Correspondence / consensus between typings of different socionists
If two expert socionists both have to type 100 persons, and they may use every method for example VI, interview, and hanging around with each of them 1 day to get to know them.
How many of those 100 will be typed the same by both experts?
What do you guys think...
It depends which two experts. It also depends on many other things which I'm not certain you're implying by choosing to use "expert".
As it stands the terms of your thought experiment are too vague and ambiguous to yield any worthwhile question.
empirical testing > empty conjecture
What do you mean by this?Originally Posted by k0rps3y
Let's say Gulenko and Rick of socionics.us
I find threads like this pointless. Typing Celebrity X is a useless activity without administering a battery of tests and examining his or her behavior in various settings, public and private. Arguing about the definition of info elements and typological attributes only pertains to those abstractions themselves, not the neurological phenomena for which they act as placeholders in lieu of concrete understanding. In either case all that's occurring is that individuals are exchanging speculative, subjective, and unverifiable opinions in a virtual social venue and not getting any closer to conclusively nailing down a solid theory of mind. Why not just drop the dumb shit and hang out online?
The following passage from Jung's Psychological Types could easily be extended to socionics and its "information elements", "functions", "quadra", and other imaginary beasts, particularly as they're circularly defined and debated here on this forum:
"...Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent -- they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy...."
you don't really like socionics...
I don't see socionics as something speculative or whatever. Everything in psychology has a basis of subjectivity, but that doesn't mean that you cannot investigate it further.
You are trying to use criteria for exact science on a social science. That will never work.
False. It's a fun and sometimes thought-provoking toy. What I dislike are obfuscation, circular logic, unverifiable claims, over-reliance on intuition and inference to draw conclusions from scanty facts, and reification of metaphors.
Everything sensible has a subjective component, but research is best conducted by skeptical inquirers, not religionists or confabulators. What's required is rigorous hands-on testing, not fanciful hand waving and agreements on the nature of things based entirely on persuasive arguments, majority rule, emotional satisfaction, plausible hunches, or intellectual fatigue. All of those give license to saying "close enough", which leads toward falsity.
Questioning the methodology used to research a discipline doesn't equal condemnation of it as a whole. Instead it means studies should be conducted in other, more fruitful ways. I object far less to socionics itself than I do to the way it's frequently examined and utilized. If you ask 20 socionicists their opinions on Subject X --- someone unreachable by testing and whose attributes are only partly known --- will the answers you receive reliably tell you about Subject X, or will they inform you more precisely about those 20 people and how they treat of socionics and Subject X?
I suggest you stop calling it any kind of science if its inability to be studied empirically prevents it from conforming to scientific standards of explanatory precision and verifiability. I think these flaws are why socionics has lacked clinical testing and is regarded by degreed psychologists as a parlor game tantamount to astrology.
I see socionics as the same as personality disorders.
Those have the same weaknesses in criteria and testing yet they are used by your so called degreed psychologists.
But maybe you call personality disorders also a religion.
btw weren't Augusta and Jung degreed psychologists?
Jung's degree was originally in medicine, Augustinaviciute's in economics (and Isabel Myers's was in political science while I think her mother Katharine Briggs had none).
I call making declarations of fact in a field of study without providing solid proof non-scientific, or least poorly adduced. Add a layer of dogma to misguided and essentially superstitious thinking and you've got religion.
so personality disorders are a religion?
I don't have a list of people Gulenko types on hand, though I wouldn't think that experts would use the same experiences or methods to type people, that is even if both relied partly on VI, their VI experience might be somewhat different. So I would guess anywhere from 60-90% convergence, depending on who we're talking about, which is a large range encompassing various "expert" opinions.
Please tell me how you rationally proved this. Note that because you used comparatives, you are obligated to justify it ethically (insofar as "best" implies that something is more or less good in an absolute sense).
People who hold on to the yesteryear Enlightenment Golden Age That Never Was piss me off so much. Religion is not evil, the scientific method is not the royal road to all truth, and science isn't the ultimate force of good. It couldn't be the ultimate force of good, because it can't establish what is good and evil. Progress-with-a-capital-P will not lead us out of the Dark Ages, ever. The great Enemy to Progress (The Catholic Church and all her dark materials) is not the evil source of all Error and Idiocy in the universe. There will be no scientific revolution to lead us to happy and peaceful societies. As it is, science is as amoral a force as any other, causing as much good as bad. I offer no proof for these claims but their own truth.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
+
HAHAHAHAHAHA
My concern here is with objective factuality, not relativistic socio-cultural constructs like good and evil. Incest is frowned on in most parts of the world but was practiced by ancient Egyptian royals and is, sadly, something of a commonplace among modern Maoris. Does this have any effect on how they experienced gravity, friction, ultraviolet absorption, etc.? Not in the slightest. Try sticking with what's been said, not hallucinating statements neither made nor intimated. Simply because you inferred something doesn't mean it was implied. Correct your confusion on that matter, as well as the difference between adducing an argument and conclusively proving it. And as far as throwing absolutes in this mess, that's foolish. We're discussing attributes of human nature, not the qualities of God or the universe as a whole.
I'm pretty sure Gulenko has gone off into socionics-wacko-land.
There was some study done in Russia; apparently the results were less than spectacular.
If it's socionics then you'd need to examine their relationships with other people to verify it, using of course what socionics proposes in terms of inter-type relations, and how long does it take to determine what sort of relation people have? Can take days or years depending on other qualities like open mindedness, how interesting they are as people, things in common which don't have to be related to type.
But there's no way to speculate how many matches they'd make in their typing of people that I can see, how can you predict that?
Probably a whole lot. I'm going with 80%, of course just my own baseless estimate.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Hmm, I personally would guess 60-75% for experienced socionists who all have the opportunity to interact with someone over the long term. However, if you have a chance to talk with the other socionists about the discrepancies, you could probably come to a better conclusion than either of you would individually. So it's not necessarily a reflection on the objectivity of socionics.
Whoa, big fallacy here. There are plenty of ways of typing people without necessarily considering relationships with other people. I can examine my own reactions to a person (do I like them, do I feel comfortable around them, etc.), I can compare them to others I have typed, consider information metabolism, etc.
You can't, this is one of those just for fun mental masturbation threads.But there's no way to speculate how many matches they'd make in their typing of people that I can see, how can you predict that?
True. I suppose i'm just getting at socionics predicting relationships, that parts even more subjective than other things, such as when you mention your own reactions to a person, as it seems to me that your reaction to for instance a particular dual can well be different to another of the same type as you.Whoa, big fallacy here. There are plenty of ways of typing people without necessarily considering relationships with other people. I can examine my own reactions to a person (do I like them, do I feel comfortable around them, etc.), I can compare them to others I have typed, consider information metabolism, etc.
Yet predicting relationships is what socionics is all about and it's got to be the objective yardstick for socionics instead of just typing people (which we can use Jung for).
But the problem is that most people come from MBTI, and if they were typed "good enough" in that system it was sufficient for them (for instance you could live with your type result because anyway you had no way to assert it for real)
Then they discover socionics and they realize they must be way more precise otherwise they can't experience and see the various intertype relations in action. You can't have an incertitude, say on the j/p dichotomy, otherwise you could meet your conflictor instead of your dual, etc.
Achieving that level of precision in practice is far less trivial than what some people tend to pretend here (but maybe they are really skilled) For instance I never say that a person is type T based on assumptions. If I haven't typed the person via express one to one dialog, having the person actively involved in the typing process, then I'll never assume anything.
People doubt about intertype relations mostly because of mistypings.
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-----
Why?
Do you have any idea what a challenge it is to develop understanding of something that has never before been understood? By anyone?
Let's take the first person. There is a 1 in 16 chance that scientist A will happen to match scientist B on any given selection (judging by most of the experts here at 16 types it's a random event) .0625
Given 100 chances, that gives us 6.25 matched answers.
Last edited by Cyrano; 12-13-2010 at 11:35 PM.
ISTp
SLI
Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.
I'd expect 2/3 to 3/4 of the typings to be the same or similar.
I say that because I think there are enough differences between types that 'experts' would mostly agree on what they are seeing in general, but also because this method of typing falls prey to confirmation bias, projection, and whether or not the subjects are likeable.
(A better test might be to devise a series of problems that target specific functions and placements, state beforehand how each type would be deal the problem, and evaluate it on that basis.)
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
You can use the SSS typing database to see how much the typings correspond between different socionists. In general their correspondence ranges from 30-80%. There are a couple of people in that database who have hidden profiles and whose %'s cannot be seen. I've plugged in some of my own typings out of curiosity and got a 35-82% range. Seems upper 50s for correspondence is the norm.
Break-down for A. Aushra from her 1075 type entries:
Reinin - 74%
Filatova - 70%
Stratiyevskaya - 67%
Tsypin - 59%
Gulenko - 56%
Bukalov - 56%
Shulman - 55%
Prokofieva - 54%
Rick DeLong - 42%
Talanov - 40%
Duhovski - 26%
...and for Gulenko from his 168 type entries
Stratiyevkaya - 59%
Aushra - 56%
Udalova - 53%
Rick DeLong - 52%
Bukalov - 52%
Filatova - 51%
Tsypin - 51%
Shulman - 50%
Prokofieva - 44%
Reinin - 42%
Talanov - 40%
Duhovskiy - 38%
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote