Well I still didn't have time to read the entire thread but one good point about the topic is, some of the Socionics ideas do actually fit better inside cognitive psychology frameworks. Then some don't, see my earlier posts in this thread.Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
@thehotelambush
I want to add for completeness's sake, sure, some people do want to be more scientific about Socionics and I'm aware there's been some published studies too in Russia etc that seemed like attempts at operationalizing some things of the model, but the model itself (including the newer alternative models too) is not scientific and most of the Socionics practice is also not, due to that.
I don't see what Socionics can do that cognitive psychology or cognitive neuroscience can't.
Aside from all the theoretical implications, much like psychoanalysis, or because its methodology is mainly rooted in psychoanalysis, the whole system isn't even proven to work. We can't predict somebody's motives using Socionics, and we certainly can't predict behaviors or relationships. Even aside from all the theorizing, it's just hasn't been proven to work, anyway.
All this theorizing and hypothesizing but never testing it out just turns into nothing but theorizing and hypothesizing. It just turns into something like philosophy. Also theories like this tend to attract the cranks and eccentrics and charlatans, as you can see on this forum, because they take the comfort in that they will never proven wrong. It's not right, and it's "Not Even Wrong". I'm starting to think that even someone like Gulenko may be a kind of a charlatan.
The fact that the theory has never been updated in decades, is also pretty lame. The fact that it's rooted in Jungian functions make it too ideological and narrow.
For a vision of the future. First we need to be able to type people. If we can do it by a brainscan than we have a start, the first step. Than we can find correlations perhaps 85% of all ESE like motorcycles. We can have this complex profiles. Than we can help the ESE more specifically if this person is depressed or such with what work for other ESE. Its correlations and estimations. More like the branch of quantum mechanics than classical science. We will probably never be able to say that you like this food becouse you are this type but it could become an important tool to deal with human beings psyche. Its a different kind of science if you so will.
Yeah as soon as there is enough research on differences in people in cognitive psychology, Socionics will have no more advantage.
There are other factors so no you can't predict stuff based on socionics alone but I've seen socionics factors in action for myself.Aside from all the theoretical implications, much like psychoanalysis, or because its methodology is mainly rooted in psychoanalysis, the whole system isn't even proven to work. We can't predict somebody's motives using Socionics, and we certainly can't predict behaviors or relationships. Even aside from all the theorizing, it's just hasn't been proven to work, anyway.
I'm quite meh about that myself.All this theorizing and hypothesizing but never testing it out just turns into nothing but theorizing and hypothesizing. It just turns into something like philosophy.
85%... Dream on.
The ultimate solution may be AI programming, and reducing thoughts and consciousness to algorithms, if that's indeed possible.
Says who, you?
Does it even make sense to argue that psychology does fall under science? I mean a lot of psychology is personalized. The psychologist has to adapt and adjust to each person and decide what's best for them, rather than hard or fast rules. And everybody has their own idea of nature vs. nurture and how people should live their lives; so pretty much a whole chunk of psychology is just philosophy.
I mean what if you went to a psychologist and they started doing brain scans and shit and were like, the computer will use science to figure you out and then know how to analyze and fix all the problems in your psychology! I mean what the hell, who in their right mind would even think that makes sense? That's like expecting science to solve the existential nature of being. It's not an objective problem.
Yes, psychology IS a scientific discipline. You come up with a hypothesis and then you perform actual, verifiable experiments on/with people, and then you gather the data. Psychology is really no different than any other sciences.
When people think of psychology, they think of "Freud" and "psychoanalysis" and "talk-therapy" and relations with their mothers/fathers and penis envy and all that, but that's not really psychology at all. Indeed, Freud and psychoanalysis are no longer even taught in the psychology department. Freud may have been a very influential figure, especially in culture and the media, but Freudian psychology may have been something of a deviation and may not even count as psychology as a scientific field of discipline.
There is definitely "art" in the psychotherapist deciding what's best for the patient, but that's more to do with psychotherapy and I don't think it would exactly count as psychology as a proper science. Psychotherapy uses data and scientific evidence gathered from psychology, and in return, psychotherapy would return the data gathered from their clinical experiences with their patients to psychology.
Brain scanning technologies are still very new, we are only beginning to find out how the brain even works, but in the future, they may be able to say, pinpoint exactly which region of the brain is making the person feeling depressed, and they would be able to affect that area so the person is no longer depressed. I mean of course, that would only work as a band-aid solution, so they would also have to carefully consult with the patient to find out what exactly it is in his life that is making him feel depressed, and maybe to reconsider his life decisions. But still, it would open a whole new research because we can objectively find out what is making people feel depressed because we can look at more objective data, instead of guessing at answers or brute-forcing by trial and error. We can say that the cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience are very promising fields of science.
the science is going to make us happy and live forever crowd always amuses me
usually strong correlation to atheism
even if its theoretically possible its not happening in our lifetimes; its like subscribing to a religion where the adherents go to hell
well, godspeed
I'm not sure why it should amuse you. You should be happy about it.
We get it, you're anti-science and pro-religion. I'm not even anti-religion.
please explain your pro-religious stance
please explain my anti science stance
Well of course they could use brain scans to get an objective idea about what's going on in the brain; and I'm sure they could cure certain kinds of depression and what not. But it still won't help people figure out how to deal with their problems, other people, and how best to live their life. That's infinitely more rewarding than trying to find repeatable psychology experiments.
...actually, since you seem so big on psychology that falls under science, what exactly is considered science in psychology? What has psychology found that is objectively testable and repeatable that is always the case when it comes to people? And statistical data and cultural studies don't count because that depends on too many preconditions that imply a certain result.
No. Next time do your research before you try to personalize an argument in this way, shooting yourself in the foot.
Please start with googling "cognitive psychology" before you mix it up again with clinical psychology.
Yeah, you have to do a lot of research on this, Singu already informed you of some of the facts though.Does it even make sense to argue that psychology does fall under science? I mean a lot of psychology is personalized. The psychologist has to adapt and adjust to each person and decide what's best for them, rather than hard or fast rules. And everybody has their own idea of nature vs. nurture and how people should live their lives; so pretty much a whole chunk of psychology is just philosophy.
I mean what if you went to a psychologist and they started doing brain scans and shit and were like, the computer will use science to figure you out and then know how to analyze and fix all the problems in your psychology! I mean what the hell, who in their right mind would even think that makes sense? That's like expecting science to solve the existential nature of being. It's not an objective problem.
In general, applied science is always different from academic science, and for psychology the difference is even more distinct.
Psychology overall is a discipline with several very different areas. Yeah, the "softest" end of it is more like a soft social science, the "hardest" end is brain research.
You really do have to educate yourself. Luckily nowadays the internet has all the answers at your fingertips, to these questions and more.
And learn to discuss without making it personal.
What's considered science in psychology, start at wikipedia or similar. What has psychology found that's objectively testable etc., go on google scholar and find articles or go find some introductory courses to psychology, etc.
As for the subjective preferences, to you it may be more rewarding to philosophize on how to best live life or be a counselor and help find people such meaning, for a cognitive psychology researcher it may be more rewarding to experiment to test hypotheses and improve on the understanding of how the mind and the brain works.
You are definitely anti-science with personalizing the topic negatively: "its like subscribing to a religion where the adherents go to hell".
As for being pro-religious... why did you have to mention atheism? It makes you sound like that for sure.
You were overall mocking something that wasn't actually even mentioned in the thread.
To stick with the facts instead of personalizing, mocking and distorting things via extreme exaggeration of attitudes, go back a bit in time and see how life expectancy changed for the better thanks to science's achievements.
All in all. Stop and consider that maybe there can be other reasons for finding science interesting other than hoping for happiness from it or for living forever. And people who find it a sensible approach for some things don't have to worship it at the same time.
Are you a fucking baby? I'm not going to be wasting my time on you.
I don't think psychology is a science.
It fails miserably in repetitions and definitions. For example no one has standardised definition of empathy. There is no underlying formalism and mechanism. It is about gathering data without looking underneath.
Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed
Psychology. It's like trying to understand how a cpu works by looking at the number of windows that show on a computer screen.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 10-28-2017 at 08:50 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I like science when it come to physics, chemistry and biology. Genes are interesting at the moment. All that can be classified hard science. The rest is to wishywashy imo.
That's not so much to do with criticism against psychology as a whole, but more like suggestions on how to improve on its methodologies to improve its rates of reproducibility. Indeed, that very research was done by the psychologists themselves. As it says on that article, lack of reproducibility isn't necessarily limited to psychology, but it's prevalent in all sciences, as science is a continuously improving and self-correcting field. (Why Most Published Research Findings are False).
As it precisely says on the conclusion of that research:
That's very beautiful actually... you've got to be impressed by their honesty. Much better than Socionics which keeps things ideological and keep fidgeting things in order to not be proven wrong.Conclusion
Is this a limitation of the project design? No. It is the reality of doing science, even if it is not appreciated in daily practice. Humans desire certainty, and science infrequently provides it. As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, a single study almost never provides definitive resolution for or against an effect and its explanation. The original studies examined here offered tentative evidence; the replications we conducted offered additional, confirmatory evidence. In some cases, the replications increase confidence in the reliability of the original results; in other cases, the replications suggest that more investigation is needed to establish the validity of the original findings. Scientific progress is a cumulative process of uncertainty reduction that can only succeed if science itself remains the greatest skeptic of its explanatory claims.
The present results suggest that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology. Any temptation to interpret these results as a defeat for psychology, or science more generally, must contend with the fact that this project demonstrates science behaving as it should. Hypotheses abound that the present culture in science may be negatively affecting the reproducibility of findings. An ideological response would discount the arguments, discredit the sources, and proceed merrily along. The scientific process is not ideological. Science does not always provide comfort for what we wish to be; it confronts us with what is.
We conducted this project because we care deeply about the health of our discipline and believe in its promise for accumulating knowledge about human behavior that can advance the quality of the human condition. Reproducibility is central to that aim. Accumulating evidence is the scientific community’s method of self-correction and is the best available option for achieving that ultimate goal: truth.
- http://www.psykologforbundet.se/Docu...aug%202015.pdf
It seems like the reproducibility of the tests taken from journals of cognitive psychology are higher than from journals of social psychology, which I guess isn't that surprising:
Considering significance testing, reproducibility was stronger in studies and journals representing cognitive psychology than social psychology topics.
Last edited by Singu; 10-28-2017 at 09:49 AM.
@Singu @Myst are there any big forums for Cognitive Science?
this is autistic beyond belief. anyway scientism is not science. try plugging the aforementioned into your system and see how it changes things
lol, I think you misunderstood. my point wasn't looking for you to dispense your wisdom, but to point out you can't even articulate what's going on. which your response totally validates. I am surprised how rude your response was, considering I said please. its fine though, you myst and niffer make a great team, I wish you all the happiness together..!
science!
Last edited by Bertrand; 10-28-2017 at 02:11 PM.
Sounds like you are looking at the social sciences end of it.
I suggest you read the whole article.Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed
Lol, you can please read up on this more too.Psychology. It's like trying to understand how a cpu works by looking at the number of windows that show on a computer screen.
Discord chat with your line as above:
[10:51 AM] Troll Nr 007: Psychology. It's like trying to understand how a cpu works by looking at the number of windows that show on a computer screen.
[11:04 AM] Myst: hahahah
[11:04 AM] Myst: it's not that bad
[11:05 AM] Myst: it's like, you have some magnifying glass in your hand and you try to look at the motherboard but you can't remove the cpu and look inside directly
[11:05 AM] Myst: and at the same time you try to record things like number of windows, but also anything else that you can see going on on the computer screen
and you can also manipulate what you see on the screen, to see what happens and attempt to deduce things from that
[11:06 AM] Myst: actually you can remove the cpu but then you cannot trace how it's functioning real time
[11:06 AM] Myst: also, you notice the logic gates but you don't know anything about the machine code, just a few generalities you observed
...All in all, better tools and better understanding are definitely needed. But saying psychology is not a science just shows you are not very well informed in the topic.
Your stuff is retarded beyond belief.
Nobody was talking about scientism until you came into this thread and distorted things.
sorry, I apologize for my low IQ
as the dumbest person in the room, allow me to usher myself out
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
No, I think I perfectly understand you. You have actually done this to me before, telling me to "explain" something.
From what I understand, you think that telling me to explain something "hits my PoLR" or something. The most "amusing" thing is that you actually think any of that shit actually works. You actually think that Socionics, a theory which pretty much has zero credibility or soundness as far as its accuracy is concerned, explains at all the reality of human cognition or how people even think. You go running around dispensing you "Socionics wisdom/insights" everywhere, as if any of this shit, or at least any of things that you say, are actually even remotely true or relevant. You actually take Socionics at a face value because you are an idiot. If I even read your posts at all, then all I'm doing is shaking my head in disbelief and think about how insane and idiotic you really must be.
The worst thing about it is that you actually think that you can use Socionics for harm, which is about as idiotic as you can get knowing the complete lack of validity of Socionics.
This is what you regularly do when you are cornered and have nothing to say. You go on with your typical ad hominems, or even worse, Socionics ad hominems... (head palm). You have attempted to do the same thing to Myst when you attempted to claim her post as being "autistic", which is only as ironic as it gets as you seem to understand very little of people and must rely on a theory as shitty as Socionics to get by, and it has only backfired.
Don't think that people don't know what's going on and actually know what a complete fraud and a charlatan that you really are.
So please, try to impress more people on 16types.info with your pretentious verbiage, convoluted nonsensical "arguments" and your expertise in Socionics (lol).
psychology is such a broad word, but I think its fair to say it originated in history not the natural sciences and its precursors. neuroscience is sort of a new thing and encapsulates the most hard scientific aspects of the domain. the reason i say it originated in history because its always been about understanding human action, not necessarily about neurons or brains or whatever else. that came later when they realized certain behaviors were physical and not properly psychological. later still there is this movement to redefine all behavior as being causally rooted in physical processes only, which is a leap too far as far as I'm concerned.. it answer the question of human action by rendering it meaningless, in other words, it says "understanding" human action as originally conceived of by ancient historians and psychologists was itself confused. in other words, dramatic narratives are properly speaking nonsense, only scientific narratives are real causes of human action. which is something even if it were true I would not believe, because it subsumes ethics which is actually a more fundamental precursor to happiness than brain states. its why heroin addiction is bad
thats whats so ironic about singu jobbing for science, which is to say were he to succeed he would just put himself out of work
another way to put the issue is if we want to solve the problem of understanding human action and eliminating suffering is we could just kill all people, which is no shit a movement rooted in much the same thinking taken to its logical conclusion
So basically, I asked for actual objectively testable and repeatable experiments from those that argue psychology is science, you say I'm being "personal", whatever that means, post nothing that falls under that, and then defer me to google or wikipedia, which also offers none of what I ask.
Well done? What do you want a participation trophy?
Holy geez Batman, it's like people just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Math is science
socionics is one hypothesis within the field of psychology. It seems a little silly to attack one and defend the other imo when one is simply part of the other.
My opinion:
Last edited by squark; 10-29-2017 at 03:54 PM. Reason: spoiler tags
You're much kinder than I am. If somebody told me humans don't exist simply because once you drill down with an electron tunneling microscope all they see are particles separated by space then I would tell them to stop being a retard and use their eyes.
...Socionics isn't psychology. It doesn't use any kind of statistical analysis, it doesn't do any controlled studies, it doesn't use double-blind tests to perform their experiments, or perform any experiments for that matter, that are now standard in psychology. Socionics is a system of interpretation of personal observations and anecdotes. It's not exactly objective, and that means that it's not psychology which is actually a scientific discipline. And neither is MBTI, and neither is Enneagram, and neither is astrology...
Jung never did any statistical studies except in one study in astrology, because he hated statistics (for example, he thought that what supported his notions of intuition and "synchronicity" (of a "miraculous" event) was due to "chance, and just chance", but he didn't actually consider the statistical probabilities of such "chances". He also never did any studies, preferring to his method of interpreting clinical observations, claiming that he "had to content myself with the observation of facts".
But then again, even Jung was aware of his own limitations:
If science is indeed a method of falsification, then yes, Socionics should be rather looking at what is wrong than what is right or what will conform to the theory or the hypothesis. Otherwise it's all just confirmation bias, trying to fit observations into what we already believe it to be correct.
What are the Physics of falsification? If there are no Physics then it doesn't exist. Checkmate dumbass.
Checkmate, atheist.
Psychology is never empirical. Even if you could do brain scans on people and see everything that's going on, you need someone's subjective report to know that they're depressed in the first place, and you need that subjective report to be able to know how to correlate brain states to it. The brain reflects everything in the physical world. To completely understand it, we'd have to understand everything in the physical world and then there'd have to be no new things. But there are always new things just as a matter of course. People won't understand my argument because it's basically the same fundamental argument as ultrafinitism but it's true. Abstractions are not real. Abstract means "to take away." But you have to take away from something. If you take away everything, there's nothing left.
Hmmm....
Why can't every other animal except for humans follow the latest advancements in experimental science? Watch how quickly you appeal to brain functions to make the obvious argument
oh no they called my beliefs pseudoscientific
stuff like socionics, mbti, enneagram is more ti/ni and cognitive scientific psychology is more te. how socionics is better? they offer a framework within which u can work. cognitive psychology is all 1s and 0s, doesnt really hold any meaning.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
