Socionics Causes Pain

[Desert Financial]

This is a chair with two legs:

Passive_behaviours_by_Benoit_Malta_dezeen_sq.jpg

This is a chair without a seat:

MirandaBefore.jpg


I am aware that you set a criteria for a chair in order to prove a point. I am not taking it literally. I think this is a good definition of a chair. I gave an example about chairs to keep it simple. I gave these two examples of chair to point out that it is hard to set a strict criteria even for simple things, although, it doesn't prevent us from defining objects by using the same labels even they don't exactly fit to their given set of criteria.

We categorize and label everything according to our past observations. Logical equation can be proved easily without any observation, such as if p is True and q is True, then p v q is True. Other than that, every experimental testing or science experiment is based on past observations. If I am wrong, please give me an example. Personality models/structures are also going to be based on past observations.


I agree that "pieces of furniture are more easily defined as having static properties". Open systems or circuits also have a inner mechanism. We and even some machines to some degree can also understand the inner mechanism of open systems, therefore, we and some machines (to some degree) can predict the future outcomes of an open systems, you can find related articles online, I can find them if you couldn't. Once the inner mechanism is understood, the output of the system can be predicted by its given input.

I agree that once the inner mechanism is understood, the output of a system can be predicted. It's not my prerogative to say otherwise; I'm a determinist and I think a disagreement on my part would largely depreciate the veracity of the scientific method in that truly scientific explanations possess predictive power. My criticism is that Socionics fails to reliably predict outputs because it doesn't precisely nail down the determining factors in its explanation for how cognition works. For example, it's not fair to strictly compare ITR it to compatibility between computer programs because we can reverse engineer computer programs or look at the source code to analyze the 1's and 0's, making an easy assessment of how two computer programs should work together in a sandbox environment. And we have an explanation for how the computer and the software work based on every nook and cranny of the computer we've accounted for, so we can reliably predict how a computer will function in a controlled setting. In contrast, Socionics is messier, and more recent additions to Socionics, such as DNCH and Gulenko's work have only cast doubt on Model A's capacity to reliably predict ITR as well as we can predict computer programs operating together. One way or another, Socionics doesn't take account of every governing mechanism of a human being, so it can't make predictions with as much certainty as hard scientific explanations. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that, for example, a complete psychopath and a person of their dual type will form a relationship of mutual understanding, since psychopaths lack empathy. Can psychopaths even be typed? Another area of scrutiny in that if some people can't even be typed because they lack certain functions, Socionics isn't universally applicable.

Re: the chair thing - Let's be honest, those aren't really chairs.

[myresearch]

I agree that once the inner mechanism is understood, the output of a system can be predicted. It's not my prerogative to say otherwise; I'm a determinist and I think a disagreement on my part would largely depreciate the veracity of the scientific method in that truly scientific explanations possess predictive power. My criticism is that Socionics fails to reliably predict outputs because it doesn't precisely nail down the determining factors in its explanation for how cognition works. For example, it's not fair to strictly compare ITR it to compatibility between computer programs because we can reverse engineer computer programs or look at the source code to analyze the 1's and 0's, making an easy assessment of how two computer programs should work together in a sandbox environment. And we have an explanation for how the computer and the software work based on every nook and cranny of the computer we've accounted for, so we can reliably predict how a computer will function in a controlled setting. In contrast, Socionics is messier, and more recent additions to Socionics, such as DNCH and Gulenko's work have only cast doubt on Model A's capacity to reliably predict ITR as well as we can predict computer programs operating together. One way or another, Socionics doesn't take account of every governing mechanism of a human being, so it can't make predictions with as much certainty as hard scientific explanations. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that, for example, a complete psychopath and a person of their dual type will form a relationship of mutual understanding, since psychopaths lack empathy. Can psychopaths even be typed? Another area of scrutiny in that if some people can't even be typed because they lack certain functions, Socionics isn't universally applicable.

Re: the chair thing - Let's be honest, those aren't really chairs.

I think recent additions doesn't cast a doubt, in my opinion, it lifts some doubt. That's why I asked what you think about observations of implications changing the content of socionics. As you can understand, I see socionics is a start point that we can develop or modify things according to our understanding of it. I don't think people who have extreme personality disorders such as psychopathy could be typed. They are operating on another dimension in my point of view. I think people's general state of mental health is very important, it can be more important than ITR.

PS: I typed them as chairs

[Desert Financial]

I think recent additions doesn't cast a doubt, in my opinion, it lifts some doubt. That's why I asked what you think about observations of implications changing the content of socionics. As you can understand, I see socionics is a start point that we can develop or modify things according to our understanding of it. I don't think people who have extreme personality disorders such as psychopathy could be typed. They are operating on another dimension in my point of view. I think people's general state of mental health is very important, it can be more important than ITR.

Recent additions cast doubt on Model A in that if there are subtypes, then it means that what's depicted as "conscious" or "high dimensionality" in Model A are dubious at best and completely false at worse. For example, an LIE - N shouldn't have "1-D" Fi or "1-D" Ti, as Model A claims.

Ah, so you tacitly admit that Socionics isn't universal in saying that psychopaths can't be typed.

PS: I typed them as chairs

Lol. Fake chair alert!

[myresearch]

Recent additions cast doubt on Model A in that if there are subtypes, then it means that what's depicted as "conscious" or "high dimensionality" in Model A are dubious at best and completely false at worse. For example, an LIE - N shouldn't have "1-D" Fi or "1-D" Ti, as Model A claims.

I think DCHN and subtypes refer the strength of IE not its dimensions, I can be wrong about this, however, I couldn't find any article that suggest the otherwise.

Ah, so you tacitly admit that Socionics isn't universal in saying that psychopaths can't be typed.

Maybe I am, maybe I am just saying that Socionics needs an extreme psychological disorders patch. I don't have a clear opinion about this topic.

[Desert Financial]

I think DCHN and subtypes refer the strength of IE not its dimensions, I can be wrong about this, however, I couldn't find any article that suggest the otherwise.

Strength and dimensionality are the same thing.

Maybe I am, maybe I am just saying that Socionics needs an extreme psychological disorders patch. I don't have a clear opinion about this topic.

We'll see what happens.

[myresearch]

Strength and dimensionality are the same thing.

I visualize dimensions as vector directions and strength as vector magnitudes.

The-four-voices-span-up-a-four-dimensional-vector-space-of-description-in-analogy-to-a.png

[myresearch]

Are you banging your against the wall because you are not telepathic? it is ok because I am also not.

[Raver]

I think recent additions doesn't cast a doubt, in my opinion, it lifts some doubt. That's why I asked what you think about observations of implications changing the content of socionics. As you can understand, I see socionics is a start point that we can develop or modify things according to our understanding of it. I don't think people who have extreme personality disorders such as psychopathy could be typed. They are operating on another dimension in my point of view. I think people's general state of mental health is very important, it can be more important than ITR.

PS: I typed them as chairs

I sort of agree with you on this, but not completely in that I think extreme personality disorders can warp personality type. For instance, I do think psychopaths can be typed, but the psychopathic version of that type is very different than the normal version of that type. So if you get a psychopathic SLI and a normal SLI then they will behave very differently and think very differently, but they will both be SLI. So Socionics somehow manages to fit two very different people into the same type and this is the problem with Socionics, you can fit a lot of different people into each of the 16 boxes.

Let's just say without getting into too much detail that from personal experience I get along a lot better with the normal SLIs than the psychopathic SLIs for obvious reasons. Since it's been brought up, this is how believing Socionics blindly is dangerous because you don't want to get into a relationship with your dual if they happen to have an extreme personality disorder like psychopathy if you are not psychopathic yourself or have something that can get along with it. Since it will take someone of a compatible mindset, not necessarily the same to get along with them.

Socionics only covers how we interact with other people and the environment around us, but it completely ignores other aspects that can affect our personality and how we interact with others like empathy, general intelligence, social intelligence, personality disorders and the list goes on really. These non-Socionoics factors also have an ITR of their own like certain personality disorders getting along better with other personality disorders. So when you are interacting with others, these non-Socionics factors should have equal if not greater value than Socionics type since Socionics type merely covers one aspect of a person's personality and how they relate to others.

[myresearch]

I sort of agree with you on this, but not completely in that I think extreme personality disorders can warp personality type. For instance, I do think psychopaths can be typed, but the psychopathic version of that type is very different than the normal version of that type. So if you get a psychopathic SLI and a normal SLI then they will behave very differently and think very differently, but they will both be SLI. So Socionics somehow manages to fit two very different people into the same type and this is the problem with Socionics, you can fit a lot of different people into each of the 16 boxes.

You can be right, I am not sure but I have trouble identifying people who have severe personality disorders. The brain structure of people who suffer from anti-social personality disorder or extreme narcissism, have similarities. Maybe that structure can warp a personality type like you suggest. I am not sure how that would manifest. For example, psychopaths who have different types and similar level of general intelligence, social intelligence and impulsivity, can seem more similar to each other than the healthy version of their type. The structure of their brain that causes the disorder seems like its overriding their own personality. I agree with the rest of your post, "non-Socionoics factors also have an ITR of their own" as you put it.

[Beautiful sky]

@Eliza Thomason supervisee SEE with LSI? Let me know how that plays out

[Eliza Thomason]

@Eliza Thomason supervisee SEE with LSI? Let me know how that plays out

Yes, I am sure of the types, so, also being sure of Socionics intertype relations, I am the sole one who seems to worry about this for her. But there are those two factors - 1) she has lived all her life trying to please LSI Mom (who is not prone to giving her the verbal approval she hopes for) and her only sibling (brother) is also LSI (which is a good relationship, except when she is accusing him of being a socially reclusive or inept, but i think he feels fine (and is) the way he is... he is not unapproachable - he just doesn't talk unless he feels he has something worthwhile to say!). Also there is 2) she use her medical marijuana prescription to chase away blues or anxiety, whc. is not a wise choice for her IMO (particularly because she is a recovering/recovered member of N.A.) but it's not my call. She reports that is working for her, and also she reports to all (and also on FB) that she is VERY happy w/ her LSI guy. From what my husband and I can see, he is hardworking guy trying to make a stable family and succeeding at it. I was the only one to over hear him saying to her, "I wouldn't be with you if you didn't have kids," said in jest, but i knew it would sting her, and her brief response showed that, I almost said, "Wow, that's not nice for a girl to hear." and then I realized it might be better for her dignity to pretend I didn't hear, so I did that. And since I did not hear the previous words they were having (no rancor), it occurred to me that she might have been jesting/insulting him and he might have just been giving it back to her, so, best to ignore anyway.