Frustration at the Lack of Socionics Research

[IEI]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

[Jarno]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

I think (but do not know for sure) that the russians have done much research. But you'll probably end up some unreadable website for that stuff.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

If you want to read Russian, Ukrainian, etc. socionics sites, Google Chrome has a translation feature, and machine translation sites dealing with those languages are freely available.

Sites:
http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.ru/
http://socioniko.net/en/
http://www.socioscope.com/
http://psychotype.ru/
http://www.psihologia.net/
http://socionika.lt/
http://www.socioforum.su/
http://www.slideconsulting.com/Table/Sixteen-Types/
http://socionics.ws/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

See also http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...consensus.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioni...m_of_socionics

[silverchris9]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

The problem isn't that socionics isn't being taken seriously. I mean, it's mostly individuals with free time in the US, but there are some Russians who do this for there job, legitimately.

The problem is more in the fact that socionics is inherently hard to test for. It's concerned not even with discrete brain activity, but an overall pattern of functioning. How are you going to test for something as multifactorial as that? And then there's no surefire way to establish type---there's always going to be some degree of bias/subjectivity in how you decide who is what type, and that will result in compromised data. I mean, when somebody says "9 out of 10 SLEs are meatheads," the question is immediately "and how did you determine who is SLE or not? Could it be that you determined that anybody who is a meathead is SLE?" So yeah. The brain function aspect is so complex that we're probably not advanced enough to detect it, and then there's the inherent problem of determining type in the first place in a way that is unbiased and objective.

Personally, I'm glad socionics is remaining in the realm of what could be called "speculative psychology," purely because in order to be scientific, socionics would have to be reified somewhat. Some of the ideas, terms, and concepts, would have to be given fixed or definitional meanings, reducing the options for interpretation and invention.

[ashlesha]

Personally, I'm glad socionics is remaining in the realm of what could be called "speculative psychology," purely because in order to be scientific, socionics would have to be reified somewhat. Some of the ideas, terms, and concepts, would have to be given fixed or definitional meanings, reducing the options for interpretation and invention.

ya. i think it would take a lot of the fun out of it.

[Capitalist Pig]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

Socionics is nowhere in the scientific literature, in English or Russian or Swahili. Socionics is pseudoscience.

It is not taken seriously because it does not lend itself to falsification. It has nothing in the manner of empirical evidence, it makes no testable predictions, it relies on anecdotal evidence, and nearly everyone on this board suffers from some manifestation of confirmation bias.

edit: lol 'bored'.

[tcaudilllg]

That, and you have APD.

[CILi]

Afferent Pupillary Defect?

[Capitalist Pig]

Afferent Pupillary Defect?

Maybe he meant Auditory Processing Disorder.

[Bluenoir]

Socionics is nowhere in the scientific literature, in English or Russian or Swahili. Socionics is pseudoscience.

It is not taken seriously because it does not lend itself to falsification. It has nothing in the manner of empirical evidence, it makes no testable predictions, it relies on anecdotal evidence, and nearly everyone on this bored suffers from some manifestation of confirmation bias.

It's still a fun and interesting model to work with. I don't pretend socionics to be anywere within the same realm of the hard sciences.

[Creepy-male]

^what Iso said. It's not science. It's more philosophy. It's not a theory, merely a model.

I don't think acknowledging what it isn't in any way compromises its usefulness, either in utilitarian terms of helping you deal with your relationships and choose your company more wisely, or in enjoyment terms, because it's a fascinating way of thinking about the world, and a great source of conversation.

</alpha quadra>

[Not A Communist Shill]

There is a way of testing it, and that is through measuring the success of intertype relationships.

[Bluenoir]

There is a way of testing it, and that is through measuring the success of intertype relationships.

But, how do you go about testing the types of the test subjects? How do you account for all variables that may be present within a relationship? The lack of controls is a big problem, and you still have to contend with confirmation bias.

Show me how you can test the intertype relationships, with enough falsifiability to be labled as "scientific"

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

Give it another 13 years or so.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

14 years late to the party but nah that doesn't frustrate or bother me in the slightest. I can't take it seriously like that. But I'm kind of the type of person that doesn't really take anything seriously or I can easily pretend that I don't, it seemed to piss off my Fi-valuing therapists. Oh well. And the stuff that bothers or frustrates me probably wouldn't bother you either. It's the human condition that keeps us apart and everyone has a story that can break your heart lol:

[Aster]

I’m relieved tbh. I don’t think it would be a good thing for it to be widespread. I don’t know anyone in real life who knows about socionincs, other than my kids, who’ve I’ve indoctrinated to the Word of G through his Socionics Book. Sometimes I regret that. Maybe I want to keep this Secret Knowledge to myself

[The Reality Denialist]

My current estimation is that it may pop back as something else. The base of it seems quite bad (as of Aushra... who seems to suffer from Soviet indoctrination) but there has been some revival to actual roots where it can become more viable to quantify it (such as real SHS if you can somehow begin to pin down Jungian model of consciousness with clarity) that could be a stepping stone or dead branch.

Anything that deals with people, I tend to take it as bullshit.
So I guess the moral of the story is that people are BS. And if you try to model BS, you will get BS.


Lately I have been reading physiognomy for fun.... It is total BS. But you know what? These moralistic attitudes only shape-shift in societies through times. I think I see plenty of parallels with modern research in so-called soft sciences. In this vein I see Jungian psych quite interesting because it sort of shakes up stubborn short-sighted ways of humans by eating it inside.

[rizz]

as of Aushra... who seems to suffer from Soviet indoctrination

Maybe that's just your tolerant Western leftist bias. 100 years ago ppl were different. Just because ppl were similar in Lithuania and Russia, doesn't mean that that was exactly just because of KGB brainwashing.

[The Reality Denialist]

Maybe that's just your tolerant Western leftist bias. 100 years ago ppl were different. Just because ppl were similar in Lithuania and Russia, doesn't mean that that was exactly just because of KGB brainwashing.

It is not inherently soviet propaganda. There are some traces of it, just like most of social research has its own propagandist traces too.

[FDG]

Talanov did some quantitative research. I can't find it anymore on the internet. Edit:


here it is https://sociotoday-narod-ru.translat..._x_tr_pto=wapp

(just linking the LIE description here with results but you also have all the other types)