Thread split: is Socionics a religion?
Serious red flag, right there. She's trying to create a religion, not a genuine theory that is at heart forever tentative knowledge and never absolute.Originally Posted by Augusta
This is the root of all Sol-ism that is present in this community.
No wonder that Socionics is so cult-like, because it has the tradition of trying to make it "completely proved and irrefutable". The end result is a kind of a religion or a cult that does not accept any criticisms, and therefore it cannot be improved.
Both Jung and Augusta were Inductivists and Empiricists thorough and thorough, and also a kind of a Logical Positivist. And that's why Socionics is a hopelessly flawed system. We all now know that both Inductivism and Empiricism are completely and utterly wrong and flawed.
It's kind of ironic that the criticisms against the criticism directed towards Socionics is usually something like "Empiricism" and "Logical Positivism", when Socionics is rooted in a kind of Empiricism and Logical Positivism.
This is purely your opinion. I hope you realize that some day. It's a pity that you spend very little time criticising your own position. Your dismissal of any viewpoint that is different than your own is honestly comical.
Also, this is not an attack on your character, but what kind of work do you do? What is your expertise, and what kind of break through did you make to speak with an air of superiority on this subject? I'm curious because you have yet to prove that what you are saying is of any use. And please try to be objective and not attribute the achievements of science or another person to support your own views because I'm not buying any of it. Your association to science is suspect.
These are all words of Jung and Augusta. Are you honestly saying that there's anything rational about "generalizing empirical observations", and then simply leaving at that, as if the only logical conclusion to that is to expect the current observation to stay the same in the future? That can't be rational, because the future is different from the past.
You try to appeal to authority, but you do very little thinking of your own.
I don't care about what they said. I criticised your position on Inductivism and Empiricism. Answer the questions.
Well... I don't see socionics as an especially scientifically validated theory to begin with. But empiricism automatically discounts that which you cannot observe via the senses, and this is a limitation. That doesn't mean empiricism isn't useful. But to say it's "purely an opinion" that this has its limitations is simply not correct, it has a limitation. And the scientific method... well, it's progressive and founded on skepticism, it's incomplete by definition. It's limited by definition. It's also incapable of assessing ethical claims or claims about the fundamental nature of will, cognition, or deeply metaphysical or philosophical claims (like ideas about how the universe began). And it also requires that things be reproducible which... some things simply are not reproducible. So... it's really not an opinion - science and empiricism have limitations.
This is actually built into the scientific method though - you never arrive at a position of absolute certainty in science. I'm not really sure why you are associating science with "positivism". Empiricism in science is just considered a useful starting point for progressing knowledge. The empirical observation is not considered positive in a universal sense. The observation is treated like a positive fact within the experiment but that's just so the experiment can be conducted, there's always skepticism of the results. Everything - even your very senses - we must remain skeptical about. Even your sense awareness is subject to skepticism: what if the mechanism of perception changed or was limited? So...
I suppose I just don't see your argument as a criticism of science, more of a criticism of those pseudo-intellectuals that presume science is something that it isn't.
Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 03-27-2019 at 06:15 AM.
I...I don't even know how you could possibly think this. It's just flat-out wrong. Augusta and Jung employed empirical observation but they were both very much open to non-empirical ways of thinking.
What's more, Jung directly criticizes positivism in his writings:
"And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge."
Now, cease derailing the thread, troll.
My "position" is expecting previous observation to repeat into the future is not rational. Do I need to be a scientist or have specialized knowledge to understand this? No, and neither does anyone.
[QUOTE=thehotelambush;1319715]I...I don't even know how you could possibly think this. It's just flat-out wrong. Augusta and Jung employed empirical observation but they were both very much open to non-empirical ways of thinking.
What's more, Jung directly criticizes positivism in his writings:
"And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge."]
That's why I said it was ironic, since it's Logical Positivism in a way.
I also remember you saying that Socionics is based on empirical observations, which is again ironic.
Socionics is nothing more than something based on observations, and then expecting that observation to stay the same and continue into the future. It's Inductivism and Empiricism.
Ok, cultist.
Last edited by Singu; 01-28-2019 at 08:48 PM.
Really? So expecting the sun to rise tomorrow is not rational? Stop making dumb general statements that you can't defend.
Are you claiming that the future is the same as the past?
Lol, in the examples given (the sun will rise tomorrow, you will not live 500 years), it's rational. To expect the opposite is way less likely so it's irrational. You would not even be able to exist if you truly tried to get rid of inductive thinking by assuming that the world is completely unpredictably random.
Saying there could be a medical breakthrough that would allow people to live up to 500 years is something that doesn't exist from past observations. You can't predict what kind of new theories there would be, because if we could, then we would have those theories now. So those things aren't predictable even in principle.
If we don't live in a cause and effect universe, it is meaningless to talk of what is most likely to happen based on the past. Perhaps it is even meaningless when it is impossible to ultimately tell if we live in a cause and effect universe.
dying rofl
I'm going to pass my final judgement on his work when I'm done with the book. You are no longer needed.
"This guy is so retarded. I have no idea how he became famous. Must be the family connections."
Lol.
It's funny watching you constantly self-destruct.
I was semi serious.
You convinced me to read his book. Take the W and chill.
Until you reach Mafia and tax exempt status like Scientology you are just an obscure theory that most people will never hear of in their lifetime, not a religion. MBTI is different of course since it is everywhere. They just need to get that tax exemption and mafia status by bullying believers and non believers alike. Hmm, nvm they just need tax exemption.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I imagine that if MBTI had a cult, they would have a fake basic group and then intuitives would be invited to secret meetings to get to the nitty gritty. They wouldn't think s*nsor scum deserve to really know the truth like perfect, angelic intuitives. They would also crusade against Socionics because it pairs them with icky s*nsors (ew) and takes too much time to read.Until you reach Mafia and tax exempt status like Scientology you are just an obscure theory that most people will never hear of in their lifetime, not a religion. MBTI is different of course since it is everywhere. They just need to get that tax exemption and mafia status by bullying believers and non believers alike. Hmm, nvm they just need tax exemption.
Last edited by Cheebs; 02-01-2019 at 06:57 PM.
human flesh tastes like pork
I think it explains the sort of cult-like attitude that Socionics communities tend to have. People simply do not want to have Socionics be criticized, because they want to make it "irrefutable". And hence, not a single improvement or revision has been made in Socionics since its inception.Until you reach Mafia and tax exempt status like Scientology you are just an obscure theory that most people will never hear of in their lifetime, not a religion. MBTI is different of course since it is everywhere. They just need to get that tax exemption and mafia status by bullying believers and non believers alike. Hmm, nvm they just need tax exemption.
People may "add" things as people like Gulenko has done, as in adding more things in order to justify its initial premise.
Meh. Socionics is inherently unfalsifiable and collective changes are difficult because people aren't in it for the science. So, the best we can do is personal modifications to our ideas, rejecting ideas that don't make sense or yield the system useless. Anything more is blatant idealism. Even if the communities aren't able to type people conclusively, it can note behavioural and cognitive traits of an individual and help them be more introspective. Honestly, that's what matters.
----- FarDraft, 2020
Well that's just a yet another amazing evasion of criticism against Socionics.
Nice try at a straw-man, but I'm not an idiot.
I've made my fair share of criticisms of socionics. I never said it was a good system or that it couldn't improve. In fact, I've talked about many of its flaws, and I've also recognized areas that I'm wrong. This is what I mean by personal modifications. I'm just assessing the reality of what it is and how people respond to it. It won't improve because people don't care enough to improve it. Your wanting it to improve is completely fine, but I think its a waste of your time since it'll never happen. Also, even if we can't type people, that doesn't matter because people can learn a lot about themselves in the process. A terrible system can still have its uses when the alternative is no structure at all.
If this is "evading criticism of socionics", then you're deluded.
----- FarDraft, 2020
You do know what Socionics is yes?
The original model A and subsequent further models, if you follow them through all the way to the logical conclusion: they are a theory of everything that tries to organise everything about people on the highest level below which everything else is supposed to go.
This is the case because the 8 IEs are defined in a way to cover every aspect of life and then the model A (and the other models e.g. Gulenko's stuff) organises these IEs in a general model.
Now, the question is simply, is Socionics's model fit to take this place?
My answer is: no.
While the whole Socionics endeavour (along with Jung) definitely focuses on and investigates certain very interesting and important things of the psyche that no other psychological research that I'm aware of has ever tried to investigate in depth, Socionics is not fit to take that place.
Jung also proves this: his theory of functions was a small part of his overall psychological theory of the entire psyche (or much of the psyche).
The model(s) has (have) to be changed and made falsifiable to deal with the issues that it can be targeted at in a proper way, and not anything else.
Note: I had to write this relatively quickly, so I apologize if there are logical holes or things that are blatantly obvious that I didn't consider. Also, making something falsifiable is essentially the same as making it rigorous, in this context.
Besides the last sentence, I don't disagree with what you've written here. You're indeed correct that socionics is not fit to be a general theory of the psyche and that it looks at the same questions in different ways. I never said that it is such a theory. All that I've said is that it's unfalsifiable. I also think that it can't be made falsifiable while still preserving its essential structure, which is why I disagree with your last sentence. Let me explain.
A falsifiable theory is, by definition, a theory that has the capacity to be proven wrong. We can construct some sort of hypothesis that should be a logical consequence of the theory and see if it's true or false. For example, if my theory is "all apples are red", the logical conclusion is that anything I deem to be an apple must also be red. However, this theory is false since there exist green and yellow fruits that we also label as "apple". This works because we defined the notion of "apple" in a precise way so as to encompass all fruits that fit some set of biological features, regardless of colour (at least I don't think we cover colour). If we discover something new that has many similarities to what we call an apple, then we should probably call that an apple as well, even if it is blue. It's this rigorous categorization and precision that allows theories to be falsifiable.
I'm sure we all agree and know already that socionics isn't like this. There isn't a set of rigorous definitions that we must abide by to type people, so, naturally, the typings we give to people will differ depending on our interpretation of the system. The conclusion, then, is to construct a set of definitions that become the bedrock of the system. However, the question then becomes "by which means will we define these functions"? Conventional psychological techniques to create rigour include factor analysis, which is essentially where we have a large questionnaire administered to many individuals and determine correlations between how some questions are answered and how other questions are answered. We may think that there are N different variables at play, but these underlying correlations help us to narrow down precisely how many there are and what they are. This is, in fact, how the big 5 psychometric system was developed.
The problem with using this method in socionics is that there isn't a consensus on what the most important thing is to measure. Will this quesionnaire be like thehotelambush's questionnaire, which asks questions about a person's life? Will it be like standard multiple choice psychometric tests? Will it be predominantly based on IR? How will VI be incorporated? Is it functions that are most important? What about dichotomies? And how do we know how much weight to put for each of these aspects of the theory?
Let's say that we are able to solve all these problems and we construct a questionnaire that, when factor analysed, reveals the hidden truths of socionics. How do we know that these will even be remotely close to what we currently call the functions? In that regard, how do we know that it'll be close to anything we've developed so far? If it isn't, then can we even call it socionics anymore?
My point is that even using the best method of developing rigour in psychological fields need not preserve the structure of socionics in the first place. So, we'd essentially be creating a completely new psychometric theory that probably wouldn't resemble socionics in the way we have it right now. And, this is assuming that we can overcome the practical hurdles of developing such a questionnaire in the first place. It would take a huge number of carefully crafted questions and a number of willing participants and data analytics experts to get this done. Most people aren't willing to do this, as I've said before, so I'm very skeptical that we can get this done.
In conclusion, it's possible to make socionics rigorous, but I think that the likelihood of it resembling socionics as we currently know will be small, meaning that calling it socionics wouldn't be accurate.
If someone can poke holes in this, then I'm all ears. It would be nice to make socionics rigorous while still being able to call it socionics, so if there is another method you can think of, respond to this.
Last edited by FarDraft; 02-03-2019 at 09:18 PM. Reason: Precision of one sentence
----- FarDraft, 2020
Yes, socionics is a religion and that's why it hasn't caught on in pop culture like MBTI. News at 11.
(I know you don't believe in socionics, but this isn't going to change anyone's mind. Correction does much, but encouragement does more. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Since I've converted to from socionics to Jedism, I'm going to be Yoda when I grow up. JK, I haven't done that.)
I don't think it a religion, although some of its adherents seem to be very cult-like. What it shares with religion is its dogmatism and refusal to change its understanding of claims based on evidence and intuitive understanding of how such evidence fits with the larger picture of reality.
That btw is a red flag yeah but not because it talks about completely proving something. It's because it's about a psychological theory being completely proven with lack of tools. She should have been aware of how there are just not enough tools for that yet, still aren't, even less in her time.
@FarDraft - one more thing. Why do you try and investigate a lot of stuff inside the framework of Socionics? What is your main reason for that?
You were basically saying, earlier, that it's still a structure that you can use, but why? Just curious about your view on this.
I.e. why not use another system with another structure that's out there?
(Anyone else can also answer)
I do this with any scientific or pseudoscientific theory. I think that there are a lot of implicit assumptions that go into creating a system for determining truth, and I want to see if I can spot those assumptions to see if they really matter. I also dislike the hive-mindedness or "absolutism" that goes on in a lot of established fields. No system is perfect and their flaws should be made known so that we don't delude ourselves into thinking something is "objectively true" or "irrefutable". That being said, I'm a pragmatist at heart, and so even if these holes are made known I don't really care about changing them since the system usually works well enough for our purposes. If it doesn't, then we just scrap it like we normally would. The only places this doesn't work are systems that rely on strict logical correctness to be useful i.e. math and philosophy.
You were basically saying, earlier, that it's still a structure that you can use, but why? Just curious about your view on this.
I.e. why not use another system with another structure that's out there?
Here's my opinion. Socionics is a "theory of everything" because of our propensity to be confirmationally biased: we loosen our definitions of the functions to allow all real-world traits to be associated with some combination of the functions. However, it doesn't bother me that socionics is trying to be a universal system precisely because the labels we attach are essentially bags of traits that someone has irrespective of our categorization. We could turn socionics into a system that is so detailed to the point where every trait has its own subtype or something, but that's not useful for talking about who someone is in a simplistic manner. The high-level labels allow for that. Yes, it screws up nuance, but if we can minimize confirmation bias over time by modifying our ideas of the functions when a better one is told to us (this is what I was talking about in my responses to Singu), then we can build up that nuance since the system would only be able to categorize a finite number of things. So, it's essentially my goal to restrict what each cognitive function is so that the system can't actually categorize everything.
The structure I'm talking about is the one that's inherently associated with having boxes around traits.
The reason I don't use other, scientifically rigorous systems, is because they lack these boxes. Basically, if you can identify patterns between traits and then box somebody, then you can predict how they will behave in different circumstances. This is much more difficult to do when there aren't clearly established boxes.
That being said, I'm generally against boxing things up because things are rarely ever so black and white. I merely do it out of its utility for living life.
----- FarDraft, 2020
Oh so it's essentially just because it works enough for you?
So because it seems to be working for you you are not trying to go outside the framework and modify or drop essential assumptions for its model?Here's my opinion. Socionics is a "theory of everything" because of our propensity to be confirmationally biased: we loosen our definitions of the functions to allow all real-world traits to be associated with some combination of the functions. However, it doesn't bother me that socionics is trying to be a universal system precisely because the labels we attach are essentially bags of traits that someone has irrespective of our categorization. We could turn socionics into a system that is so detailed to the point where every trait has its own subtype or something, but that's not useful for talking about who someone is in a simplistic manner. The high-level labels allow for that. Yes, it screws up nuance, but if we can minimize confirmation bias over time by modifying our ideas of the functions when a better one is told to us (this is what I was talking about in my responses to Singu), then we can build up that nuance since the system would only be able to categorize a finite number of things. So, it's essentially my goal to restrict what each cognitive function is so that the system can't actually categorize everything.
Boxes, the 8 IEs and resulting types you mean?The structure I'm talking about is the one that's inherently associated with having boxes around traits.
The reason I don't use other, scientifically rigorous systems, is because they lack these boxes. Basically, if you can identify patterns between traits and then box somebody, then you can predict how they will behave in different circumstances. This is much more difficult to do when there aren't clearly established boxes.
That being said, I'm generally against boxing things up because things are rarely ever so black and white. I merely do it out of its utility for living life.
EDIT: One more question. So you say Socionics predicts things for you better than scientific or other stuff. Are you able to quantify this at least somewhat? I'd like to hear your numbers or estimate.
Last edited by Myst; 02-09-2019 at 09:08 AM.
Basically. I'm able to get what I need out of it, so it's "good enough".
Yes, but let me explain more carefully what I am trying to do. You're correct in that I'm not looking to drop essential assumptions for the model. For example, the assumption that there exists 8 uniquely definable information elements that, in tandem, process all of a person's cognition is something I'm willing to concede. Moreover, I will accept the assumption that we can group these IEs to form "types" that use these IEs in particular ways. For example, ILIs have "role" Si and LSIs have "creative" Se. I accept both of these assumptions without proof for the sake of practical utility. Without the first assumption, we wouldn't have a structure to categorize cognition and without the second we wouldn't have as effective a use for those categorizations since there would be too many possible combinations of IEs that aren't a part of some larger structure. For example, if someone has a preference for Ni > Fi > Te > Se, then we could either label them as nothing or as an ILI with a particularly strong valuing of Fi. Then, we can associate the high-level patterns of an ILI to this person even though they don't fit the exact picture. This approximation is useful but an approximation nonetheless.So because it seems to be working for you you are not trying to go outside the framework and modify or drop essential assumptions for its model?
What I'm against doing is categorizing every single high-level behaviour to this model since a person uses every IE every day; moreover, people's behaviours are hugely impacted by their past experiences and interactions with their environment. Essentially, it's possible to have the same cognitive preferences and abilities while acting "out of character". This is why I'm highly critical of VI, though I'll admit that I don't fully understand it.
My goal with the system is to figure out what we can and can't accurately predict based upon these assumptions so that we don't conflate, through confirmation bias, certain behaviours with certain functions. Over time, we can more completely understand the domain of the theory by restricting its abilities.
Yes.Boxes, the 8 IEs and resulting types you mean?
I don't think I ever said that socionics predicts things "better" for me than other things but rather that it provides a method of predicting things that other systems don't. You could say that that makes it "easier" to predict things in socionics but not necessarily "better". I'm certain that if I spent the time trying to understand other systems as much I as I have socionics, then I could make predictions equally as good (or bad) - it would just take more effort.One more question. So you say Socionics predicts things for you better than scientific or other stuff. Are you able to quantify this at least somewhat? I'd like to hear your numbers or estimate.
So, I can't really provide numbers.
----- FarDraft, 2020
Actually we can categorise cognition without having to use Socionics's original model. It just would not be as incredibly simple, but that's just what reality is, not as simple - or simplistic - as that lol. I understand what you are saying about approximations, we think differently there though.
Yeah I'm against that too. Singu seems to be doing that compulsively though lol and then he tries to convince himself here in public of a way to let go lolWhat I'm against doing is categorizing every single high-level behaviour to this model since a person uses every IE every day; moreover, people's behaviours are hugely impacted by their past experiences and interactions with their environment. Essentially, it's possible to have the same cognitive preferences and abilities while acting "out of character". This is why I'm highly critical of VI, though I'll admit that I don't fully understand it.
Yeah I was doing that and ended up elsewhere as a result... what I already said above about changing the model.My goal with the system is to figure out what we can and can't accurately predict based upon these assumptions so that we don't conflate, through confirmation bias, certain behaviours with certain functions. Over time, we can more completely understand the domain of the theory by restricting its abilities.
Agreed that it does deal with aspects other systems don't. I do think however that if you add other understanding for the rest, your predictions would be better... I do suggest that for everyone else, too. Instead of accidentally trying to apply Socionics for aspects where it doesn't belong and where a general understanding of people and the mind's / the psyche's general mechanisms works *better*.I don't think I ever said that socionics predicts things "better" for me than other things but rather that it provides a method of predicting things that other systems don't. You could say that that makes it "easier" to predict things in socionics but not necessarily "better". I'm certain that if I spent the time trying to understand other systems as much I as I have socionics, then I could make predictions equally as good (or bad) - it would just take more effort.
So, I can't really provide numbers.
Forcing it in? The whole framework has to be changed like I already said, so it wouldn't be an issue.
Not religious per se, but it can be pretty cult like.
Some of the members on here have reminded me a bit of creepy Scientology workers.
Video is what OP sounds like.
The reason for the huge mental rift between what Sing is saying and what's reaching his audience is his willingness to do all these mental gymnastics to force us to focus on the points to care about, i.e. the already widely known fact that Socionics and Jungian psychology have no basis in reality; but an almost blind unwillingness to address his own tacit assumptions about when false information is harmful; if all religions or cults are inherently destructive to humanity and/or those who choose to participate; and that there is a moral imperative to convince people who are willingly exposing themselves to false beliefs, whether or not they acknowledge they are false, to discard them.
He's been a chronic boorish piece of crap with his crusade because he has not only made zero attempts to open up a transparent dialogue about these beliefs, but seems to fail to give any respect to the fact of them being his own tacit beliefs at all, rather taking them as a universal assumption that everyone must share by default. Despite stretching words and his intellect to the limits of themselves and of all of our patience to get his point across, he lacks any concern for ingratiating his own values to us, because he either lacks the introspection to see they're values at all, or he's too arrogant to respect anyone who thinks differently.
Either he's an idiot, or grotesquely dishonest.
It's cute that you don't actually understand what I'm saying.
For anyone who understands what I'm saying, you just come across as a massively clueless tool, which you are.
You just need a kind of a shift in your thinking to get what I'm saying. I had to go through this phase as well. I wouldn't have understood the things that I'm saying before, and therefore might have had the same reaction as you're having right now. It's simply a reaction to the things that you don't understand.
Anyway, I think that you're just a bundle of bad beliefs and bad thinking. You read some Malthusianism and you go on a hand-waving crusade about how the world is going to end due to overpopulation or food shortage or something like that. Talk about hypocrisy.
The pedantry continues.
Nah.
Some people do love to be fundamentalist about typology systems, though, giving them "religious-like" characteristics; but I think various things, specially things that deal with how human beings act (or rather, should act) in society can be this way. Look at politics, for example. Myriads of movements share a deep sociological connection with religious institutions, but they are not the same, although you could easily argue the opposite. Some clear concepts and rituals distinguish them. there's no "divine" in socionics. there's no "spirituality" in socionics beyond, maaaybe "type compatibility" and the notion that, for pertaining to a certain type, you share inherent characteristics compatible with others, but this only if you choose to look at it this way.
just my two cents.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
