current models aren't actually functional models...

I very much disagree. I think the fact there are so many approaches and models of socionics demonstrates a creative spirit that is actively questioning things and trying to make it better. For the record, I think model A works very well, but the problem is there is no objective standard and no empirical trials, which is why the socionics community seems to be fracturing into different schools of thought. We need a way to allow this creative investigation while not harming the integrity of the core of what works or the consensus of the community.

You may find many critics and some trolls on this site, but few, if any at all, who are actually willing and able to scientifically advance...

Unfortunately, that is sort of what I expect, but still worth a shot. I've made a few friend who are actually helping out with what needs to be done, who I really appreciate, and you never know where the next person might come from.

[Rebelondeck]

I very much disagree. I think the fact there are so many approaches and models of socionics demonstrates a creative spirit that is actively questioning things and trying to make it better. For the record, I think model A works very well, but the problem is there is no objective standard and no empirical trials, which is why the socionics community seems to be fracturing into different schools of thought. We need a way to allow this creative investigation while not harming the integrity of the core of what works or the consensus of the community........

Unfortunately, all the creative spirits seem to have produced classification models from very similar perspectives that won't produce plausible information-processing structures; and the proponents of each model searches for proof that their database is superior. The first ingredient in a rabbit stew is a rabbit, and Socionics doesn't have a valid model; it only has data showing that one must exist. I think Socionics has to push the observers aside and hire a control-system specialist such as one with an AI background......

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

Unfortunately, all the creative spirits seem to have produced classification models from very similar perspectives that won't produce plausible information-processing structures; and the proponents of each model searches for proof that their database is superior. The first ingredient in a rabbit stew is a rabbit, and Socionics doesn't have a valid model; it only has data showing that one must exist. I think Socionics has to push the observers aside and hire a control-system specialist such as one with an AI background......

a.k.a. I/O

Are you volunteering? The pay is abysmal, but the opportunity for glory is unlimited.

[Rebelondeck]

Are you volunteering? The pay is abysmal, but the opportunity for glory is unlimited.

I'm too old and cynical to convince others of anything - and INTj on top of that......

a.k.a. I/O

[The Reality Denialist]

Once you've mastered model A, I agree that learning other perspectives in socionics is a good thing and you can learn a lot.

The problem is when two schools of thought don't agree, like when Gulenko types Donald Trump as SEE using his energy model, but Jack from WSS types him SLE using model A. Does this mean one model is right and one is wrong, that they are different theories and are both right in the context of their own model, or that there is no definitive type? I think we've done a good job (as a community) to say the MBTI does not translate well to socionics. Is that also true between different schools of socionics? What if someone types themselves with the Reinin dichotomies, can you trust that? These are all questions we can speculate about, but I think we'll only get answers if we test it.

If you are familiar with statistics, there is something called a T test, which determines if two data sets have significant enough means to not be the same. I think we need something like that for socionics: if you get evaluated by school X, and then you want to read descriptions by school Y, can you assume you can use your diagnosis from X?

As I hinted: I do not believe in any of the models. I do not believe in gravity either.

[Lao Tzunami]

Unfortunately, all the creative spirits seem to have produced classification models from very similar perspectives that won't produce plausible information-processing structures...

But the purpose of socionics is to complete the classification of Jung's psychological types. Socionics has cybernetic aspects, but it was never designed to be a working cybernetic model, even if people like Gulenko later tried to make it like that.

As I hinted: I do not believe in any of the models. I do not believe in gravity either.

Well assuming you're not crazy, you're just debating semantics. If you can walk, you believe in gravity in action, which is all that really matters.

[Singu]

I very much disagree. I think the fact there are so many approaches and models of socionics demonstrates a creative spirit that is actively questioning things and trying to make it better. For the record, I think model A works very well, but the problem is there is no objective standard and no empirical trials, which is why the socionics community seems to be fracturing into different schools of thought. We need a way to allow this creative investigation while not harming the integrity of the core of what works or the consensus of the community.

Unfortunately, all the creative spirits seem to have produced classification models from very similar perspectives that won't produce plausible information-processing structures; and the proponents of each model searches for proof that their database is superior. The first ingredient in a rabbit stew is a rabbit, and Socionics doesn't have a valid model; it only has data showing that one must exist. I think Socionics has to push the observers aside and hire a control-system specialist such as one with an AI background......

a.k.a. I/O

It seems that some people tend to think that as long as there's some sort of an "objective standard" that could be imposed upon, then everything would no longer be fragmented and everything would magically work. It's like waiting for a fabled x-ray machine that could finally somehow scan peoples' brain to objectively know what type they are.

But they're forgetting that you actually need to come up with the explanation for what makes something a type, and how in the first place.

[Lao Tzunami]

If you want people to help you make socionics scientific the16types is not the best place.

If people here are not willing to solve the conflict, they should stop complaining. The negativity is repelling a lot of good people.

[consentingadult]

....there is a whole academic field devoted to it in the old USSR area...

From what I have seen, this "whole academic field" you are talking about, would be discarded as a bunch a pseudo-scientists by social and behavioral scientists in western academics.

Apart from all that, I do not want any more people to know about Socionics. This knowledge I have, is giving me a distinct advantage, I believe.

[Rebelondeck]

But the purpose of socionics is to complete the classification of Jung's psychological types.......

There's been sufficient observations and classifications; we need to stop rearranging what is already known and find out what really produces it. Repetitive observations of apples falling from trees won't produce a definition for gravity; it requires just one observation by the right person.......

a.k.a. I/O

[Skepsis]

There are too many variables in socionics which cannot be controlled for. You have to be able to control for an observation. To do that you have to have a standard. There is no standard for a cognitive function. It is a description of numerous things(process, traits, tendencies, etc) rolled into a generalized description which is dependent on the language being used. They vary from model to model, from typology to typology.

One of the reasons socionics is not accepted is that there are other models with better explanatory power and are more scientific. I have pointed out for years that at best, socionics is a tool for one's personal development up to a certain point. It becomes useless when trying to extend beyond one's personal use because it collapses. All you can have is numerous groups that see the cognitive functions and types in a particular manner. They may all agree among themselves that the people they type are all good representations of their respective types. However, other people do not see it the same way. They interpret what people say differently, they see a different cognitive function hierarchy. They aren't going to agree on the same set of types. There isn't a good solution to these perspectivistic problems, which are also very philosophical problems.

I think what is going on beneath the surface is that everyone sees everyone else as being either stronger, weaker, or relatively the same in certain dimensions. You have to look at where you are on each spectrum: T vs F and N vs S, and I would even add P vs J. If you have a very high preference for T, like Sol, then almost everyone else you meet will likely have less T and therefore will appear F. Since most people prefer a mixture of T and F, and test somewhere in the middle, it is in actuality a minority of people who are exclusively T or F. This is basic statics. These people will see things differently than those with a more hetergeneous distribution. It is like in American politics: The far right sees even the moderates as liberals, which is a perspective problem.

There is no doubt that some people appear and are more(or less) on the sliding scales. This is how each of us forms a conception of a type. This makes types appear in our personal life in a more localized way. On the internet there are people who can draw out contrasts more. In real life, you may be the "analyst" type, but some random person on the internet insists you are a feeling type. This is because one person sees less of a dimension as being significantly different in kind, which makes types appear different on a globalized scale. This is like someone playing basketball at the local gym and being really good. They are told by everyone to move up into a minor league. The players on the league think this person sucks and shuns them. Does this make them not a basketball player? The minor league players suck compared to the Pros, who scoff at their lack of innate ability. Are the minors less of a basketball player?

[Lao Tzunami]

From what I have seen, this "whole academic field" you are talking about, would be discarded as a bunch a pseudo-scientists by social and behavioral scientists in western academics...

Exactly in 2 way. First, socionics is not scientific, and will be dismissed by intellectual authorities in the west unless it can demonstrate objective results. There is a lot of work to do. But second, there are a lot of smart people who are invested in socionics who might be willing to do the work if the standards and process is made clear. I've been especially impressed with the people in St. Petersburg, who seem to be serious researchers.

There's been sufficient observations and classifications; we need to stop rearranging what is already known and find out what really produces it...

Yeah, I think the structure of socionics is already really well thought out. The only last step is formalizing the abstract combinations into system that can handle and compare empirical observations, which will probably be a vector or Clifford space. That's what the socionics math group on FB is trying to accomplish. Once that is done, the investigative energy can be directed to observable human behavior, which is the base of Jungian typology (his observations of his patients), and thus socionics. Not that the rationalistic exploration should stop, I just think socionics is unbalanced towards the theory direction and we need to start grounding new theory in reality.

Also great points @Nebula! I'm going to think it through and respond in a separate post.

[Singu]

No amount of any more observations of the falling of an apple is going to produce an explanation for gravity.

No amount of any more of "empirical evidence" for the apple falling is going to advance anything any further.

While gravity is something that must objectively exist, the explanation for it must come out of thin air, to be produced by some creative mind due his imagination, because it's something that we've never seen before. It's a totally new explanation that never existed before. You also can't obviously "see" gravity, because it's an explanation and it's not something observable. It can only be "seen" indirectly through something else.

And that's exactly what Newton did. While he was a brilliant mathematician, he also had a brilliantly creative mind that allowed him to find the path to calculate the mathematics of gravity.

[Chakram]

Right now, I'm trying to figure out a universal mathematical space that can record empirical observation of any approach. I think I'm close to finishing that. When I do, I want to make statistical tests specifically for socionics that can calculate the strengths of theoretical structural correlations in practice.

I'm just curious as to what you mean exactly by this, as the language used doesn't explicitly detail it.

A mathematical link between the different socionics systems used, trying to discern which is the most accurate?

Or using math to link behaviors together to determine where people fit?

I personally don't think that math is capable of describing the way humans will think or react to situations (so I'm assuming this is not what you mean), as can be shown in economics and how much of a crap shoot it tends to be all variables considered.

[Sol]

experimental proof is needed

If you have a very high preference for T, like Sol, then almost everyone else you meet will likely have less T and therefore will appear F.

I have the type with base T function and you may notice the effects of this.

To type I take into account _both_ sides - how much a human expresses T and F and choose what he expresses _more_ (but not worse/better than me), to T or F types descriptions the one is closer. Also I type mostly by nonverbal (and which I need to be sure in the type, in general) where I can't evaluate the quality of logical thinking.

I may notice your logical issues, naiveness in logical themes more than expect from _average_ T types and such to assume your F type. If I also see significantly higher than average for T types emotionality then I get higher assurance in your F type.
Just to be more dumb and also more emotional is not enough to be typed to F type.

[Skepsis]

experimental proof is needed



I have the type with base T function and you may notice the effects of this.

To type I take into account _both_ sides - how much a human expresses T and F and choose what he expresses _more_ (but not worse/better than me), to T or F types descriptions the one is closer. Also I type mostly by nonverbal (and which I need to be sure in the type, in general) where I can't evaluate the quality of logical thinking.

I may notice your logical issues, naiveness in logical themes more than expect from _average_ T types and such to assume your F type. If I also see significantly higher than average for T types emotionality then I get higher assurance in your F type.
Just to be more dumb and also more emotional is not enough to be typed to F type.

I'm not sure which logical fallacies you are referring to, but I definitely come across as a logical type to most people, especially in real life. Thinking and feeling aren't mutually exclusive. It really is a false dichotomy. You can be logical and have an emotionality. You can value logic and relations with other human beings. I am a scientist and an artist. It is how my brain works. The largest discrepancy is between my N and S. They don't even come close. As I've been told throughout my life, I live in my mind, my own inner world.

You also make numerous logical fallacies. Most people do outside having a phD in formal logic. I'm always looking to improve upon it, but I am not interested in strictly logical concepts.

[The Reality Denialist]

I'm not sure which logical fallacies you are referring to, but I definitely come across as a logical type to most people, especially in real life. Thinking and feeling aren't mutually exclusive. It really is a false dichotomy. You can be logical and have an emotionality. You can value logic and relations with other human beings. I am a scientist and an artist. It is how my brain works. The largest discrepancy is between my N and S. They don't even come close. As I've been told throughout my life, I live in my mind, my own inner world.

You also make numerous logical fallacies. Most people do outside having a phD in formal logic. I'm always looking to improve upon it, but I am not interested in strictly logical concepts.

In set of solsionics axioms there is only strong and weak (rigidly so). According to this axiom there would be no introtims or extrotims because we can not any longer define boundaries between those. This also makes it clear that there are only 4 types: NT, ST, NF, SF.

Anyways, Big 5 inserts emotionality to openness to experience which is also separate from extraversion.

See the facets
https://www.ets.org/s/workforce_read...1332_big_5.pdf

Jung didn't include it in any of his types.


Sol is right when he noticed it me. I'm OK to be F type in solsionics.

[Kill4Me]

Let's remember that Echidna1000/JackOliverAaron used to be a regular member and self-described sociopath in the Antisocial Personality Disorder Sub-Forum at Psychforums.Com . In fact, it would not be beyond Jack to create a dupe account on this forum for the sole purpose of creating threads to APE up BSS, himself, and his little mantra against subtypes and VI. The fact that Jack has discarded both VI and subtypes fits into his overall pattern of treating Socionics like a game that he can profit from. Donald Trump was typed SLE by individuals on this board, including myself, long before Jack learned that typing of Trump from this board. Ultimately, bullshit-Socionics-Society is not the place to learn about socionics and Jack is not the person to learn it from. Don't anybody give him or anyone else a dime of your money.

The idea that there is a disconnect in methodology between Jung/Socionics and what goes on in mainstream social sciences is a total strawman. Validation in personality/cognition theory comes about primarily through clinical data. Jung was an intellectually rigorous researcher and practicing psychiatrist. He formulated his functions out of mountains of clinical data. A lot of stuff in the mainstream is also validated through clinical data. Clinical data is the primary tool neurologists use when they diagnose several conditions involving nerves of the face, for example. The DSM disorders haven't been scientifically validated by any scientifically designed cause-effect experiment. The DSM disorders, like the Jungian functions that form the basis for Model A, are derived from clinical data. This is the nature of the beast in social science. So don't go condemning socionics without condemning everything else in the mainstream that has not been proven by a scientific cause-effect experiment.

The Enneagram and Socionics are the two most powerful typologies in so far as explanatory power goes when used in combination. You don't come out with too many loose ends. Take somebody like Napoleon. The enneagram has the most explanatory power in so far as Napoleon's behavior goes, and Socionics has the most explanatory power in so far as Napoleon's cognition goes. The Big Five, for example, can't adequately account for Napoleon's contradictions, maneuvers, drives, obsessions, talents, weaknesses, layers.

As far as science validating socionics through some cause-effect experiment, the first problem is the effect that experiments have on people's behavior when they know they are part of an experiment. The only real way to successfully run a cause-effect experiment is to make it so the participants don't know that an experiment is going on. Of course, that runs into all sorts of ridiculous human rights issues thanks to BF Skinner, so science could never conduct such a project. The other problem is that the scientists running the experiment likely won't know his ass from his elbow about Socionics well enough to run such an experiment. They will just have a basic understanding.

VI is currently the most valid indicator of type because it points to a realistic physical basis for its groupings. If typings aren't based in an objective measure like VI, then they are just simply based in a highly impressionistic methodology, not naturalism/realism. Typings based upon the ruminations of a diagnostic team only reinforce the bad habits of heightened subjective impressionism. The scientific approach can realistically validate socionics because VI gives a basis for making inferences about a person's cognitive markers. So the first step was to crack the VI for every socionics type and subtype, and then determine whether accurate predictions could be made about people who fit into the VI.

Ultimately, if you need the field of science to validate socionics for you, then you don't know the theory well enough to validate it on your own. I mean, yeah, we know that Jack would very much like for science to validate socionics. He can use that as one of his selling points and even up his price tag on those joke interviews. There are people out there who will follow anything that scientists puts its stamp of approval on. But if you are capable of independent thinking, not an opportunist looking to profit off socionics, then learn the theory yourself and do your own observations and cause-effect experiments on the people around you to determine whether its worth its salt.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The West need to pair with the East in order to define Socionics via something like IPIP. If Socionics is to get any credibility, it needs to be shown to be superior to other systems of boxing people, which from a Socionics perspective would probably involve proving that duality relationships are the least harmful.

I don't think inconsistency in typing people is such a problem if people are typed via self-reporting on some good test. A large sample size may only really be possible via some Facebook group endeavours, rather than through a stale forum population.

[Singu]

The DSM disorders haven't been scientifically validated by any scientifically designed cause-effect experiment. The DSM disorders, like the Jungian functions that form the basis for Model A, are derived from clinical data. This is the nature of the beast in social science. So don't go condemning socionics without condemning everything else in the mainstream that has not been proven by a scientific cause-effect experiment.

I don't think the DSM isn't based on cause-effect mechanisms. It's saying that the causes are either environmental, genetic or cognitive. If they're not based on causality, then no treatment would be possible and everything would be pointless. That's why clinical psychologists try to cure DSM disorders by cognitive-behavioral therapy. If we could find out the genetic or neurological causes, then we can cure them that way.

The problem with Socionics and other "personality theories" is that it just says that the current observation will stay the same and will always remain the same in the future. So if you're this way, then you will always remain the same, no matter what. There are no causes, no nothing. You are forever that way, apparently.

If you're going to say something like "Duals cure diseases", then that's just correlation, not causation. There's no explanation for the mechanism of why and how should duals cure diseases.

[Skepsis]

Let's remember that Echidna1000/JackOliverAaron used to be a regular member and self-described sociopath in the Antisocial Personality Disorder Sub-Forum at Psychforums.Com . In fact, it would not be beyond Jack to create a dupe account on this forum for the sole purpose of creating threads to APE up BSS, himself, and his little mantra against subtypes and VI. The fact that Jack has discarded both VI and subtypes fits into his overall pattern of treating Socionics like a game that he can profit from. Donald Trump was typed SLE by individuals on this board, including myself, long before Jack learned that typing of Trump from this board. Ultimately, bullshit-Socionics-Society is not the place to learn about socionics and Jack is not the person to learn it from. Don't anybody give him or anyone else a dime of your money.

The idea that there is a disconnect in methodology between Jung/Socionics and what goes on in mainstream social sciences is a total strawman. Validation in personality/cognition theory comes about primarily through clinical data. Jung was an intellectually rigorous researcher and practicing psychiatrist. He formulated his functions out of mountains of clinical data. A lot of stuff in the mainstream is also validated through clinical data. Clinical data is the primary tool neurologists use when they diagnose several conditions involving nerves of the face, for example. The DSM disorders haven't been scientifically validated by any scientifically designed cause-effect experiment. The DSM disorders, like the Jungian functions that form the basis for Model A, are derived from clinical data. This is the nature of the beast in social science. So don't go condemning socionics without condemning everything else in the mainstream that has not been proven by a scientific cause-effect experiment.

The Enneagram and Socionics are the two most powerful typologies in so far as explanatory power goes when used in combination. You don't come out with too many loose ends. Take somebody like Napoleon. The enneagram has the most explanatory power in so far as Napoleon's behavior goes, and Socionics has the most explanatory power in so far as Napoleon's cognition goes. The Big Five, for example, can't adequately account for Napoleon's contradictions, maneuvers, drives, obsessions, talents, weaknesses, layers.

As far as science validating socionics through some cause-effect experiment, the first problem is the effect that experiments have on people's behavior when they know they are part of an experiment. The only real way to successfully run a cause-effect experiment is to make it so the participants don't know that an experiment is going on. Of course, that runs into all sorts of ridiculous human rights issues thanks to BF Skinner, so science could never conduct such a project. The other problem is that the scientists running the experiment likely won't know his ass from his elbow about Socionics well enough to run such an experiment. They will just have a basic understanding.

VI is currently the most valid indicator of type because it points to a realistic physical basis for its groupings. If typings aren't based in an objective measure like VI, then they are just simply based in a highly impressionistic methodology, not naturalism/realism. Typings based upon the ruminations of a diagnostic team only reinforce the bad habits of heightened subjective impressionism. The scientific approach can realistically validate socionics because VI gives a basis for making inferences about a person's cognitive markers. So the first step was to crack the VI for every socionics type and subtype, and then determine whether accurate predictions could be made about people who fit into the VI.

Ultimately, if you need the field of science to validate socionics for you, then you don't know the theory well enough to validate it on your own. I mean, yeah, we know that Jack would very much like for science to validate socionics. He can use that as one of his selling points and even up his price tag on those joke interviews. There are people out there who will follow anything that scientists puts its stamp of approval on. But if you are capable of independent thinking, not an opportunist looking to profit off socionics, then learn the theory yourself and do your own observations and cause-effect experiments on the people around you to determine whether its worth its salt.

Jack seems very much like a scam artist.

[Desert Financial]

Jack seems very much like a scam artist.

I agree. There's a Youtube video of him answering Socionics questions and many times he bullshitted the answers. His eyes darted to his right, like people do when they use their imagination, as opposed to their recall. In other words, his body language suggested that he was fabricating certain answers that were stated as fact.

Take this with a grain of salt, if you wish. But yeah, as if the sociopath comment wasn't enough, along with the weird vibes he gives off.

[Singu]

When people try to make a "business" out of Socionics, Socionics is obscure and esoteric enough to say just about any unsubstantiated bullshit and get away with it. It's no different than using any other shady theories and pseudoscience.

So of course there comes some shady people to take advantage of the naive and the gullible. And I think that also includes Gulenko.

[sbbds]

I don't think the DSM isn't based on cause-effect mechanisms. It's saying that the causes are either environmental, genetic or cognitive. If they're not based on causality, then no treatment would be possible and everything would be pointless. That's why clinical psychologists try to cure DSM disorders by cognitive-behavioral therapy. If we could find out the genetic or neurological causes, then we can cure them that way.

The problem with Socionics and other "personality theories" is that it just says that the current observation will stay the same and will always remain the same in the future. So if you're this way, then you will always remain the same, no matter what. There are no causes, no nothing. You are forever that way, apparently.

If you're going to say something like "Duals cure diseases", then that's just correlation, not causation. There's no explanation for the mechanism of why and how should duals cure diseases.

The DSM, and mainstream physical medical knowledge is filled with plenty of disorders with no clear known causes too though.

Science does have plenty of validated discoveries in it that don’t include clear causes or explanations. The purpose is science is not necessarily to explain actually. Mostly it’s to describe. First you need to do that— describe and record accurately, before you can begin to dig deeper for causes and explanations, but Socionics doesn’t have clean solid well-presented descriptions of concrete things that everyone can see and agree on yet, and it doesn’t have any prestige either currently, so that’s why nothing is happening and it doesn’t get recognized.

[Singu]

Yes, but at least they have various hypotheses for their causes. Again, if there's no cause, then treatment would be impossible and everything would be pointless.

So, the stereotype of science is that you carefully observe things and record them as meticulously as possible. The person who can record things as accurately as possible is the most "scientific" one. That is of course important, but that's not the whole of science, because science is actually about coming up with hypotheses, and then testing them. And that hypothesis should obviously something that nobody has ever thought of it yet.

Socionics doesn’t have clean solid well-presented descriptions of concrete things that everyone can see and agree on yet, and it doesn’t have any prestige either currently, so that’s why nothing is happening and it doesn’t get recognized.

So how do we come up with something that everyone can agree on? Everyone is battling over who has the bestest, the most accurate and the most objective observation or data.

Like Rebelondeck has already said, we already have plenty of observations. Saying who can come up with the most objective observation of an apple falling, or whether the apple really fell or not, or even if it exists at all, does not produce an explanation for gravity.

So what Newton did was he simply said that the apple must "fall", because objects are attracted to each other. And there is some mathematical working behind it. It's as simple as that, and it seems to be rational. So he hypothesized that and many people seem to have agreed, and he wasn't proven wrong for a long time, he accurately predicted many things, until Einstein came up with an even better explanation for gravity.

Nobody before Newton had ever said that there must be gravity because objects are attracted to each other. And this is not even based on any kind of observations, since explanations are not observations.

--

So why Socionics is not "science" is because it lacks explanations, and science is all about explaining the mechanisms of how things work. At best, it's correlation, which is again, science is careful to point out that correlation is not causation.

[Desert Financial]

@Kill4Me say what you will about how the Big 5 isn't as descriptive or embellished as Socionics, the test measures the traits with far more reliable results than either the MBTI or Socionics tests. I've tested as a shit ton of MBTI/Socionics types, but IRCC, only 1 trait in my Big 5 score has reached the opposite location on the spectrum. It didn't even move very far. And I've taken the Big 5 several times since ~2010 during a variety of life phases.

[sbbds]

@Singu You can’t do higher level stuff without first covering the basics. The goal is to be able to find explanations and use discoveries to help understand life more and to solve real world problems, but you can’t create theories and explain things if you can’t accurately describe and have the means to reliably record your observations in the first place.

That’s why when science is being taught, you don’t teach lab design first. You give students pre-made experiments with hypotheses already in there, so that they will understand the process of how information is verified and the standards of what is considered reliable sources of data. Proper data analysis is also taught before lab design. Cognitive and softer sciences all use these exact same methods. Socionics does not.

[sbbds]

@ajsindri Please read my post above. FWIW what you’re proposing now is not really science in a way that will really lead to any developments, because it’s just math.