is socionics real?

[ashlesha]

sorry if theres already been a thread on this, i didnt feel like searching.

is socionics (the functions, model, etc) something that exists in the real world that the theory points to?

my answer is no - though ive argued otherwise in the past (my thought at the time was something along the lines that it should be real to have a point to it). i think this is the reason i'm fed up with it now, having seen it as some tangible and restricting thing for so long (and its still a hard idea to get rid of). i wish i could word myself better, i'm not sure if my question makes sense the way i want it to, but maybe i can clarify if i get responses that point the way.

thoughts?

[Trevor]

Put up a poll.

[ashlesha]

Put up a poll.

good idea.

[Galen]

If not Socionics itself, then the underlying conditions that are observed as Socionics exists if you know how to look for it.

[NewBorn STAR]

No it doesnt. Not in a justifiable mode. It can be used to gain better picture of the outer world to some extent. But soon it falls off

[Trevor]

socionics the disease

[Galen]

lol it looks like all of Russia is fucked.

[April]

This question doesn't make sense to me. If you asked, "Do certain properties of the construct have predictive validity?" or something along those lines, I'd say yes.

[Absurd]

is socionics (the functions, model, etc) something that exists in the real world that the theory points to?

Not at all, it's not tangible. Only the outward manifestation of certain traits in certain individuals which socionics calls functions and has built a system/model on the grounds of those, that is, the impact certain traits have on others and vice versa, leading to some kind of alteration, a change, can manifest itself in the the material world.

[ashlesha]

This question doesn't make sense to me. If you asked, "Do certain properties of the construct have predictive validity?" or something along those lines, I'd say yes.

if im understanding you right, then i think your answer would be no, then. it seems to come easier to some people...to talk about socionics seriously while maintaining a concept of it as nothing more than a model and not something that actually "exists out there" or whatever. for some reason i find it really difficult.

maybe this sorta clarifies?

[NewBorn STAR]

This question doesn't make sense to me. If you asked, "Do certain properties of the construct have predictive validity?" or something along those lines, I'd say yes.

YOu prove yourself what you set up to proof. You work with stereotypes. Socionics doesnt exist

[krieger]

i wouldn't spend a second on a forum like this if there wasn't some extent to which i had found the phenomenon this theory describes manifests in reality. why the hell are you people even here.

i think some people are confusing the issue of whether the phenomenon is perfectly well described in all of it's nuances with the issue of whether anything about it is real. yes to the second, no and duh to the first.

there's a bunch of people on this forum who have a schizofrenic attitude toward socionics. on one hand they spend hour upon hour, year upon year discussing, writing about and thinking about the theory. on the other when the opportunity to write skeptical remarks about it supposedly being a delusion or pseudoscience arrives they jump on the chance. sorry, but your actions mark a stronger commitment than your words in this regard. you can't just erase the obvious fact that you think this theory has merit just by writing a dismissive paragraph for once.

Not at all, it's not tangible.

wrong. tangibility is not a criterion for reality.

[ashlesha]

well, shit...if it has predictive ability, i think that would make it pretty much real enough. so idk, my thoughts are too muddled. i'll just sit back and watch you guys answer based on however you interpret it lol.

This question doesn't make sense to me. If you asked, "Do certain properties of the construct have predictive validity?" or something along those lines, I'd say yes.

if im understanding you right, then i think your answer would be no, then. it seems to come easier to some people...to talk about socionics seriously while maintaining a concept of it as nothing more than a model and not something that actually "exists out there" or whatever. for some reason i find it really difficult.

maybe this sorta clarifies?

[Absurd]

YOu prove yourself what you set up to proof. You work with stereotypes. Socionics doesnt exist

Oh shit, a talking scarecrow.

[Absurd]

wrong. tangibility is not a criterion for reality.

I'm not big into theories that don't do anything, do not produce anything, that just "sit there" but seeing this works for people, and did work for me, I'm not bashing it. Far from it.

Anyway, what is this criterion for reality, then ?

[ashlesha]

i think tangible might be the best word for what i'm trying to ask.

and yeah i think predictive power would make it real enough for a yes answer. probably.

um: is it better used to have language to describe something in retrospect or to predict how something will go?

/pops some gas-x for her brain

[Absurd]

Voted yes.

i think tangible might be the best word for what i'm trying to ask.

As in a theory, of course it isn't tangible, only the outward manifestation, makes it real. It's like the difference between thinking and doing.

[NewBorn STAR]

Voted yes.

trol

[ashlesha]

which came first the chicken or the egg lol fuckkk

these are interesting responses (especially @ aixel and labcoat). i think galen totally nailed what i was getting at though.

[ashlesha]

ahem.

ARE THE UNDERLYING CONDITIONS THAT ARE OBSERVED AS SOCIONICS REAL???

(ty galen)

i'm sooo sorry guys :/

If not Socionics itself, then the underlying conditions that are observed as Socionics exists if you know how to look for it.

[Absurd]

trol

Haha, betoids, you people never learn do you ?

If there is no conflict between theory and practice, it works, I will support it. One can't exist without the other. What you are good at, naturally comes easy hence some functions were invented to name some characteristics you or me, or I don't know, scarecrows manifest in the real world. There is the knowledge that leads to the deeds. In case of this theory it is the other way around actually.

But I bet you're more into Aushra and her ties with Aryanosophy.

[Galen]

I assumed that the question meant "is the basis for Socionics observable, regardless of what people may think of the system as a whole?"

[Absurd]

which came first the chicken or the egg

Egg.

[aestrivex]

sorry if theres already been a thread on this, i didnt feel like searching.

is socionics (the functions, model, etc) something that exists in the real world that the theory points to?

my answer is no - though ive argued otherwise in the past (my thought at the time was something along the lines that it should be real to have a point to it). i think this is the reason i'm fed up with it now, having seen it as some tangible and restricting thing for so long (and its still a hard idea to get rid of). i wish i could word myself better, i'm not sure if my question makes sense the way i want it to, but maybe i can clarify if i get responses that point the way.

thoughts?

from the perspective of socionics as a fallible model your question does not even make sense, and not because of your wording.

[ashlesha]

can you say why?

if it was real the model describing it would be infallible?

[EyeSeeCold]

which came first the chicken or the egg lol fuckkk

If you believe in a Creator, the chicken. If you believe in Evolution, the egg(a mutated deviation of a proto-chicken)

[717495]

Socionics is pretty real in my experience, the version I use. I probably would not be here if it weren't real.

[woofwoofl]

Yep. Next!

[aestrivex]

can you say why?

if it was real the model describing it would be infallible?

your question still does not make sense. it would help to clarify the language a bit:

a model is a dynamical representation of a phenomenon, intended to abstract the most important properties/concepts of that phenomenon into a simplified and accessible representation. creating a model of a complex process is a priori not intended, nor could it be, to be a full representation of the process. for concreteness, consider, say, a connectionist neural network model of the brain. this, for obvious reasons, is not a representation of every interaction in a full brain (in fact, almost all the biology is completely abstracted away). however, it is a good way of understanding the conceptual principles on which brain activity works. just as there are simple and complex models in any domain, so there are simple and complex models in computational neuroscience (e.g. connectionist models versus detailed biological models) and simple and complex models in personality (say, the four temperaments, or keirsey temperaments, as compared to the comparatively rich model of socionics -- in my opinion).


the reason your question makes no sense is that it asks "is this model real." well, what does that even mean? the connectionist model of the brain is not a whole representation of the brain. does that mean the model is "not real?" does it mean that the neurological processes the model tries to crudely describe are not real?


it is my opinion that your question implies a crude conceptualization that socionics is an exact representation of personality processes, that either does correspond to some latent reality of psychological function, or else it does not. in my opinion, this is the wrong conceptual framework with which to even approach the topic -- a better conceptual framework is that socionics is a *language* whose featureful content is the abstraction and predicted interaction of some hypothetically important personality processes. when viewed in this way, there is typically little question that the language has no useful correlates in behavior, and also no expectation that the language corresponds to a latent psychological reality.

this is almost the same as saying socionics is to personality as the computational concepts of neural networks are to the brain.

[squark]

I think it's apparent that we do not all see the world through the same eyes. I think that the way Jung has outlined Te Ti Fe Fi Se Si Ne Ni use and their counters makes sense and is backed by reality. And is a better source than Augusta. I also think that a particular way of viewing the world colors our actions and responses to that world enough in many cases to be seen. BUT I do not believe that any action or response is a measurement or direct representation of any particular element.

IOW, typing by stereotypes is the height of foolishness and shallow thinking, but types may sometimes manifest themselves in a stereotypical way. Or if not in a stereotypical way, at least an observable way.

I think that casting inter-type relationships in stone and holding fast to them is retarded. Just because someone is of whatever intertype relationship does not mean it will follow the prescribed path.

But, I do think that there are unconscious attitudes that may be formed through type, and a kind of harmony or disharmony can occur between people regardless of and sometimes counter to surface relations.

I question some of the assertions of Model A, and find that often too close a scrutiny to functional order causes a diversion from the primary elements that a person DOES use, leading to more confusion than clarity, and so I favor an element/anti-element approach instead.

So no. I don't accept socionics as a whole as a good representation of reality. Nor do I see people fitting perfectly into types or type descriptions, but I do recognize different modes of thinking and can see how it influences real life people and interactions. Iow, there's something there, but it's often used VERY poorly, and when used in a behavioral and stereotypical fashion is worthless.

[Crispy]

i wouldn't spend a second on a forum like this if there wasn't some extent to which i had found the phenomenon this theory describes manifests in reality. why the hell are you people even here.

i think some people are confusing the issue of whether the phenomenon is perfectly well described in all of it's nuances with the issue of whether anything about it is real. yes to the second, no and duh to the first.

there's a bunch of people on this forum who have a schizofrenic attitude toward socionics. on one hand they spend hour upon hour, year upon year discussing, writing about and thinking about the theory. on the other when the opportunity to write skeptical remarks about it supposedly being a delusion or pseudoscience arrives they jump on the chance. sorry, but your actions mark a stronger commitment than your words in this regard. you can't just erase the obvious fact that you think this theory has merit just by writing a dismissive paragraph for once.

+ a lot

Also, if you've been here awhile, and you have not yet witnessed the predictive ability for yourself, you are doing it wrong. I'd suggest seeking help from those who have, instead of finding people in a similar situation to play skeptical club with. No matter how big the group gets, it is obvious to those on the outside that it is based in ignorance.

[DirectorAbbie]

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Socionics

It has an entry, therefore it exists.

[woofwoofl]

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Socionics

It has an entry, therefore it exists.

[ashlesha]

too much to respond to. honestly i'm still confused but thanks for the responses heh

as for why im here: to talk to people i like and because socionics is just part of how i think now for better or worse and you people speak the language.

@ crispy: part of having a 9 fix for me means hearing out all kinds of conflicting viewpoints compulsively so you seem to be making implications that dont apply to me.

[NewBorn STAR]

I am gamma and socionics is real.

[NewBorn STAR]

i wouldn't spend a second on a forum like this if there wasn't some extent to which i had found the phenomenon this theory describes manifests in reality. why the hell are you people even here.

i think some people are confusing the issue of whether the phenomenon is perfectly well described in all of it's nuances with the issue of whether anything about it is real. yes to the second, no and duh to the first.

there's a bunch of people on this forum who have a schizofrenic attitude toward socionics. on one hand they spend hour upon hour, year upon year discussing, writing about and thinking about the theory. on the other when the opportunity to write skeptical remarks about it supposedly being a delusion or pseudoscience arrives they jump on the chance. sorry, but your actions mark a stronger commitment than your words in this regard. you can't just erase the obvious fact that you think this theory has merit just by writing a dismissive paragraph for once.

Not at all, it's not tangible.

wrong. tangibility is not a criterion for reality.

I am here to play.

And smirk at people who take unreal stuff too seriously. Go out experience find out how limitless you actually are behind all this superficial mumbojumbo

[FDG]

Of course it is. Given more or less equal settings / compatibility, socionics type is the best predictor of who you're going to get along best / be friends with, socionics quadras are the best predictor of which groups will "automatically" form among a group of randomly chosen humans.

[NewBorn STAR]

Of course it is. Given more or less equal settings / compatibility, socionics type is the best predictor of who you're going to get along best / be friends with, socionics quadras are the best predictor of which groups will "automatically" form among a group of randomly chosen humans.

I suppose about this much predicting power socionics actually possesses. Has anyone though tested this ? When i go out i dont see same quandra people hanging out with each other as general correlation.

[ashlesha]

how often does it occur that all other factors are neutral enough that socionics is the most significant thing at play?

i dont expect this to have a precise answer, obviously.

[Trevor]

how often does it occur that all other factors are neutral enough that socionics is the most significant thing at play?

i dont expect this to have a precise answer, obviously.

just look at the people you hang out/live with. also at people who you get along with on this forum. Isn't it obvious that those other factors are not all that strong in comparison to socionics? In fact, they're pathetic.