Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 47

Thread: Subtypes don't exist

  1. #1
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Subtypes don't exist

    [web:9280be37b3]http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww. socionika.info%2ferrors.html[/web:9280be37b3]

    See item 8. In classical socionics, subtypes don't exist.

    Subtypes are actually a theory which is trying to differentiate persons which would have the same TIM.

    Classical socionics is an intellectual typology (i.e. typology of priorities of perception). Some theorists like Gulenko made it a more physiological typology, but Gulenko's socionics is a separate school, Humanitarian Socionics. Gulenko and Augusta do not have the same model. Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.

  2. #2
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Subtypes don't exist

    [web:9280be37b3]http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww. socionika.info%2ferrors.html[/web:9280be37b3]

    See item 8. In classical socionics, subtypes don't exist.

    Subtypes are actually a theory which is trying to differentiate persons which would have the same TIM.

    Classical socionics is an intellectual typology (i.e. typology of priorities of perception). Some theorists like Gulenko made it a more physiological typology, but Gulenko's socionics is a separate school, Humanitarian Socionics. Gulenko and Augusta do not have the same model. Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.

  3. #3
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Subtypes don't exist

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    Couldn't agree more. Hell, even I've got my own model and I'm not even a socionist.

  4. #4
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Subtypes don't exist

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    Couldn't agree more. Hell, even I've got my own model and I'm not even a socionist.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Subtypes don't exist

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Gulenko and Augusta do not have the same model. Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    Thanks, this is a good insight....and looks like a great article. It would be nice if someone were to translate it.

    Personally, I think the evidence for subtypes is too strong to say that they don't exist. I'm not sure about Gulenko's views overall; I've heard some things I don't agree with. However, experience with people makes it clear that subtypes do exist. One may argue about the best way of representing or understanding them, though.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Subtypes don't exist

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Gulenko and Augusta do not have the same model. Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    Thanks, this is a good insight....and looks like a great article. It would be nice if someone were to translate it.

    Personally, I think the evidence for subtypes is too strong to say that they don't exist. I'm not sure about Gulenko's views overall; I've heard some things I don't agree with. However, experience with people makes it clear that subtypes do exist. One may argue about the best way of representing or understanding them, though.

  7. #7
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Subtypes don't exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Personally, I think the evidence for subtypes is too strong to say that they don't exist.
    What do "subtypes" really mean ?

  8. #8
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Subtypes don't exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Personally, I think the evidence for subtypes is too strong to say that they don't exist.
    What do "subtypes" really mean ?

  9. #9
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I seem to fit the descriptions for IEE ethical subtype. But I don't know if I always have. If I have moved in my life from one subtype to another, does that mean that it isn't a subtype at all? Or that subtypes are flexible? I don't know. Also, there could be other explanations for what appears to be subtypes. Not everyone of one type is going to be exactly the same. It could just be an artificial way of trying to divide people by different dispositions or whatever. But it could be argued that all typing is that. But, like I said, there could be other explanations for what appears to be subtypes. It could be mood, where a person is in his/her life, maturity, what other people are in his/her life and what types they are, what stresses are in a person's life, etc.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  10. #10
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I seem to fit the descriptions for IEE ethical subtype. But I don't know if I always have. If I have moved in my life from one subtype to another, does that mean that it isn't a subtype at all? Or that subtypes are flexible? I don't know. Also, there could be other explanations for what appears to be subtypes. Not everyone of one type is going to be exactly the same. It could just be an artificial way of trying to divide people by different dispositions or whatever. But it could be argued that all typing is that. But, like I said, there could be other explanations for what appears to be subtypes. It could be mood, where a person is in his/her life, maturity, what other people are in his/her life and what types they are, what stresses are in a person's life, etc.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  11. #11
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That, who found his half (with rare exception), it is simple there is no time to sit by hours in the forum and to paint, as they were happy and as by them good.
    Lol great way to mask a "get a life nerd"
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  12. #12
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That, who found his half (with rare exception), it is simple there is no time to sit by hours in the forum and to paint, as they were happy and as by them good.
    Lol great way to mask a "get a life nerd"
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  13. #13
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  14. #14
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  15. #15

    Default

    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    In that case, socionics would be more of an art than a science.

  16. #16

    Default

    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    In that case, socionics would be more of an art than a science.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    Come now, this "avoid anything that hints at stability" gig is getting way out of hand. Don't you guys realize that you are damaging psychology's credibility by arguing it cannot be linked to persistent biological factors?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    Come now, this "avoid anything that hints at stability" gig is getting way out of hand. Don't you guys realize that you are damaging psychology's credibility by arguing it cannot be linked to persistent biological factors?

  19. #19
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    Come now, this "avoid anything that hints at stability" gig is getting way out of hand. Don't you guys realize that you are damaging psychology's credibility by arguing it cannot be linked to persistent biological factors?
    You, my friend, have failed to understand my post, point blank. Buh-bye now.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  20. #20
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    Come now, this "avoid anything that hints at stability" gig is getting way out of hand. Don't you guys realize that you are damaging psychology's credibility by arguing it cannot be linked to persistent biological factors?
    You, my friend, have failed to understand my post, point blank. Buh-bye now.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  21. #21
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    This sounds like the standard "we are all individuals" -statement.

    If that statement were true it would mean you also can't say that there are men and women.

    Types certainly do exist. Functions are divided in preferences more clearer then blonds are separated from brunettes.

  22. #22
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baby
    Subtypes don't exist in the same way types don't exist. They are just another theoretical schema imposed over a much more varied and variable reality.
    This sounds like the standard "we are all individuals" -statement.

    If that statement were true it would mean you also can't say that there are men and women.

    Types certainly do exist. Functions are divided in preferences more clearer then blonds are separated from brunettes.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typeless Wonder
    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    In that case, socionics would be more of an art than a science.
    I think at this stage it is quite useful to think of socionics that way.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  24. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typeless Wonder
    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    In that case, socionics would be more of an art than a science.
    I think at this stage it is quite useful to think of socionics that way.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  25. #25
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    Quote Originally Posted by Typeless Wonder
    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    In that case, socionics would be more of an art than a science.
    I think at this stage it is quite useful to think of socionics that way.
    I don't totally agree.

    Socionics and all psychological related branches are not a science, because of the definition of science made by Karl Popper which states that something is science if it can be falsified. (see google for further information)

    But if we would widen the definition so that we can include branches like psychology, then socionics would also be seen as science.

  26. #26
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    Quote Originally Posted by Typeless Wonder
    Really, each socionist has his own model. Socionics is an individualistic science.
    In that case, socionics would be more of an art than a science.
    I think at this stage it is quite useful to think of socionics that way.
    I don't totally agree.

    Socionics and all psychological related branches are not a science, because of the definition of science made by Karl Popper which states that something is science if it can be falsified. (see google for further information)

    But if we would widen the definition so that we can include branches like psychology, then socionics would also be seen as science.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Popper's falsification criteria is just one theoretical ideal.
    It is more applicable in some fields than others.
    The concept of value free science is often illusionary anyway.

    Personally I just try to avoid getting drawn into debates where no truly objective truth is available in any case.
    You can win an argument and yet be factually wrong, etc.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  28. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Popper's falsification criteria is just one theoretical ideal.
    It is more applicable in some fields than others.
    The concept of value free science is often illusionary anyway.

    Personally I just try to avoid getting drawn into debates where no truly objective truth is available in any case.
    You can win an argument and yet be factually wrong, etc.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  29. #29
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    something is science if it can be falsified.
    Don't agree. Science is the study of all things which don't contradict with God.

  30. #30
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    something is science if it can be falsified.
    Don't agree. Science is the study of all things which don't contradict with God.

  31. #31
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Jarno: I do not think you understand what I'm saying. To use your example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    If that statement were true it would mean you also can't say that there are men and women.
    Yes, there is the male and female dichotomy - how shall we define it? The phenomena of transsexualism, ambiguous genitalia, and gonadal mosaicism have already indicated that a simple biological division is not 100% stable. But, for our purposes, we shall define men as human beings in possession of a phallus and testicles, and women as human beings in possession of a vagina and ovaries, and pretend that anything in between doesn't exist.

    Now, most dating advice columnists and gender studies specialists are content to work with humanity on this simple dichotomy. However, what's to stop us from going a step further? There are, after all, different types of men and women. We can further categorize people via sexual orientation. There are homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals.

    Why not go a step further than that? Obviously, there is quite a lot of variation in personality even within just the heterosexual population. This is where type theory comes in.

    And here is the point I want you to get from this:

    The fact of the matter is, the type of criteria on which one decides to differentiate people is infinite and up to whim. You can categorize people by their affinity for suede, their preference for vaginal or oral sex, their favorite color, blond v. brunette, their use of conjunctions and pronunciation of the word "water", whatever you want. The data will be there to support it. And someone at some point in time HAS compartmentalized their understanding of people by these very criteria, and some by even more quaint-sounding methods. Psychologists like to divide people based on more metaphysical and lofty-sounding concepts - intuition v. sensing (Jung), phallic v. anal retentive (Freud), self-accepting v. self-rejecting (Carl Rogers). Philosophers and mystics have even taken a hand at it - karnatic v. rajasic v. tamasic in Shankaran Vedic (Hindu) philosophy.

    The fact is, one can continue to dissect human nature into more and more infinitisimal "functions" or "elements." Socionics is no more a reflection of biological fact than any other such system. And, you fail to remember that Biology itself is a complete simplification of the actual phenomenon. We cannot cognitively comprehend the complexity of the entire system (cells into atoms, atoms into even smaller particles, those particles into even smaller divisions, not to mention the implications of string theory, etc.) and deal with it by means of a theoretic schema that systemizes the seeming chaos.

    You may also want to look into Xeno's paradoxes, to understand why I do not think "type" exists. The phenomena it describes exists, but type is nothing but a construct.

    And so, taking into account all of this and going back to the original topic: If subtype doesn't exist, why does type exist? Really, what's the difference between taking just one further step in an already arbitrary method of division? That's basically what we are doing when we are dividing people into types, and subtypes. Why not sub-subtypes? Or sub-sub-subtypes? We've already made the leap from Quadra/Club preferences, to temperaments, to types. Three more steps is not blasphemy in this method of conduct. In fact, it's just a continuation in this very same vein.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  32. #32
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Jarno: I do not think you understand what I'm saying. To use your example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    If that statement were true it would mean you also can't say that there are men and women.
    Yes, there is the male and female dichotomy - how shall we define it? The phenomena of transsexualism, ambiguous genitalia, and gonadal mosaicism have already indicated that a simple biological division is not 100% stable. But, for our purposes, we shall define men as human beings in possession of a phallus and testicles, and women as human beings in possession of a vagina and ovaries, and pretend that anything in between doesn't exist.

    Now, most dating advice columnists and gender studies specialists are content to work with humanity on this simple dichotomy. However, what's to stop us from going a step further? There are, after all, different types of men and women. We can further categorize people via sexual orientation. There are homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals.

    Why not go a step further than that? Obviously, there is quite a lot of variation in personality even within just the heterosexual population. This is where type theory comes in.

    And here is the point I want you to get from this:

    The fact of the matter is, the type of criteria on which one decides to differentiate people is infinite and up to whim. You can categorize people by their affinity for suede, their preference for vaginal or oral sex, their favorite color, blond v. brunette, their use of conjunctions and pronunciation of the word "water", whatever you want. The data will be there to support it. And someone at some point in time HAS compartmentalized their understanding of people by these very criteria, and some by even more quaint-sounding methods. Psychologists like to divide people based on more metaphysical and lofty-sounding concepts - intuition v. sensing (Jung), phallic v. anal retentive (Freud), self-accepting v. self-rejecting (Carl Rogers). Philosophers and mystics have even taken a hand at it - karnatic v. rajasic v. tamasic in Shankaran Vedic (Hindu) philosophy.

    The fact is, one can continue to dissect human nature into more and more infinitisimal "functions" or "elements." Socionics is no more a reflection of biological fact than any other such system. And, you fail to remember that Biology itself is a complete simplification of the actual phenomenon. We cannot cognitively comprehend the complexity of the entire system (cells into atoms, atoms into even smaller particles, those particles into even smaller divisions, not to mention the implications of string theory, etc.) and deal with it by means of a theoretic schema that systemizes the seeming chaos.

    You may also want to look into Xeno's paradoxes, to understand why I do not think "type" exists. The phenomena it describes exists, but type is nothing but a construct.

    And so, taking into account all of this and going back to the original topic: If subtype doesn't exist, why does type exist? Really, what's the difference between taking just one further step in an already arbitrary method of division? That's basically what we are doing when we are dividing people into types, and subtypes. Why not sub-subtypes? Or sub-sub-subtypes? We've already made the leap from Quadra/Club preferences, to temperaments, to types. Three more steps is not blasphemy in this method of conduct. In fact, it's just a continuation in this very same vein.
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  33. #33
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are always right if you would go that far into detail (like the paradoxes of Zeno). But isn't it a bit unfair to say that even a clear division of men and woman doesn't exit. Going into that detail immediately closes any debate. Even Bertrand Russel once proved that numbers are paradoxal, but we still use mathmatics today because it's not practical for us human beings to look at thing in that detail. If we draw the line at a reasonable hight, were men and woman can be catagorized then the 16 types also exist.

    I've got one argument why socionics is a better way of typing people then the ones that exist, like enneagram etc.

    Socionics is discovered while investigation the reason behind working and non-working relationships. Those can be explained with many variables, like physical attraction etc. Augusta discovered that personality compatability was the most important variable. The personality was explained using the types. Therefor I would claim that explaining personality of people with the 16 types is most useful for us human beings.

  34. #34
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are always right if you would go that far into detail (like the paradoxes of Zeno). But isn't it a bit unfair to say that even a clear division of men and woman doesn't exit. Going into that detail immediately closes any debate. Even Bertrand Russel once proved that numbers are paradoxal, but we still use mathmatics today because it's not practical for us human beings to look at thing in that detail. If we draw the line at a reasonable hight, were men and woman can be catagorized then the 16 types also exist.

    I've got one argument why socionics is a better way of typing people then the ones that exist, like enneagram etc.

    Socionics is discovered while investigation the reason behind working and non-working relationships. Those can be explained with many variables, like physical attraction etc. Augusta discovered that personality compatability was the most important variable. The personality was explained using the types. Therefor I would claim that explaining personality of people with the 16 types is most useful for us human beings.

  35. #35
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    But isn't it a bit unfair to say that even a clear division of men and woman doesn't exit.
    I don't think so. Why would it be unfair? There are exceptions in every direction we look - biological, social, cultural, and psychological. How do we define this division? It is not at all useful to consider this division 100% foolproof or even 70% foolproof.

    But yes, I agree that we do reach a point where the level of detail will exceed all practicality. I don't think it necessarily closes any debate, though. On the contrary, I think it opens doors to true understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    I've got one argument why socionics is a better way of typing people then the ones that exist, like enneagram etc.

    Socionics is discovered while investigation the reason behind working and non-working relationships. Those can be explained with many variables, like physical attraction etc. Augusta discovered that personality compatability was the most important variable. The personality was explained using the types. Therefor I would claim that explaining personality of people with the 16 types is most useful for us human beings.
    Well, my issue here is that, what Augusta actually did was observe the phenomenon of compatibility and then explain it using her lexicon - a mix of Jung, Freud, Kępiński, and her own concepts. Anyone can observe compatibility. Anyone can describe it, and they can do so in different (and possibly even more practical and accurate) terms than Augusta did. It isn't Socionics dynamics that determines compatibility, but the phenomenon that Socionics dynamics describes. Other people have described the same phenomenon using different terms. (For my money, Socionics has been generally more successful than other methods I've come accross, but that isn't to say a more accurate and successful means of describing compatibility does not exists somewhere, and will not exist somewhere in the future.)
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  36. #36
    Exits, pursued by a bear. Animal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    It sneaks up on you
    Posts
    3,051
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    But isn't it a bit unfair to say that even a clear division of men and woman doesn't exit.
    I don't think so. Why would it be unfair? There are exceptions in every direction we look - biological, social, cultural, and psychological. How do we define this division? It is not at all useful to consider this division 100% foolproof or even 70% foolproof.

    But yes, I agree that we do reach a point where the level of detail will exceed all practicality. I don't think it necessarily closes any debate, though. On the contrary, I think it opens doors to true understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    I've got one argument why socionics is a better way of typing people then the ones that exist, like enneagram etc.

    Socionics is discovered while investigation the reason behind working and non-working relationships. Those can be explained with many variables, like physical attraction etc. Augusta discovered that personality compatability was the most important variable. The personality was explained using the types. Therefor I would claim that explaining personality of people with the 16 types is most useful for us human beings.
    Well, my issue here is that, what Augusta actually did was observe the phenomenon of compatibility and then explain it using her lexicon - a mix of Jung, Freud, Kępiński, and her own concepts. Anyone can observe compatibility. Anyone can describe it, and they can do so in different (and possibly even more practical and accurate) terms than Augusta did. It isn't Socionics dynamics that determines compatibility, but the phenomenon that Socionics dynamics describes. Other people have described the same phenomenon using different terms. (For my money, Socionics has been generally more successful than other methods I've come accross, but that isn't to say a more accurate and successful means of describing compatibility does not exists somewhere, and will not exist somewhere in the future.)
    "How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
    -- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what mach. posted looked to me to be a theoretical reason why one shouldn't accept subtypes, and you can't really say that that reason is false by applying practical reasons. You can say that there are practical reasons why one shouldn't use subtypes though-- and I guess it's up to proponents of "subtypes exist" theory to provide practical reasons why they do "exist" or are practically existing.

    I for one think that a theory of subtypes might explain my relationships better than the one right now; I may or may not be right about that.

    EDIT: oops, didn't see Baby had replied already.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what mach. posted looked to me to be a theoretical reason why one shouldn't accept subtypes, and you can't really say that that reason is false by applying practical reasons. You can say that there are practical reasons why one shouldn't use subtypes though-- and I guess it's up to proponents of "subtypes exist" theory to provide practical reasons why they do "exist" or are practically existing.

    I for one think that a theory of subtypes might explain my relationships better than the one right now; I may or may not be right about that.

    EDIT: oops, didn't see Baby had replied already.

  39. #39
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Think of socionics descriptions not so much as descriptions of actual behavior, but of optimums cq. extremes of behavior, eg. If a person were to live the charicature of an 'analyst' to the extreme, what kind of person would he be? Adopt this way of thinking and it becomes a mere triviality wether or not evolution forces humans to converge to such extremes and to lock themselves into position with no hopes of changing. The extreme itself is real and can be constructively spoken about.

  40. #40
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Think of socionics descriptions not so much as descriptions of actual behavior, but of optimums cq. extremes of behavior, eg. If a person were to live the charicature of an 'analyst' to the extreme, what kind of person would he be? Adopt this way of thinking and it becomes a mere triviality wether or not evolution forces humans to converge to such extremes and to lock themselves into position with no hopes of changing. The extreme itself is real and can be constructively spoken about.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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