Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 532

Thread: Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

  1. #41

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, and you even need an explanation to interpret a certain data, to make sure that you got it right and correct. So basically everything starts with a problem, and attempting to solve that problem by coming up with hypotheses.

    So what ajsindri is attempting to do, and basically what Socionics is doing, is to say "Just look at how mathematically accurate and statistically correct the observation of an apple falling is, it's so accurate that no one could ever dispute the fact that the apple fell. And if we were to observe other apples, then we would see that they all fall in the exact same way at the exact same rate!".

    It's not really wrong and getting the data correct is important of course, but this can't even begin to calculate how and at what rate would an apple fall on say, Mars or the Moon. It took Newton with a simple explanation that said "The apple must fall because objects are attracted to each other" to be able to calculate the gravity of Mars and at which rate the apple would fall there. It was an objective explanation because it could explain more than what it was purported to explain, it went beyond just explaining an apple falling on Earth. And this never even required someone to actually drop the apple on Mars to correctly predict it.

    So I think Socionics is like that.

  2. #42
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Newton noted the apple falling before he came up with an explanation for it.

  3. #43
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    So what ajsindri is attempting to do, and basically what Socionics is doing, is to say "Just look at how mathematically accurate and statistically correct the observation of an apple falling is, it's so accurate that no one could ever dispute the fact that the apple fell. And if we were to observe other apples, then we would see that they all fall in the exact same way at the exact same rate!".
    He’s not even doing this because he’s only rearranging information mathematically, which hasn’t systematically demonstratively been connected to anything concrete yet in a way that institutionalized science would accept.

    @ajsindri It’s much better than nothing, don’t get me wrong, but at the same time your findings will be blown away into the dust lacking an anchor of a more mainstream scientific or social science-type name and methodology. I guess it just depends on how big you want to go here with this.

  4. #44
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    Learning anything requires a feedback loop. Science is based on this principle; knowledge is generated and refined with the scientific cycle. In a lot of ways, socionics is still at the starting line because the lack of empirical trials is a lack of evolution. This kind of circularity is good because it converges on the right answer.
    It’s not good. These statements make me think you might devalue Se and value Te. A right answer within a system that is fundamentally wrong, is not good.

    It makes the answer wrong too.

    This is why I think you’re starting backwards. What you’re doing, while complex, is easy in a way. It won’t get Socionics very far. But if you wanna try to get your work published as a mathematical analysis project, go ahead. You might and it is better than nothing to have on your CV.

    Sorry that I didn’t have the time and mental energy to reply to you earlier.

  5. #45
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    ...This is why I think you’re starting backwards. What you’re doing, while complex, is easy in a way. It won’t get Socionics very far. But if you wanna try to get your work published as a mathematical analysis project, go ahead. You might and it is better than nothing to have on your CV...
    What I'm saying is inspired by Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). The CTMU talks a lot about how language is generated from a field of potential, a utility parameter, and a loop of cybernetic feedback. We have a field of potential from all the different socionic schools of thought. I am trying to develop a utility function that can measure how well an application matches the theoretical structure when applied. The structure is a self imposed constraint from socionics, but without it, the model would totally collapse, effectively proving Model A wrong. This creates a pass fail criteria for the application of socionics, fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to win the game.

    I'm expecting that if we try to make reliable standard way of applying model A, it won't work well at first, and we'll have to refine our method through trial and error. The key question is if it works well enough to start the refining process, and if the best version passes a standard, like less than 5% mistype error. We won't know any of this until we actually do it.

  6. #46
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    What I'm saying is inspired by Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). The CTMU talks a lot about how language is generated from a field of potential, a utility parameter, and a loop of cybernetic feedback. We have a field of potential from all the different socionic schools of thought. I am trying to develop a utility function that can measure how well an application matches the theoretical structure when applied. The structure is a self imposed constraint from socionics, but without it, the model would totally collapse, effectively proving Model A wrong. This creates a pass fail criteria for the application of socionics, fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to win the game.

    I'm expecting that if we try to make reliable standard way of applying model A, it won't work well at first, and we'll have to refine our method through trial and error. The key question is if it works well enough to start the refining process, and if the best version passes a standard, like less than 5% mistype error. We won't know any of this until we actually do it.
    There are already criteria and such requirements for falsifiability and error in the fields of research in question. Not being an institutional leader yourself, I don’t see how you expect to inject your own.

  7. #47
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west.
    PS- That’s how we do things here in the east too.

    Sorry in advance for the reality.

  8. #48
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    There are already criteria and such requirements for falsifiability and error in the fields of research in question. Not being an institutional leader yourself, I don’t see how you expect to inject your own.
    If there are, then I look forward to the entire professional socionic community coming to a consensus how socionics is best applied, which theories are wrong, and how to settle a difference of opinion when two schools disagree what type someone should be, and putting all of this in a format that can be presented to researchers in american and convince them socionics is a field worth studying.

  9. #49
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    ... fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to win the game...
    PS- That’s how we do things here in the east too.

    Sorry in advance for the reality.
    How can socionics be falsified without testing the structural correlations?

  10. #50
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    If there are, then I look forward to the entire professional socionic community coming to a consensus how socionics is best applied, which theories are wrong, and how to settle a difference of opinion when two schools disagree what type someone should be, and putting all of this in a format that can be presented to researchers in american and convince them socionics is a field worth studying.
    We all know, lol. Is this something you just became aware of?

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    How can socionics be falsified without testing the structural correlations?
    Refer to my first post in this thread.

  11. #51
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    If you want to give Socionics a start in making it scientific, you need to take one of its small, specific concrete claims, such as “people who act in x way (implying they’re of a certain type(s)) will also later act in y way more than the control”, and find a way to reliably measure it. That’s how Big 5 / OCEAN built a name for itself. It took many years though
    Again, I have no problem with factor analysis models like the big 5. I would love for socionic methodologies to be so precise, if you analyzed them with factor analysis, you would generate a structure isomorphic to Model A, but we are no where near that point. If that means people chose to spend their time studying other theories, that's fine with me. But I'm interested in socionics, and I assume everyone on a socionics forum is as well. What I am proposing is not directed to the general psychological community, only to the socionics community.

    If you just did factor analysis of every potential definition in socionics without taking into account the structure, you would be testing thousands of variable that all might decompose into sub factors. It would be way too much work, especially for a theory that has not demonstrated its empirical utility. You also risk falling into the trap of the MBTI which applied Jungian principles too simplistically and lost most of its meaning, which can never be generated with empirical testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    ... Not being an institutional leader yourself, I don’t see how you expect to inject your own.
    Well at the very least, we could integrate the analysis I am creating into a wiki source that could help us amateurs try and figure out what theories work best, or maybe even make a good online test for people just getting into socionics. There is a lot of negativity on this forum. If people actually want to fix the problem, I think we could do it together. However, if they are trolls and just want something to complain about, then I have a legitimate reason to ignore them.

    In terms of impacting the way socionics is done in Russia, both Bukalov and Gulenko seemed open to reviewing my paper when I'm finished and publishing in one of their academic journals. Depending on how user friendly and convincing I can make it, hopefully some socionic researchers will apply it to their research. If they do, and they produce a better version of socionics as a result, maybe other schools will follow suit to stay competitive. That's all hopeful speculation. Regardless, none of that will happen if I can't figure this stuff out.

  12. #52
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ajsindri You wouldn’t necessarily need to test for tons and tons of factors. Even a couple interesting ones that are unique observations to Socionics would help Socionics generate momentum, as it would put its name out there and connect it to some empirical basis.

    Anyway, I think you’re EII. You do you though.

  13. #53
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is not that socionics can't describe some aspects of a person's psyche. It is just if there are really only 16 types, it should be observable and collaboratively agreed upon what constitutes a type. What we actually observe is exactly what one would expect if dimensions are on a sliding scale as opposed to dichotomies. You really don't need cognitive functions to explain a person, only a list of where they measure on the scales. But a further problem is subjectivity. People see types differently than others, without a consensus. If types were the "higher reality", it should be apparent who was what type. There should be significantly measureable differences that require the existence of the types to explain them. But, all people seem interested in here is trying to squeeze a size 11 foot into a size 10 shoe, while saying one can only be a 10 or 12 because the manufacturers only made those sizes and insists no size 11 exists!

  14. #54
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Nebula I totally get what you're saying and I still plan on replying to an earlier comment. It was just complex so I'm trying to do it justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    @ajsindri You wouldn’t necessarily need to test for tons and tons of factors. Even a couple interesting ones that are unique observations to Socionics would help Socionics generate momentum, as it would put its name out there and connect it to some empirical basis.
    How do we decide which few traits are worth investing decades of research into? If there is a consensus, it would be the Model A analytics: 8 functions * 8 information elements = 64 basic categories, each with multiple aspect. That is a monster of a factor analysis. Also, there is no consensus what the definitions are exactly or even that is the best way to test the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Anyway, I think you’re EII. You do you though.
    >:| this must be why you people are always complaining about socionics, because you think you know someone well enough after an internet conversation to type them, and then when your stereotypical thinking cause problems, you blame the theory. No, just because I don't agree with you and think socionics can be improve with science does not make me EII.

  15. #55
    IQ over 150 vesstheastralsilky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ~°~
    Posts
    1,488
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In my post on Functional Definitions, cognitive functions are each attributed by me to major brain centers.
    ~* astralsilky



    Each essence is a separate glass,
    Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
    Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
    A thousand colors, but the Light is One.

    Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet


    Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...

  16. #56
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    We also go way back lol that you haven’t figured that out yet. Also that’s my impression of how you think and value things overall in this thread. I disagreed with Singu too in here but I still think he’s IEI. Also, I don’t have a problem with Socionics itself, I just am realistic about its status in academia as it stands.
    Are you the SLE who was typing people with the reinin dichotomies? If you are, did you see my excel program?

  17. #57

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Newton noted the apple falling before he came up with an explanation for it.
    Yes, but we don't know why the apple falls, until Newton came up with an explanation for it. And observations are a kind of an explanation or an expectation, which is generated unconsciously by our brain, through our eyes.

    There's nothing wrong with making the observations as strict and accurate as possible. But observations clearly have limitations. We can't observe the sun for billion of years to see what will happen. We can't observe billions of years of evolution. And we certainly can't observe gravity, expect indirectly through two objects.

    So why does science make assertions about things that we can't even see? Why does it make assertions that there were dinosaurs, or that the sun will explode billions of years from now? It's because science is in the business of coming up with explanations, that are then tested by observations. If we could somehow build a time machine and go back in time and observe that there were no dinosaurs, then the "dinosaur theory" would be rightfully refuted.

    So we come up with theories and hypotheses first, then we test them by observations. Not the other way around.

    If you can't come up with some sort of a theory or a hypothesis, then it's just not science. It's just some data or statistics.

  18. #58
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    And observations are a kind of an explanation or an expectation, which is generated unconsciously by our brain, through our eyes.
    Marry me Singu

  19. #59
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    No thanks. I don't have an interest in making Socionics scientific. There's enough garbage out there today that claims to be scientific. Add a few numbers to whatever and you can worship it like a cargo cult. All hail!

  20. #60
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ajsindri, the impression I’ve gotten is that existing research shows personality traits are measurable but show normal distribution. So doesn’t that problematize the use of dichotomies?
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  21. #61

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Saying "Types exist" or "This person fits type description X" has as much use as saying "Apples Really Fall If I Drop It".

    What if there are behaviors that are not in any description? Then you can't know anything about it. And what is in a type description? Whatever that we have observed before. So the "theory" can only know what it has already been observed. Which by definition, is not a prediction. A prediction would imply something that we have never even observed before.

    Science can assert things that have never been observed before, and get the prediction right. Every. Single. Time. So why can't Socionics?

  22. #62
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    @ajsindri, the impression I’ve gotten is that existing research shows personality traits are measurable but show normal distribution. So doesn’t that problematize the use of dichotomies?
    I've never seen empirical data on socionic dichotomies and not all dichotomies are created equal. But yes, part of the challenge of test design (including a diagnostic interview) is getting bimodally distributed results. That's why I'm expecting any concrete approach will have to go through a couple of cycles of refinement before it has a chance of working. The first step is establishing correlations, then finding the neutral point, and last getting the score to separate in a bimodal pattern.

  23. #63
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    @ajsindri, the impression I’ve gotten is that existing research shows personality traits are measurable but show normal distribution. So doesn’t that problematize the use of dichotomies?
    This is true of the MBTI dichotomies and is why they are generally considered empirically refuted.

    However, AFAIK it's not true of the Big 5 traits, for example.

  24. #64
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush, when I google “big 5 traits normal distribution” what comes up are lots of secondary sources that assert the distribution is normal as a basic aspect of big 5, for example:

    https://medium.com/psyc-406-2016/fiv...l-ca524c5d2a60

    I haven’t had time to investigate further but will keep looking. The statements I’ve read re personality trait distribution in the last few months were not all specific to MBTI iirc but I’d have to retrace my steps.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  25. #65
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    @thehotelambush, when I google “big 5 traits normal distribution” what comes up are lots of secondary sources that assert the distribution is normal as a basic aspect of big 5, for example:

    https://medium.com/psyc-406-2016/fiv...l-ca524c5d2a60

    I haven’t had time to investigate further but will keep looking. The statements I’ve read re personality trait distribution in the last few months were not all specific to MBTI iirc but I’d have to retrace my steps.
    Big Five was created through statistical analysis - they took a whole bunch of traits / questions and figured out that certain ones correlated with other ones.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104167/

    Of course the problem is that Big Five has no theoretical basis, unlike socionics. But it does show that certain traits are essentially bimodal - not that that has any bearing on socionics, which measures different traits that haven't been empirically investigated with any depth.

  26. #66
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @golden, are you talking about how any psychometric test, like let's say a 1-5 scale likert test (strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree, strongly disagree) people have a tendency to rate themselves in the middle regardless of the questions? I remember My statistics teacher mentioned that and said you should never give people an odd numbered option for that reason. That all has to do with experiment design. I don't know what best item scheme would work for socionics - that's something we'd have to figure out. That's one reason I think we need to evaluate socionics statistically, so we can measure small incremental improvements.

  27. #67
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @golden, are you talking about how any psychometric test, like let's say a 1-5 scale likert test (strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree, strongly disagree) people have a tendency to rate themselves in the middle regardless of the questions? I remember My statistics teacher mentioned that and said you should never give people an odd numbered option for that reason.
    That seems silly. If you genuinely can't rate yourself as being one or the other, you're forced to arbitrarily choose one. Good way to get bad statistics.

  28. #68
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush it is silly unless it works. I'm sure there is a whole meta-analysis of test design, and we should take into account how the way a question is asked effects the answer if we are ever at the stage of making a working test. That's all in the future though, I gotta figure out how to define a working space of types and intertype relations first.

  29. #69
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @golden, are you talking about how any psychometric test, like let's say a 1-5 scale likert test (strongly agree, agree, neither, disagree, strongly disagree) people have a tendency to rate themselves in the middle regardless of the questions? I remember My statistics teacher mentioned that and said you should never give people an odd numbered option for that reason. That all has to do with experiment design. I don't know what best item scheme would work for socionics - that's something we'd have to figure out. That's one reason I think we need to evaluate socionics statistically, so we can measure small incremental improvements.
    No. I’m not talking about problems in making scales or in research subjects using the scales. I’m talking about the proposal that for any given personality trait, the strength of that trait will show normal distribution. My understanding — based on reading I did several months ago — was that it’s been consistently found that traits distribute this way. Therefore, if you use a dichotomy, you may slice across the center of the curve where the greatest number of people are clustered.
    LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”

    Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”

    LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”

  30. #70
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @golden, there is an example of bimodal distribution in a recent post by Director Abbie [link]. I think standard distribution is most common, but by bimodal distribution does exist in research.

  31. #71
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    No. I’m not talking about problems in making scales or in research subjects using the scales. I’m talking about the proposal that for any given personality trait, the strength of that trait will show normal distribution. My understanding — based on reading I did several months ago — was that it’s been consistently found that traits distribute this way. Therefore, if you use a dichotomy, you may slice across the center of the curve where the greatest number of people are clustered.
    Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
    @golden, there is an example of bimodal distribution in a recent post by Director Abbie [link]. I think standard distribution is most common, but by bimodal distribution does exist in research.
    I don’t think she’s talking about bimodal, but about calibrating the average to the responses.

    As Sindri said in an earlier response, the neutral point needs to be found and it takes a few steps of calibration and redesign @ golden.
    Last edited by sbbds; 11-07-2018 at 04:40 AM.

  32. #72

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Measure the 16 types using something along the lines of Dario Nardi's neuro-scientific methods.
    2. Use biometric software to map out patterns in their movements, facial expressions, and micro-cues.
    3. Mission accomplished.

  33. #73
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A Moderator View Post
    1. Measure the 16 types using something along the lines of Dario Nardi's neuro-scientific methods.
    2. Use biometric software to map out patterns in their movements, facial expressions, and micro-cues.
    3. Mission accomplished.
    Supposedly Dario Nardi is yet another scammer. His methods are intransparent, and he charges a shit ton for his services too, which are pseudo-scientific at best. Christmas tree brain pattern my ass.

    #2 would be a great start though.

  34. #74
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Saying "Types exist" or "This person fits type description X" has as much use as saying "Apples Really Fall If I Drop It".

    What if there are behaviors that are not in any description? Then you can't know anything about it. And what is in a type description? Whatever that we have observed before. So the "theory" can only know what it has already been observed. Which by definition, is not a prediction. A prediction would imply something that we have never even observed before.

    Science can assert things that have never been observed before, and get the prediction right. Every. Single. Time. So why can't Socionics?
    Tfw Singu is accidentally inspirational.

  35. #75
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ajsindri Re your super long post (#95) in this thread where you mentioned me (I wasn’t notified for some reason):

    I like that you are coming up with ways to test for types that keep to the Socionics structure.

    However, what you’re talking about is more like test design for finding out your Sociotype. It doesn’t do anything to prove Socionics itself empirically. The suggestions I made only spoke towards that idea. I had thought that this was what the whole thread was about and I think others did too, based on the way you presented the topic.

  36. #76
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @golden, @Nebula, this is how I would set up the dichotomy tests: I would allow each pole of the dichotomy to be independent and then graph the results. Ideally, you would get a regression line with a high R value showing an inverse relationship, and the points would be clustered on either side in a bimodal distribution. However, either of the properties might not work out.


    A theoretical reason you'd get bimodal distribution is if two processes where antagonistic, and it was mentally easier to use more of one or the other. For example, the antagonistic relationship between the introverted and extroverted version of a cognitive process is the reason why all ignore our ignoring function in favor of the base.


  37. #77
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @sbbds if you found high correlations consistent with the structure of socionics, wouldn't that be empirical proof of the model?

    Like if you were testing temperament, and you found that your measurements for extrovert / introvert, static / dynamic and rational / irrational were all independent (no correlation) but in combinations of all three, there were only 4 main types rather than the 8 possible, that seems like validation of the temperament relationship. If you got 8 types, that is proof at least one of those dichotomies does not act how it theoretically should. You wouldn't know which one was bad or even if they were all bad, but you could preform a similar experiment with a different small group. Assuming at least some of the small groups tested worked, you could use those to figure out the good dichotomies, and through process of elimination, figure out the bad.

    In a real test though, I doubt it would be clear cut. A lot of the dichotomies might work a little, but also be wrong a lot of the time. You would need statistics to rank the traits and figure out which are worth keeping and which need to be changed or discarded.

    Also like I mentioned in that long post, you could make dichotomies out of higher order concepts, like Model A function information. You need to know the structure of socionics to combine these concepts and look for theoretic correlation, and you would need statistics to weight and measure the integrity of the system.

    If the result was a lot of high correlation consistent with the theory of socionics, wouldn't that be proof of the model? The model predicted certain correlations that were empirically demonstrated. However, if there were no correlations, the structure would totally collapse, proving Model A wrong or at least that application wrong. If no application could be found that fit the rules set up by Model A, then you have proven the model is useless. This is the kind if scientific test I need help developing.

  38. #78
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ajsindri That would still be mostly building internal consistency, not external consistency. At some stage that would definitely be needed too though.

    Well in any case, good on you for what you’re trying to do right now anyway, because if people can be typed more accurately and satisfactorily then it will improve the state of Socionics overall.

  39. #79
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @sbbds what is external consistency?

  40. #80
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So I think you’re IEI again lol

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •