Socionics doesn't exist

[Creepy-Snaps]

Eddie, when you were saying socionics you had in mind Santa Claus?

This made me laugh out loud.

[Morcheeba]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

i posted an article about this some time ago.

The first function, like Jung's types, is 100x more efficient than the other functions.
That's what I remember.

BTW your own definition of science is incorrect. But I don't go into that anymore, you can read a book about it.

I disagree that the first function is more efficient. I like the model on socionics.us. In order to have an ego, we have to accept certain information, and then produce information to give the first function a leg to stand on. I also think the demonstrative function has much of an influence on our behavior as the first function.

[woofwoofl]

I am a dual to every single type because I am every single type.

From the looks of it so far, more like every type's Conflictor

[Marie84]

I am the only true personality type because I am all of them, hence socionics only exists for me.

you're going to edge out The Penetrator as my favorite troll account

[somavision]

Socionics doesn't exist unless scientific evidence is provided, until then it is merely a theory and a poor one at that. Neurologists must identify parts of the brain that are more developed or less developed as a result of one's personality type. Talking about the theory without this crucial scientific evidence turns socionics into an over analysis of concepts filled with air.

I'm assuming this is a troll, however if not...

This is non-sense... trait theories of personality have been well established and recognised within mainstream psychology for some time, [see Costa and McCrae, Goldberg etc], whilst some work has been done to link the observed traits [e.g. extraversion and introversion was linked by Hans Jurgen Eysenck to differences in cortical arousal controlled by the ARAS.] these theories developed from empirically observed data. There is no fundamental requirement to have direct understanding of the neurological mechanisms that result in the patterns observed from psychometric testing to demonstrate that the patterns exist.

Of course socionics is different in that it makes some larger claims than other personality theories. However the core of the theory is observable and consistent in everyday interactions, and when focusing purely on valued functions, I've never met a fully developed, seld aware adult who doesn't identify with the concept of valued and unvalued functions. In fact so much of the basis can be attributed to a universal common sense theory [e.g. Ne is incompatible with Se] that it has a very natural elegance to it's logical construct. Socionics is an interesting and useful tool, not something to worship, but something to observe, test and learn from.


EDIT: Shit I Bit.

[The Penetrator]

I am the only true personality type because I am all of them, hence socionics only exists for me.

you're going to edge out The Penetrator as my favorite troll account

Fuck you. Fuck you both.

[Crispy]

Hey... Hugo? Was that whose this was?