I’m not sure that the eye directionality thing is so straightforward: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...lying-1922058/
(Not a comment on Jack as I know very little about him.)
I’m not sure that the eye directionality thing is so straightforward: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...lying-1922058/
(Not a comment on Jack as I know very little about him.)
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I'm friends with jack and I appreciate all the work he's done to make socionics resources. He is fairly transparent in terms of how he applies model A, if you don't like him, don't hang out with him. No need to throw shade behind someone's back, especially when its not relevant to the topic.
Lol why would you need to start out with that many? Simply hold a democratic forum in one of the Socionics schools and vote for a small, manageable number. You don’t need to cover the entire theory, nor have trials be that long, just create something that will gain it quick exposure and credibility initially.
We also go way back lol that you haven’t figured that out yet. Also that’s my impression of how you think and value things overall in this thread. I disagreed with Singu too in here but I still think he’s IEI. Also, I don’t have a problem with Socionics itself, I just am realistic about its status in academia as it stands.>:| this must be why you people are always complaining about socionics, because you think you know someone well enough after an internet conversation to type them, and then when your stereotypical thinking cause problems, you blame the theory. No, just because I don't agree with you and think socionics can be improve with science does not make me EII.
Why are you friends with a self-appointed sociopath? Lmao
SLE is so straightforward to IEI.
It’s a suggestion he probably won’t take.
If I wanted to be straightforward, I would be eating the ass.
I used to think I was a psychopath towards the end of high school and the beginning of university, but life experiences, like entering into relationships of love and eventually settling down with a wonderful young woman who happens to be my dual, have made me change my mind on this. Instead, I think I have a pronounced ability to control my emotions and switch them off where convenient, while also having developed from a certain naivety about people's personal sensitivities. If I have claimed to be a 'sociopath', then I am very certain that I was wrong to have done so, as I have never done anything sufficiently 'antisocial' to justify such a self-diagnosis.
I am sure you did type Donald Trump SLE before I did. It's not a hard typing to reach and I certainly do not claim to be the originator of this typing, merely a publicist for it. Besides, our full write-up on the blog was written by Expat, not by me.
If you and @Nebula believe I am a scam artist, then I invite both of you to articulate exactly what my 'scam' is? As far as I am aware, I am simply making the claim that I have about 8 years' experience in trying to work out other people's Socionics types, having worked closely with very good socionists like Expat, and that if you spend £35 to buy an hour for me to talk with you, I should be able to work out what your type is.
At no point do I say the following scammy things:
"Socionics is scientific"
"I can work out your Socionics type by looking at your face"
"Knowing your Socionics type will change your life"
@A Moderator - What do you mean by 'fabricating' an answer? The answers were mostly unprepared, so I was trying to think of answers to questions being given. That doesn't mean that my answers are 'pulled out of thin air' and don't have any basis in what I think to be the truth with Socionics based on my reading, as well as my own experiences and critical thinking. How would you advise I do a Q&A differently?
Last edited by World Socionics; 11-06-2018 at 12:12 PM.
Sociopathy and psychopathy are different conditions. Sociopaths are made and psychopaths are born.
Your reasoning doesn't disprove the hypothesis that you're a psychopath:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23431793
Psychopaths do not lack empathy, rather they can switch it on at will, according to new research.
Expat is a very good socionist, but not infallible, and for certain a mental masturbater who jacks off typing Roman emperors, which says all about him. You yourself are not infallible either, but still you dare ask 35 pounds for an hour of your time, telling people what you think is their type. And then what, what use is this to these people, are all of their insecurities suddenly gone after you tell them their type? You are a smug, promoting yourself as an expert, meanwhile doing nothing to help people advance the quality of their lives, you only plant your own constructs into their heads, like a psychic or fortune teller (aka scam artist). Not even your pretentious WSS blog has provided any new insights to the field of Socionics. Unless, of course, you consider typing Roman emperors, Ancient Greek philosophers and other celebrities as a way to advance Socionics and indirectly, other people's lives.
Last edited by consentingadult; 11-06-2018 at 09:07 AM.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
echidna, IIRC, you looked to your left (suggesting recall) when answering questions about many things. But you looked to your right (suggesting imagination) when answering questions that involved your social abilities (like with family).
I thought it was strange, in light of others implying that you were fabricating. As @golden pointed out, the methodology of detecting lies through eye-movements isn't foolproof. Additionally, in the context of type videos, people can easily get caught up in thinking about the theory and how they "should" respond, as it relates to a type preferable to them. So I'm not going to argue conclusively from this alone.
Nevertheless, in aggregate, you've admitted to thinking you were a psychopath in the past, have admitted to being able to "switch" emotions for convenience like the psychopaths in the study I posted, and your body language seemed unusual when prompted with the question about relationships. "Entering into a loving relationship", as you phrased it, could be interpreted as a one-sided kind of love, so it doesn't seem convincing to me - especially considering other things here. I also think you're being disingenuous in your statement about "not treating Socionics as a science." I have seen material posted by you in which you treat certain argument as though they are 100% falsifiable (ie. as if the theory itself is absolutely empirical). Plugging shameless self-promotion with a little advertisement in a thread where your character is under attack doesn't really give you any points for empathy, either. Pretty tone-deaf. It's like you think your audience consists of a bunch of suckers.
In conclusion, something's fishy.
Perhaps I am a very pro-social psychopath. I know I'm not entirely normal as some social nuances that are obvious to most people I have had to learn the importance of over time. Either way, the antisocial stereotypes don't match my behaviour and I doubt a clinician would suggest I am even sub-clinical.
Infallibility is not a reasonable marker for any professional to charge a fee for. Infallibility does not exist for the human condition. Apply this standard to any practitioner in any science and they will pack up and go home. All I claim is that I'm a lot better at typing people than the vast majority of people into Socionics and worth going to see above other people offering inferior diagnostic services.
In my estimation, an hour of my time in a field that I have dedicated thousands of hours towards studying and improving myself in is worth at least £35. If you disagree, then that is your opinion, but in no way does that make what I am doing a scam. In no sense am I pulling the wool over people's eyes. I am not claiming to be able to significantly improve people's lives through a type diagnosis.
A fortune teller claims to be able to tell the future. Psychics claim to be able to read minds. In no way am I claiming to be able to predict something that another person will do or to be able to access information over and above what people tell me and show me. All I am doing is analysing the information given to me using a model that I find useful for the purpose of analysis of strengths, weaknesses and motivations. This takes skill and experience, but it doesn't involve making unsubstantiated claims and fooling people with those claims.
Roflmfao. Sindri bitches about members driving “good people” away from the site. Brings sociopath friend to join the community.
Have fun reforming socionics, ya bunch of geniuses.
I'm most likely an ILE in Socionics, so I'm not going to claim to have any special ability with relationships. In fact, I'm very poor with keeping friendships and tend to forget about people who aren't related in some way to what I am interested in.
What I do know is that romantically I am in a very fulfilling relationship, for both parties, and in my professional life, I am complimented for my 'profound honesty and decency', as well as a very consistent lack of malignance from anyone who has met me. So it's complicated. I cannot say I am definitely not somewhere on the spectrum, whether for autism or psychopathy. I cannot deny that I would not be some kind of monster if I were raised in a less loving environment. At the same time, I cannot see any professional diagnosing me as a psychopath.
I don't claim that Socionics is a science with empirically demonstrated predictive ability, but I do treat Socionics as a field where the currency is logic and rational discussion and where a good typing depends on observing data sources in an empirical fashion before analysing them. In that sense, I do believe there is falsifiability in many socionics-related claims, e.g. whether Donald Trump is an SLE or not. Is that at all controversial?
Who should I be empathising with in this thread? Is it not reasonable to defend my professional services when my decision to host them is criticised as an extension of my character?
If you find me fishy, maybe we can have a Skype conversation sometime? People who actually meet me reliably say that I am not a fishy person, but well-meaning, even if eccentric.
I've been part of the16types for years. Also I think that anyone thinking I am actually a sociopath would laugh if they were to meet me, as that would require a degree of antisocial or malevolent conduct. If I have any condition at all, it's more psychological than sociological.
Last edited by World Socionics; 11-06-2018 at 12:14 PM.
I shouldn’t jump in, I’m sure I will regret it.
To learn that someone was posting to a psychopath forum at such a young age, when the forebrain isn’t yet fully myelinated, pruned, and hooked up to the limbic system, doesn’t necessarily tell me whom they’re going to turn into. A lot of the quoted posts of Jack’s sound very immature, and some of them fantastical, and like wishful thinking and bravado, particularly when you see that the psychopath status is being touted as a form of superiority to others.
One of my favorite researchers is Paul Zak, who has studied how people’s brains respond to hero’s-journey stories designed to provoke empathy: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/art...s_change_brain
Consistently about 5 percent of people, in Zak’s research, don’t have the normal reaction. Presented with a story about a boy dying of cancer, their brains do not produce the oxytocin that mediates an empathetic response. In a Ted talk (yeah, I don’t like Ted talks, but anyhoo), Zak said he and his team call that 5 percent of people “bastards.” I surmise that this is the pool from which psychopaths and sociopaths are drawn, but I don’t assume that all 5 percent become functionally psychopathic or sociopathic.
The whole field of psychopathy and sociopathy is evolving. Another important researcher is Kent Kiehl:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4059069/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...uffering-souls
https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Wh.../dp/0770435866
Kiehl has worked extensively with prisoners considered psychopathic and shown how their brains differ from non-psyhopaths’. One thing he explores in the book linked to last is that some research shows how young potential psychopaths can actually be prevented from becoming full-blown adult psychopaths, and it is largely the opposite route than normally taken by the juvenile justice system. Rather than merely punished for their wrongs, they must be rewarded for what they do right—this changes their brains and their behaviors.
I’m no expert, but I’ve spent a lot more time studying the soft side of neuroscience and communication and empathy and influence than anything to do with Socionics. I was unfortunate enough to have a long relationship with someone who might be a sociopath (and working from the assumption that they are was indeed the path to gaining control of the situation), and I’ve had the fortune to work closely with a neuroscientist who studies the limbic system on a project involving information design.
I think the ultimate issues regarding someone’s possible psychopathy or sociopathy are their luck or lack of it in life circumstances, and then how they choose to lead their lives. How I’d apply this to Jack, whom I’ve never interacted with to my knowledge, is to say that who he is comes down to how he treats people now, and how he will treat them in future, and not what he said on a forum when quite immature. I don’t know him and thus can’t comment on that.
Last edited by golden; 11-06-2018 at 01:04 PM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
It perhaps reflects much more on Kill4Me and others on here that they are more willing to believe I am an out-in-the-open psychopath running a great scam on the internet, than believe that between the ages of 17 and 21 I was an immature, little wazzock with a desire to tout some sort of edgy, dangerous special-ness on the internet to compensate for a less than desirable social acceptance.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I wouldn't say I'm being held accountable. There aren't any negative consequences to not spending my time in a back and forth on this forum. If I didn't have a compulsive tendency to respond to anything said about me, I wouldn't feel the need to answer to anyone on here. That's the charm of the internet. It can't hold people to account, at least not until the past couple of years.
Then why respond at all?
On the contrary, my responses to you are much more so that anyone with the time of day to actually scrawl through this tangential conversation can see my point of view, than out of any expectation that you are actually interested in revising your antagonistic attitude should a coherent argument be made.
Someone is attempting to hold you accountable for things said in the past. Whether you feel accountable is a different matter.
Responding to things about oneself is often reputation management. And you are responding using the Echidna account rather than the Jack Oliver Aaron account, which makes me think you have an interest in what people connect to your name. Which is understandable.
Not caring is actually less understandable.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Many people rely on Socionics to give them meaning, purpose, and understanding in life. It is wrong to try and convince them of something that has little basis in reality, that can have a significant and lasting impact on their life. Would you ever give them their money back if you were wrong about their type? What if they entered an abusive relationship with someone they thought was their dual and turned out was their conflictor? This is easy to do if one is mistakenly typed as their quasi-identical. Would you assume professional accountability for ruining someone's life? I don't think you would.
It isn't that you are making the claim that it scientific. It is because it is a pseudoscience and uses the language of science(like information processing, metabolism, etc) to convince people of its validity and a typologist's certainty, when these things aren't possible with a system such as socionics. Are you ignorant that it is pseudoscience? Are you unaware that you are using it as one? Despite what practitioners say, it tries to predict and not predict simultaneously: Socionics is not a science because it has no predictive ability, but once I identify your type I'll be able to predict all sorts of things about you! It tries to have its cake and eat it too. Being pseudoscientific is straddling the line between reason and non-sense. So congratulations, you are an expert of a pseuodoscience that has the capability to destroy people's lives, whether you intend to or not, without any accountability. While you aren't saying explicitly that "Knowing your Socionics type will change your life", you don't have to, it is implicit in Socionics relationship theories. This is one of the main purposed of Socionics.
Despite what practitioners state, Socionics does attempt to make "factual claims". 1) Types exists 2) you can only be one type 3) A person can only prefer 4/8 cognitive functions 4) A person really prefers one(their dominant function) the most. 5)certain people you will be most compatible with. 6) The list goes on. It makes all sorts of claims about a person's psychological makeup, but can never move beyond one's intuition for proof of the claims. If these are actually aspects of reality, and our minds certainly are as much a part of the universe as anything else, being a product of our brains, then our intuitions about our minds should be able to be confirmed by empirical observations. If it isn't clear enough, there is plenty of room for doubt.
In Socionics, their is no fluidity of type. A person is and always was a certain type, the trick is to find irrefutable "proof". V.I., which I am glad to hear you aren't an advocate for, is the worse because it is the most dogmatic in this respect. This is when you hear "That is Fi!" or "You have Ti eyes" like it is an irrefutable fact. This is despite the fact numerous facial "looks" can have different causes and explanations. Only the dogmatists disagree.
People change in numerous ways throughout our life, from the womb right up until we die. We all have genetic units to adapt to changing environments and our minds have adaptable aspects to deal with a constant change of sensory information and concepts. Our genetics interacts with our environment in very complex ways that change our psychological makeup. Our reactions may change in varying contexts that go well beyond what Socionics can predict or explain. We are always in a process of change and of becoming something different, and even if the changes are gradual and immediately imperceptible, they should be more apparent over a longer period of time and study.
Well, I have no disagreement with that.
Actually, my decision to log onto this account is entirely based on whim, rather than any conscious decision to shield my reputation. The creation of my other account was accidental and due to the facebook login feature. I can certainly see how it may look like more deliberate than that.
I would care more if this were in a more public place, say, YouTube. I do care somewhat about my reputation. Indeed, it was a desire to create a more forbidding reputation that provoked my immaturity in the first place. Now, I'd rather have a more wholesome reputation, but such are the follies of youth.
Ugh this thread is giving me a brain aneurysm. Can this lame discussion end already???
Well @echidna1000, you were a teenager when you posted on that forum, right? I'm glad not every edgy thing I said in highschool is on internet for people to dig up a decade later. Like, god, I thought a lot of stupid things in highschool, like that money was evil. Unless you secretly commited a crime that you were not prosecuted for (which I don't think happened), at worst, you're just being honest that you're emotionally inept. And I don't know your enviroment growing up, but if you were surrounded by people with values like your sister, then of course you'd think you were antisocial. I don't think people should drag you through the mud just because they are upset you reject VI (as you should) and your popular sway is getting in the way of their ambitions. Unless people are reporting a crime, I don't get the issuez they should stfu.
I am quite aware of these risks and am very clear in advising clients that my diagnosis of their type is my fallible, but informed opinion (backed up with second and third opinions when wanted), and that it is up to them to accept that diagnosis or to not agree with it. I also am quite clear with them that the socionics relationships, while anecdotally powerful, have no basis in empirical research and should be taken with a pinch of salt. The only positive thing I can say about them is that the theory on relationships worked for me, and worked for other people I know. At the same time, given my own experiences, I think it important to provide a high-quality service that increases the likelihood that people are typed correctly, rather than type themselves incorrectly or go to some quack using a dodgy method where they will very likely be typed incorrectly. This is why people see me as a high quality socionist and approach me for interviews. There is an ethical way of doing these things, and as a qualified member of the british psychological society, I am aware of these ethical necessities.
I have actually given someone their money back in the early days of my diagnostic interviews, when I realised I had gotten the person wrong. However, I realise this is a very bad policy for a business and that I should instead charge for my valuable time, rather than the assured 100% accuracy of a diagnosis. After encountering a few people with such a persistent self-delusion that no amount of explanation or deferring to second and third opinion, would begin to change their mind, I took the advice of Aestrivex and decided this policy cannot work, as you cannot ever be sure of your infallibility and that other people will continue to disagree with what you say even if you are infallible.
A pseudoscience is a scientifically unsupported methodology presented as a science, i.e. something claiming to have predictive ability. Socionics is based on a theory of information metabolism, but using terms derived from scientifically-validated terms doesn't then mean the theory is 'presented as a science'. Are you suggesting that in order to not be a pseudoscience, Socionics would have to employ ridiculous language, calling itself a "theory of Mojo reading" like the Pod'lairians?
I would say that Socionics can be pseudoscientific, depending on how you use it, whether you are making predictive claims or not, and whether you are relying on dodgy methods. All my diagnostics interview involves is asking questions and trying to work out the best fit type based on the answers given. That's as valid as much of the diagnostics used professionally in occupational psychology and does not involve making a predictive claim.
1) Types exist within the model, even if you cannot find a type existing in real life as some kind of physical entity. A service that offers to assess which type a person best fits in the model is not asserting that personality really exists in discrete types.
2) I only ever say "according to the theory you can only be one innate type, and there are reasons why this makes sense, but there is no proof for this".
3) When I am conducting a diagnostic interview, I assess their best fit type based on the values they reveal during the interview. If something doesn't fit the model, then I will also draw attention to this, rather than try to brush it over.
4) Again, if a person shows a sign of Valuing, being Strong at, being Stubborn in, being Bold in, etc. a specific class of information, I will say that they fit the idea of having an IM element in the Leading function.
5) I make it very clear that this is anecdotal if the subject of inter-type relations comes up and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
In general, there are ethical ways of approaching the practice of Socionics and unethical ways. My approach comes from an understanding of the scientific limitations for the theory, where research would improve it, and how to help someone make use of a theory without developing a blind belief in its veracity or utility.
The issue is, there are lot of Russian socionists out there using VI in this dogmatic sort of way, and there are many people falling for it. I offer a far less dogmatic approach with an awareness of Socionics' scientific limitations. Even when asked about the fluidity of type, I say "there is no empirical evidence as of yet, that a type cannot change, but I personally have never known a type to change and would argue that imagining a person's type changing presents a very counter-intuitive scenario, with the person having to trade out strengths and weaknesses, as well as values of broad classes of information they once had in favour of new ones, as opposed to simply showing some kind of linear development within the confines of what we see as the type, which we can see examples of all the time and can intuitively recognise as a person changing and developing. A believable change in a character vs. an unbelievable change."
Last edited by World Socionics; 11-06-2018 at 07:09 PM.
@echidna1000 who did you give a refund to?
That is good, but I haven't seen this openly professed on your youtube videos so viewers are also aware.
No, I'm suggesting people let socionics die in the dustbins of failed epistemologies, like astrology, and adopt models that better explain our mind, motiviations, behaviors, etc. I say let people have fun with it in the way people do astrology for fun, but don't take it seriously and don't treat it like valid profession. The problem is too many people take it seriously. It becomes a means of exploitation. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed this.A pseudoscience is a scientifically unsupported methodology presented as a science, i.e. something claiming to have predictive ability. Socionics is based on a theory of information metabolism, but using terms derived from scientifically-validated terms doesn't then mean the theory is 'presented as a science'. Are you suggesting that in order to not be a pseudoscience, Socionics would have to employ ridiculous language, calling itself a "theory of Mojo reading" like the Pod'lairians?
I would say that Socionics can be pseudoscientific, depending on how you use it, whether you are making predictive claims or not, and whether you are relying on dodgy methods. All my diagnostics interview involves is asking questions and trying to work out the best fit type based on the answers given. That's as valid as much of the diagnostics used professionally in occupational psychology and does not involve making a predictive claim.
I say that it is all pseudoscientific, with certain aspects being more pseudoscientific than others. You don't and shouldn't employ Pod'lairian language, which is outright laughable, but socionics language is still mostly psychobabble, information metabolism being one of those psychobabbley terms that give the impression that socionics has truth and plausibility. Much of modern psychology are burdened with pseudoscience, but as the rigors of science have been adopted into the field, it has become more scientific and is in a far better place than it was in the days of Jung. Jung has given us an interesting way to look at ourselves, but we have many reasons now to disregard many of his theories as we have acquired a better understanding of the human mind. This means that the diagnosis that are acquiring better predictive powers are surviving longer than the ones that do not.
1 and 2 contradict one another. In 1) you say that you are "not asserting that personality really exists in discrete types" while in 2) you state that you "only ever say according to the theory you can only be one innate type". If its innate, it is discrete and not only a model. So which is it?1) Types exist within the model, even if you cannot find a type existing in real life as some kind of physical entity. A service that offers to assess which type a person best fits in the model is not asserting that personality really exists in discrete types.
2) I only ever say "according to the theory you can only be one innate type, and there are reasons why this makes sense, but there is no proof for this".
All very reasonable. Some around this site should adopt a similar perspective.3) When I am conducting a diagnostic interview, I assess their best fit type based on the values they reveal during the interview. If something doesn't fit the model, then I will also draw attention to this, rather than try to brush it over.
4) Again, if a person shows a sign of Valuing, being Strong at, being Stubborn in, being Bold in, etc. a specific class of information, I will say that they fit the idea of having an IM element in the Leading function.
5) I make it very clear that this is anecdotal if the subject of inter-type relations comes up and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The issue is, there are lot of Russian socionists out there using VI in this dogmatic sort of way, and there are many people falling for it. I offer a far less dogmatic approach with an awareness of Socionics' scientific limitations. Even when asked about the fluidity of type, I say "there is no empirical evidence as of yet, that a type cannot change, but I personally have never known a type to change and would argue that imagining a person's type changing presents a very counter-intuitive scenario, with the person having to trade out strengths and weaknesses, as well as values of broad classes of information they once had in favour of new ones, as opposed to simply showing some kind of linear development within the confines of what we see as the type, which we can see examples of all the time and can intuitively recognise as a person changing and developing. A believable change in a character vs. an unbelievable change."[/QUOTE]In general, there are ethical ways of approaching the practice of Socionics and unethical ways. My approach comes from an understanding of the scientific limitations for the theory, where research would improve it, and how to help someone make use of a theory without developing a blind belief in its veracity or utility.
It is good to know that you steer away from those dogmatic Russian socionists. They drink too much....jk. V.I. really is one of the dumbest dogmas circulating online. It has a Pod'lair ridiculousness.
I agree that each individual has a set of physical limitations and the fluidity exists within these limitations. I just don't think that Socionics sets the boundaries very well for most individuals, but for the minority that have very strong demonstrations, preferences, and abilities. It can show the limits, or an extreme, that a cognition can reach. There certainly are people that exist that stereotypically embody a particular type. But these people could also be explained with other models, more accurately, and with more predictive power.
If Socionics was a cult, you wouldn't have people telling you it's not a cult.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
I'm pretty sure I covered some of this in my October Q&A.
Well, that's an even stronger claim. I agree with the likes of Jordan Peterson that the MBTI should be consigned to history. It's had its run, but I think Socionics is ripe for empirical investigation and if one could support certain key concepts, such as psychological asymmetry, it could be revolutionary. Through my raising publicity and networking in universities, I have encouraged more dissertations to be written on Socionics and hopefully have helped increase its presence in the literature, which would support future experiments. This theory hasn't been given its chance yet.No, I'm suggesting people let socionics die in the dustbins of failed epistemologies, like astrology, and adopt models that better explain our mind, motiviations, behaviors, etc. I say let people have fun with it in the way people do astrology for fun, but don't take it seriously and don't treat it like valid profession. The problem is too many people take it seriously. It becomes a means of exploitation. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed this.
I wouldn't call it psychobabble, it's a fair term for a theory where information is taken in, converted into a different form, then given out. I don't think one can come up with a better way to describe this concept, and I don't think it was created with the disingenuous purpose of convincing people it was an empirically supported theory.I say that it is all pseudoscientific, with certain aspects being more pseudoscientific than others. You don't and shouldn't employ Pod'lairian language, which is outright laughable, but socionics language is still mostly psychobabble, information metabolism being one of those psychobabbley terms that give the impression that socionics has truth and plausibility. Much of modern psychology are burdened with pseudoscience, but as the rigors of science have been adopted into the field, it has become more scientific and is in a far better place than it was in the days of Jung. Jung has given us an interesting way to look at ourselves, but we have many reasons now to disregard many of his theories as we have acquired a better understanding of the human mind. This means that the diagnosis that are acquiring better predictive powers are surviving longer than the ones that do not.
We have been able to update our psychological models and move away from Freud and Jung in some respects. However, a purely positivist approach to psychology is also missing a trick, because it does not sufficiently describe how we as human beings interpret our experiences. You need both the mechanical and the narrative to understand human beings from all important angles. Now, of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't approach the narrative with critical thinking to see if it does apply the way theorists may claim it applies. For instance, Freud's idea of the Oedipus complex is questionable to say the least, but Jung's archetypes make a lot more sense in terms of the mythologies we collectively hold and approach the challenges of life with.
I wouldn't say so. In both cases, the theory operates with these assumptions, and I can state what these assumptions are, and I can say that for the purpose of the analysis and for obtaining better understanding of the complex phenomena of personality by applying a meaningful structure to it, it is reasonable to entertain some of these assumptions, while also saying that it is not yet the case that there is evidence to support these assumptions. In both cases, I can then explain why these assumptions might be reasonable to entertain.1 and 2 contradict one another. In 1) you say that you are "not asserting that personality really exists in discrete types" while in 2) you state that you "only ever say according to the theory you can only be one innate type". If its innate, it is discrete and not only a model. So which is it?
For a change in type, it's for the reasons I gave: we have an idea of a believable change in character and an unbelievable change in character, where in one case, the person goes through a linear or even cyclical growth/development, and in the other, the person swaps out their crucial aspects for contradictory aspects and is no longer recognisable as the same person.
For personality existing as discrete types, it's with the proviso that we limit 'personality' to simply our metabolism of information, which we can say to exist in set hierarchical configurations; these configurations existing based on how we classify the different species of information available to us and how we have a certain observable stability in how we react to these different species of information. That is not to say that we know for sure that there are a finite number of set hierarchical configurations for information metabolism, but that it is very reasonable to reach that conclusion based on the reasonable classifications we have made for information. An example: We divide information into that which is 'External', i.e. objective, shareable, etc., vs. 'Internal', i.e. subjective, interpreted, etc., with this being a meaningful and salient distinction we can all recognise. There is a strong basis here, albeit a rationalistic metaphysical approach, rather than something formed purely from factor analysis.
The culture of this forum has had a great deal of toxicity over the years, with a lack of intellectual openness and honesty. It is why in my group we encourage that certain scientific principles are adopted in how we manage what is still a non-scientific theory.All very reasonable. Some around this site should adopt a similar perspective.
It's not just a matter of steering clear, but actively making the case to others that this is not a good way to explore Socionics. Of course, this doesn't mean that anecdotally I haven't noticed some physiological patterns from typing over a thousand people. The issue is when people start to use the VI as the means of typing instead of actually looking at the personality, and then inevitably begin denying aspects of the expressed personality because it doesn't fit what they read in the face.It is good to know that you steer away from those dogmatic Russian socionists. They drink too much....jk. V.I. really is one of the dumbest dogmas circulating online. It has a Pod'lair ridiculousness.
I used to find this issue, but the more that I have gotten used to applying Socionics, the more I have built up a bank of familiar ways in which a type may manifest, while still being consistent with the model. I think that most begin Socionics with a limited set of pastiches for each type, and so are more likely to find that someone doesn't fit because they don't fit those pastiches.I agree that each individual has a set of physical limitations and the fluidity exists within these limitations. I just don't think that Socionics sets the boundaries very well for most individuals, but for the minority that have very strong demonstrations, preferences, and abilities. It can show the limits, or an extreme, that a cognition can reach. There certainly are people that exist that stereotypically embody a particular type. But these people could also be explained with other models, more accurately, and with more predictive power.
I would say Model A does have a good set of boundaries and scope for fluidity, even if these boundaries and scopes are not empirically supported. It can be seen in the 7 function dichotomies, such as Evaluatory/Situational, which designates which kinds of information metabolism are consistently operating at a high or low level for the type, and which can switch 'on'/'off' depending on the situation. It can also be seen in the Inert/Contact dichotomy, which designates which kinds of information metabolism reach decisions that are malleable to outside input, and which are firmly asserted by the type.
When people say this could be explained by other models with more predictive power, the natural thing to ask is what these models are. If they mean the Big 5, then I wouldn't say they explain this so well, or with nearly the same level of nuance. Big 5 is good for measuring differences in traits, and good for experimenting with how differently people behave depending on how much of each trait they have, but it does nothing to provide narrative for a person trying to make sense of their motivations and areas for development/improvement.
Getting back to the topic of making socionics scientific again
I think the solution to this is to reduce the model A concepts into dichotomies.
The first way would be to define the type dichotomies in terms of information metabolism, like defining rational / irrational types by their accepting and producing functions in Model A. This is nice because these kind of type dichotomies are mini typologies in themselves and can be tested independent of the larger theory. However, only the three temperament dichotomies can be isolated from the theory without degrading the structure. For example, think about quadra value. Merry / serious and judicious / decisive are the reinin dichotomies that define ego quadra value. They intuitively make a set and it would be wrong to only test one without the other. However, ego value (the classic quadra small group) is only one way to measure quadra value. You could also measure the specific quadra value of the base function.
This creates a different kind of quadra small group. If you combine these, you get an 8 part typology of dual pairs. This is the complete idea of quadra and has a "dihedral four group" structure. Anything less degrades the structure. I'm still not exactly sure how to define a dihedral four structure with dichotomies. It has eight elements, but if you only use 3 dichotomies to define it, you lose the dihedral structure, and make something isomorphic to the fano plane instead. @thehotelambush showed me there is a parallel dichotomy space we've been calling the Tencer space. I'm pretty sure if you define quadra with an extra dichotomy from this overlapping space (four dichotomies total) you define the correct dihedral structure. However, maybe there is a better way, I'm still working on this.
The dihedral four structure is also the true form of the four Jungian functions (intuition, logic, sensing and ethics), and is one reason why the MBTI is wrong. The way they test intuition / sensing and thinking / feeling does not respect that one is dominant. Over the years, I've watched people having taken the MBTI test learn enough socionics to figure out their Model A type. Normally the MBTI test gets the dominant process right, but its a toss up if they get their auxiliary process (N/T/S/F) correct, assuming you can compare MBTI to Model A type. Jung had the same problem, which is why he wrote about eight psychological types, not sixteen.
Model A is very clever how it defines the sixteen types in a relational structure rather than straight behavior, and how you are describing yourself as using both logic and ethics is consistent with Model A, and my own observations. The producing functions are not set in a certain expression like the accepting functions are. Augusta's creative function was defined as the inner type balance and application to the world of the base function, but that does not mean it is the only way the base can block. Even though I think Gulenko's energy model is inferior to Model A, I think he is right to add emphasis to the equivalent of the Model A demonstrative function. Maybe we also need to add emphasis to the mobilizing function to balance the portrait of average behavior a description constructs. However, all of this seems to be subtype related, and unless I want something that can define explicit behavior rather than mental architecture, Model A works great, because the purpose of the functions, if and when people use them, seems accurate to me.
Getting back to simplifying the application of socionics to dichotomies, I hope you can see there is both a mathematical and empirical reason why most dichotomies are gross abstractions of what they are defining. Maybe the solution is to use a hybrid Tencer and Reinin dichotomy space, but if we are going to make it that complicated, we might as well just test the higher order objects so we don't lose emergent behavior. These higher order concepts can be defined as dichotomies if we can define their positive and negative aspect, like a criteria for having base introverted intuition verses not having base introverted intuition. The problem with this is the higher order objects have more complex information metabolisms. Theoretically, introverted intuition as base also equals introverted sensing as role, extroverted sensing as suggestive and extroverted intuition as ignoring, as well as limiting the producing functions. A proper test of base function theory might imply testing 32 information-function combinations, which is getting into the ridiculous range. Also if you tested all of this together without understanding the structure it came from, you'd easily get lost. @sbbds this is why you can't just research a few traits and call it good, and why Model A has not been tested yet.
Nebula, you are also right to bring up the problem of how a continuous empirical measurement can be categorized in a binary way:
Now I disagree with you because I see socionics as describing internal motivations, not external behavior, but I accept that something like a socionics test can only measure external behavior, and so is at the heart of empirically testing socionics. I think the only way to test this fairly is to create a criteria for logic and ethics separately and then test thinks like inverse correlation and bimodal distribution. I know a major problem the MBTI has had is bimodal distribution.
Jung also imagined his type compass (N-T-S-F) was a spectrum, not discrete categories like in socionics. This would mean there is a smooth gradient between mirror types. However, it may be that socionics is more correct than Jung's fuzzy and mystical intuition, or that subtype can account for this difference between discrete types.
Either way, the only fair way to test Model A is to allow a smooth empirical space that does not exclude any of these effects, and then see if these discrete categories happen naturally in the empirical data. I'm really interested in this problem, if you want to help me work on it, or even just list all the way the binary structure of socionics might be wrong, I'd appreciate it.
The smooth empirical space is hella difficult to define and will be one of the final stages. I'm not sure if it is best expressed as a Lie group, a vector space or a Clifford space. Either way, I still haven't figured out the discrete structure of the intertype relations, so I have to do that first.
Nebula, I also want to address the problem of generating standards you brought up, because I have a plan for that too, but this is already a long post and I want to give you a change to respond before going into that.
Obviously he told you to come here and look now though. Unless you’ve been lurking constantly waiting for somebody to mention you, which is worse.
You actually posted stuff like that on forums before (why???) and didn’t bother to clean up your footprints better. Now you’re left to cover your ass, GG. No sympathy. And yes I would laugh in your face if I met you.
He didn't tell me to come here, but I tend to hear about it quite quickly when I'm being talked about.
Not sure how I would need to 'cover my ass' about teenaged machismo. It's not as if I've been 'found out' doing something wrong. I just don't think it's an accurate reflection of how I am as my self-perception has improved.
More importantly, I wanted to make it clear with Nebula and others that my services aren't some kind of scam.