the reason why socionics goes nowhere

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Socionics is simply an illusionary system of the tale chasing its tale. It's innately confusing (but also interesting) because of this truism:

You can make everything in the world mean whatever you want it to mean, internally, and STILL have it make sense and not contradict objective "scientific" reality. Because the facts don't change. So you can line the world up in your head where things fit and still get along in the world just fine.

It might seem like you have something understood or figured out in the framework of socionics, but all you're really doing is applying meaning to something, subjective interference- that doesn't really do anything to change the real, outside world because well. It's not real, not in that way at least. It's incorporeal. It's just your impression and you can call it or feel about it any way you wish, it still won't change anything or get anyone to 'do' anything. Does this mean objective reality is 'better' than subjective reality? No, of course not.

It means what all the spiritual masters, gurus, and teachers have been trying to tell people since time immemorial. That subject and object are one. "As is above, so is below." "Wholeness." "You are not your mind." "What you do to others, you do to yourself." So socionics goes from this roundabout thing in your brain, to something that simply neutralizes you. It puts you to sleep, so you can wake up from the world of Maya (Illusion) and see things as they really are.

Socionics itself goes nowhere, but it is yet another psychological platform that can assist you to wake up from ego dream-sleep. And I just proved my own point. I just pulled that out of my ass. But it's still *true.* It still can be true, if you let it. Internal impressions do not contradict external reality because ITS ALL ONE.

Here Endeth the lesson. Socionics isn't real, but it is. And that is not a contradiction.

[Jarno]

time for a shrink. no seriously.

[redbaron]

love it.

[Bardia]

At first I thought I understood what you were saying. Then I continued reading and decided to change my mind.

I have an idea of what you mean... that socionics does not technically exist. It is merely one of many frameworks by which to evaluate people, the relationships between them, and the different forms of information. That doesn't mean it is pointless, though. It may not be tangible but it is still useful. Just as how dreams and aspirations are important even though they don't technically exist.

I think that is what you were trying to say. You just said it in a really incomprehensible way that makes logical leaps and bounds.

[Brilliand]

I agree with the OP... it's somewhat related to the law of fives.

[Krig the Viking]

Nonsense. Just because something is not physically measurable or perceivable does not mean it is not objectively real. That's like a blind man saying the colour blue is not real, because he can't taste it. The reality of non-measurable things can be determined indirectly, by measuring the effects they have on the surrounding environment. The blind man can determine the reality of the colour blue by scientific tests involving asking sighted people to independantly identify the colour of an object, or devising some sort of technical test to measure the wavelengths of light. Likewise, the reality of personality types can be determined by their effects on behaviour, speech, body language, etc.

The fact that some people are bad at drawing conclusions from evidence (and therefore draw contradictory conclusions) does not prove that there are no objective conclusions to be drawn.

[Suz]

I agree on some points and disagree on other points with the OP.

I think socionics is pretty accurate in describing various interpersonal relationships, as I have come to realize with my increasing knowledge and understanding of socionics, based on specific experiences I've had working with MANY different kinds of people/personalities.

The beautiful thing about socionics, as I see it, is that it is precisely YOUR IMPRESSION of someone that can give you tons of information about them, you, and why your interaction with them and vice versa is the way it is. It is not MBTI where you can't tell what type someone is for sure until they take a test. In socionics, the test is hit or miss. What counts is how you perceive their behavior (once you have enough information to judge) and of course how the individual relates to the type descriptions and use of functions.

As an IEI, I crave that kind of understanding of people's mindsets and approach to life/society. That is the kind of info my Ni can make great use of. So I have been soaking up this stuff with great enthusiasm and it makes sooo many things make sense. I LOVE IT!!!!!

What I have realized here is that many people here have hope of using socionics as a tool to help them overcome their difficulty relating to people. While to an extent socionics may be able to help that way, I see socionics as mostly a description, a guide to understanding people (which is what I ). Maybe you need Ni, Fe, and/or Fi (?maybe Ne) among your strong functions to really appreciate socionics for that, dont know. I find it highly useful. Hasn't changed how I relate to people nor my like or dislike for certain individuals, I just am able to recognize better when it may just be a personality mismatch (or match!), and it helps to know which buttons not to push (or push!). Caveat is, I have to know someone pretty well to be able to judge our interactions and/or their type.

[tcaudilllg]

Socionics doesn't contradict objective scientific reality at all. In fact, modern theories of consicousness are headed towards a reinvention of Augusta's elementology.

[krieger]

I think most people are beginning to find out that if there really was something scientically viable about socionics, the socionists in eastern europe would long have found out about it in the 30+ years they have been studying it and all the world would know about it by now.

It's probably closer to the truth that all of the attempts to turn socionics into a science have miserably failed to the point no one out there still has any hope that it will ever happen.

[717495]

OP. This is sort of how I feel when it comes to the quadras. Good point.

[Jarno]

I think most people are beginning to find out that if there really was something scientically viable about socionics, the socionists in eastern europe would long have found out about it in the 30+ years they have been studying it and all the world would know about it by now.

It's probably closer to the truth that all of the attempts to turn socionics into a science have miserably failed to the point no one out there still has any hope that it will ever happen.

MBTI is popular in the world. The reason that socionics is not that known in the world is probably simply because it's russian and because you can't cure ill people with it.

socionics has been turned into science. I don't see why it's not as legitimate as sociology and psychology. Or don't you call those branches science?

[JohnDo]

I think most people are beginning to find out that if there really was something scientically viable about socionics, the socionists in eastern europe would long have found out about it in the 30+ years they have been studying it and all the world would know about it by now.

I disagree. Socionics will certainly be accepted as science in the future. 3 facts:

1.) Types exist, they are not a belief.
The possibility of V.I. is a clear evidence. MBTI researchers even found correlations between types and most other psychological theories.

2.) Intertype relationships are affected by types.
This is not a belief but a fact. Scientific studies will certainly show that.

3.) Jungian dichotomies exist and can be used to define types.
Obvious. 4 most important traits of personality. The genes which determine the dichotomies have just to be found. Society could then say: "Let's have 20% INTj and 20% ESFjs in our population". Gene manipulation...



There is just one little problem concerning socionics: The functions and information elements probably don't really "exist". Model A is just a model to illustrate human behaviour.

The main problem of the people on this forum is that most think functional analysis is the most important point. Don't forget it's just a model wheras dichotomies and types are real.

[717495]

Socionics is so subjective, just like MBTI. How can it be a science? It has shown itself at its worst taking the form of many psuedosciences. Some people who agree to a general consensus about Socionics still don't realize that it's still not a science, and they're likely not being objectively correct about anything, but Socionics definitely could be a science in the future.

[Jarno]

Socionics is so subjective, just like MBTI. How can it be a science? It has shown itself at its worst taking the form of many psuedosciences. Some people who agree to a general consensus about Socionics still don't realize that it's still not a science, and they're likely not being objectively correct about anything, but Socionics definitely could be a science in the future.

this is a laymans opinion.

it's nice to use the word science that much, but do you actually know what you are saying.

rather study some book about the philosophy of social sciences before commenting like this.

also, i'm sorry to react so many times in a negative way at you, but you leave me no choice.

[Jarno]

I disagree. Socionics will certainly be accepted as science in the future. 3 facts:

1.) Types exist, they are not a belief.
The possibility of V.I. is a clear evidence. MBTI researchers even found correlations between types and most other psychological theories.

2.) Intertype relationships are affected by types.
This is not a belief but a fact. Scientific studies will certainly show that.

3.) Jungian dichotomies exist and can be used to define types.
Obvious. 4 most important traits of personality. The genes which determine the dichotomies have just to be found. Society could then say: "Let's have 20% INTj and 20% ESFjs in our population". Gene manipulation...



There is just one little problem concerning socionics: The functions and information elements probably don't really "exist". Model A is just a model to illustrate human behaviour.

The main problem of the people on this forum is that most think functional analysis is the most important point. Don't forget it's just a model wheras dichotomies and types are real.

awesome!

[717495]

You're not actually disagreeing with me or are you? Are you a layman or are you not? I'd like to know how confident my acquaintances are when they speak about a real science.

[Absurd]

I disagree. Socionics will certainly be accepted as science in the future.

Under whose authority ?

socionics has been turned into science. I don't see why it's not as legitimate as sociology and psychology. Or don't you call those branches science?

I for one, don't call psychology science.

[JohnDo]

Under whose authority ?

As the whole world will be mine socionics will be called science under my authority...

[Absurd]

As the whole world will be mine socionics will be called science under my authority...

That will be the day I died from laughter. By the way. Some nice evasion skills you have there

[Suz]

Socionics is so subjective, just like MBTI. How can it be a science? It has shown itself at its worst taking the form of many psuedosciences. Some people who agree to a general consensus about Socionics still don't realize that it's still not a science, and they're likely not being objectively correct about anything, but Socionics definitely could be a science in the future.

Well of course it's subjective!! Each type has a different perspective to life. That's the whole point of socionics (maybe MBTI?). Even the interactions are perceived differently by each different type. It's about observation and description, biology and medicine started out that way too. Actually much of medicine remains somewhat of a soft, non-evidence-based science.

Psychology as an entire field is always going to be a very soft science, because it deals with exploring the human mind, people's thoughts and feelings, i.e. you can't make it non-subjective. Psychology has many theories underlying it. I believe socionics is a key theory that belongs under the realm of psychology (in fact I thought it already did. . .since it's based on Carl Jung's theories). Yes, psychology is a science . Obviously it's not chemistry or physics, but nobody here is saying that it is or should be.

[tcaudilllg]

I think most people are beginning to find out that if there really was something scientically viable about socionics, the socionists in eastern europe would long have found out about it in the 30+ years they have been studying it and all the world would know about it by now.

It's probably closer to the truth that all of the attempts to turn socionics into a science have miserably failed to the point no one out there still has any hope that it will ever happen.

Not really, most significant integrative neuroscience research has only been done this century. And of course Talanov is the only person affiliated with socionics who has the credentials to do that sort of investigation. I think organized academic opposition is creating an environment where most of the people who could prove socionics, don't feel safe trying.

[Suz]

Under whose authority ?



I for one, don't call psychology science.

Psychology is a science because it is described by observation and inductive reasoning. It's a very SOFT science. . .yes. . .

[717495]

Socionics could be a science, but right now at this current stage, I would not regard it as an actual science. Real sciences in the field of psychology have had a way of trumping other sciences, due to obvious factors. MBTI sort of does this, but as far as I can see, it has similar controversy as Socionics. I would certainly call medicine, in comparison, much more evidence-based than Socionics.

[Absurd]

Mmm. SOFT science. I like the term.

[Jarno]

It's nice that you are debating a subject which has already been figured out.

There are natural sciences (math, astronomy etc) and social sciences (economy, psychology etc).

A social science, like socionics can never become a natural science.

But that doesn't mean that it's not scientific.

You are basically saying, an apple cannot become a pear. That's right. But not only pears are fruit...apples are fruit too!

[717495]

Sure it is scientific, just as there are scientific minds, which however having one does not make one a scientist. This is just a title given to a field of knowledge or assumptions to make it sound more historic than it actually is, in this case.

[Jarno]

Sure it is scientific, just as there are scientific minds, which however having one does not make one a scientist. This is just a title given to a field of knowledge or assumptions to make it sound more historic than it actually is, in this case.

in the end even natural sciences aren't flawless and exact as one would be eager to assume.

You'll always have to settle with uncertainties. They are just (often) bigger in the social sciences.

In this light however, socionics is actually one of the more exact and accurate social sciences.

[Absurd]

You are basically saying, an apple cannot become a pear. That's right. But not only pears are fruit...apples are fruit too!

Yes. But I like apples than pears more. Thanks for your input nonetheless.

[Jarno]

Yes. But I like apples than pears more. Thanks for your input nonetheless.

Then go study math '-)

[Absurd]

Then go study math '-)

Touché

I think, I'll have a beer or two. Cheers.

[Suz]

in the end even natural sciences aren't flawless and exact as one would be eager to assume.

You'll always have to settle with uncertainties. They are just (often) bigger in the social sciences.

In this light however, socionics is actually one of the more exact and accurate social sciences.

Interesting. It seems that we with leading Ni are more comfortable with uncertainty than perhaps others (and we see uncertainty better in terms of visualizing possibilities). In fact, now that I think about it, i'd be bored studying something that doesn't have a certain degree of uncertainty.

[RSV3]

It's nice that you are debating a subject which has already been figured out.

There are natural sciences (math, astronomy etc) and social sciences (economy, psychology etc).

A social science, like socionics can never become a natural science.

But that doesn't mean that it's not scientific.

You are basically saying, an apple cannot become a pear. That's right. But not only pears are fruit...apples are fruit too!

in the end even natural sciences aren't flawless and exact as one would be eager to assume.

You'll always have to settle with uncertainties. They are just (often) bigger in the social sciences.

In this light however, socionics is actually one of the more exact and accurate social sciences.

I basically agree with all of this but would add that natural sciences are fundamental components of every social science--we just don't have the technology, understanding, or processing power to break most social sciences down to the atomic level. Each social science is built up from the most basic subatomic level of interaction by a number of abstraction layers designed to simplify the process of conceptualizing what is occurring; this allows us to understand what is going on, albeit at a very superficial level.

[Jarno]

I basically agree with all of this but would add that natural sciences are fundamental components of every social science--we just don't have the technology, understanding, or processing power to break most social sciences down to the atomic level.

Yep, agreed. Yet the question then is, is it necessary to break social sciences down to the atomic level for them to be useful to us?

The answer is, it's not, actually often it's more practical to keep things on a higher level.

Example, can a nail of 1 cm in diameter pass through a hole of 0,9 cm. Everyone immediately knows that it can't. Yet if you want to examine this from an atomic level viewpoint, taking quantum mechanics etc into account, suddenly you are uncapable to answer this easy question.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think socionics exists (in a way, just like ego exists but isn't really here either) If you can imagine it, there's something in the brain that's creating something so anything you can think of us to be real, to an extent. They are concepts though. Santa claus, and jesus and the tooth fairy are all based on reality too. A mixture of reality, idealizations, and imagination make up for some interesting inner worlds.

[Jarno]

Something kind of like this.

Wrong.

It is already a social science.

It will never become a natural science.

[krieger]

Can you link me to an article detailing an empirical study into the intertype relations proving beyond much of a doubt that they hold under controlled experimental conditions, between people that are typed using methods that are not based on subjectivity? Anything at all that shows the existence of intertype relations on something better than a "take my word on it" basis?

If not, then calling socionics in it's current state a science is a joke. You might as well call astrology a science. That field engages in peer review too. They don't have any difficulty at all making their profession seem scientific when that tiny little detail of experimental verifyability is ignored.

Astrological Association of Great Britain

Just link me some good papers. I'll be grateful.

[Jarno]

Can you link me to an article detailing an empirical study into the intertype relations proving beyond much of a doubt that they hold under controlled experimental conditions, between people that are typed using methods that are not based on subjectivity? Anything at all that shows the existence of intertype relations on something better than a "take my word on it" basis?

If not, then calling socionics in it's current state a science is a joke. You might as well call astrology a science. That field engages in peer review too. They don't have any difficulty at all making their profession seem scientific when that tiny little detail of experimental verifyability is ignored.

Astrological Association of Great Britain

Just link me some good papers. I'll be grateful.

again... this is how social science works. In psychology everything is seen from a human viewpoint. Nothing is measurable in nanometers and newtons.

I don't want to go into the demarcation problem, I think you know the difference between critical minds or blind people.

[717495]

Technically Jarno is right about it qualifying as a science. But I think what maybe aixelsyd and I had in mind was something more recognized and trusted in the psychology community. A reliable consideration, like how themes of medicine and biology are reliable considerations. More recognized as a science, qualifying as perhaps more of a science in a lot of ways, bearing in mind the technicalities of why more significant sciences are seen as thus, not just empirical as a label but as a dominance to many things. An ability to reconcile a number of factors, and certainly more reconciled in general.

[Jarno]

Socionics would need some better evidence to become a social science or any science that could be accepted by the academic community. You may see socionics as a science before it has been developed to the point where it could be considered one, but the point that currently, it isn't.

you do know that mbti is used by academic psychologists all over the world?

What is a science isn't decided by you, it's decided by definitions. Which you seem unfamiliar with.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I never said that socionics wasn't real, it obviously is (again 'in a way') - or we wouldn't talk about. I just said that it goes nowhere. Pink flying anvils with vaginas for mouths are real too. Humans imagine things then we can create our own reality through that imagination.

But, just like the pink anvil with the vagina for a mouth, this idea won't really externalize itself nor will it 'lead anywhere' unless you think it does, unless you somehow can twist things where you believe socionics helps you with things. The human brain is so wonderful that it can do this. =D As the thinker thinks, the prover proves and you will form all sorts of anecdotal evidence to back up your claims.

I don't think I can fight that. If you do believe the theory is helping you, then I think that's a good thing, if you keep it to yourself and don't act like your subjective interferences are effecting anything other than your own world. For the most part, socionics has helped me think for myself. It isn't trying to suck out my wallet like other forms of self-help and for that I am greatful.