What Socionics actually is

[Singu]

There's a lot of confusion over how Socionics actually works, what it actually is, when is it accurate, and when is it not.

This post will attempt to clarify those questions and confusions.

So what actually is Socionics? It can be summed up by this simple sentence:

"It has happened before, so it will happen again"

That's really it.

If you think about it, it makes total sense. Let me explain.

Supposedly, you have a "type" with certain observable characteristics. And that past fixed observation will supposedly continue into the future, leaving the characteristics intact. E.g. a logical person will always be logical in the future. An emotional person will always be emotional in the future. An Activity ITR played out in a certain way, will always play out in the same way in the future. Or at any rate, it probably will, or it might.

But how do we know that just because we have observed it happening, it will happen again? How do we know that it will repeat indefinitely, and that it's not just some fluke or a coincidence or a partial observation where we're missing some other important aspects?

How do we know that just because it has happened 500 times in a row, it will happen again?

Well the fact is, we don't. Or at least, we won't know without an explanation for why that is the case.

For example, a chicken might get fed by a farmer for 140 days in a row, thinking that the farmer will always feed it. But on the 141st day, the farmer chops off the chicken's head to be sent off to the market.

So whether the chicken gets fed or not depends entirely on the explanation of what the farmer will do. It can't be said that just because the chicken was fed yesterday, it will be fed again tomorrow. What the chicken needed was an explanation of what the farmer will do, in order to escape the farm before it was killed, and not merely rely on what has happened before, so to assume that it will happen again.

So the question becomes, how or when do we know when something is a regularity, and when something is not? We can only know that through explanations for why something should be a regularity, and when something isn't.

We can't know that just because we have observed something, it will happen again. Just because we have observed a "type", doesn't mean that the "type" will always stay the same and always be doing the same things like we might expect them to. We can't expect that just because we have observed a certain "ITR", doesn't mean that the ITR will always play out the same way in the future. It could change, it could be different, it could play out in a different way.

[woofwoofl]

Certain forms have lots of socialist confusion from the truth, such as where they should be, where they are acting, and not.

The publications that are trying to explain these aspects will be together.

What kind of thing? This simple line can be summarized as follows.

"It will not happen before this is done"

this is true.

If you think about it, this is truly the truth. I will explain.

I am considering the element "what I should do". This screening is continued for a permanent future and symptoms continue. For example, a reasonable and reasonable person may last forever in the future. Emotionally, many people in the movement will always be in the future. I do not know what it is in the same way as I do with ItRSI Ejea euismod. Of course neither of them exists.

But after all I knew what happened, so do you know this? Because of the urgent survey that is pressing urgently, or not next time, what kind of things do you understand?

As they met in the 500 series, this also happened, was it impossible to see it as we did?

Well, actually it is not. Or, at least, you know because you do not have this description.

Farmers born to the farmer believe that the space is 140 days because chicks are bred. However, farmers' market and head were sent.

So, if you have enough, or chickens, it will definitely be established by Agricola. On the other hand, I am going tomorrow and can say that yesterday I did not eat chicken given.

If so, how, when, what is normal and what you do not understand? We can see that we can not repeat it unless we introduce something.

I do not know what we are seeing. In order for this to happen again. The fact we see in "what to do" does not mean a person who has "beauty" but has the right to always have something we can not see. We are watching "ITR" and we can not wait for some. This has never been ruled out and ITR will be given again. It can not diversify, but it could be opposed.

[Hope]

A cult.

[squark]

Socionics is not a cohesive whole but a thousand different ideas all competing with one another. It's the process of sorting and tying together all those threads that can entangle a person, and if you start pulling them together into a shape that makes sense, threads are always unraveling in some other corner. You will never get all those ideas onto a single page, because holding one eliminates others, pull that one in, and others fall out. There is no single understanding. Just knotted strings being pulled in different directions. And so each individual creates their own personal creation from that jumble of threads. And no two are alike.

[Number 9 large]

There's a lot of confusion over how Socionics actually works, what it actually is, when is it accurate, and when is it not.

This post will attempt to clarify those questions and confusions.

So what actually is Socionics? It can be summed up by this simple sentence:

"It has happened before, so it will happen again"

That's really it.

If you think about it, it makes total sense. Let me explain.

Supposedly, you have a "type" with certain observable characteristics. And that past fixed observation will supposedly continue into the future, leaving the characteristics intact. E.g. a logical person will always be logical in the future. An emotional person will always be emotional in the future. An Activity ITR played out in a certain way, will always play out in the same way in the future. Or at any rate, it probably will, or it might.

But how do we know that just because we have observed it happening, it will happen again? How do we know that it will repeat indefinitely, and that it's not just some fluke or a coincidence or a partial observation where we're missing some other important aspects?

How do we know that just because it has happened 500 times in a row, it will happen again?

Well the fact is, we don't. Or at least, we won't know without an explanation for why that is the case.

For example, a chicken might get fed by a farmer for 140 days in a row, thinking that the farmer will always feed it. But on the 141st day, the farmer chops off the chicken's head to be sent off to the market.

So whether the chicken gets fed or not depends entirely on the explanation of what the farmer will do. It can't be said that just because the chicken was fed yesterday, it will be fed again tomorrow. What the chicken needed was an explanation of what the farmer will do, in order to escape the farm before it was killed, and not merely rely on what has happened before, so to assume that it will happen again.

So the question becomes, how or when do we know when something is a regularity, and when something is not? We can only know that through explanations for why something should be a regularity, and when something isn't.

We can't know that just because we have observed something, it will happen again. Just because we have observed a "type", doesn't mean that the "type" will always stay the same and always be doing the same things like we might expect them to. We can't expect that just because we have observed a certain "ITR", doesn't mean that the ITR will always play out the same way in the future. It could change, it could be different, it could play out in a different way.

Wrong. It's a cult.

[Desert Financial]

We call on you, Gulenko, Bukalov, Reinin, and Augustinavičiūtė.

We call on you with the geometric hexagram of duality and the sacred candles that illuminate our blessed visual identification.

May we see in each other all types and information elements as we see in you all types and information elements.

May our intuitive pattern recognition and typings based on forum avatars provide for us the objective Truth and the Way.

Amen.

[Rebelondeck]

"It has happened before, so it will happen again"

Astronomy is also somewhat like that because nobody really knows how stars or black-holes really function but a lot of it is predictable. At least, physicists are trying to define the sub-atomic structures that causes the various phenomena whereas Socionics seems to still be rearranging and arguing over its data without attempting to define information processing structures that could cause the observations. Socionics is a strong clue that there's a lot more to learn so it needs to move beyond just talking about the weather....

a.k.a. I/O

[Hope]

"It has happened before, so it will happen again"

Astronomy is also somewhat like that because nobody really knows how stars or black-holes really function but a lot of it is predictable. At least, physicists are trying to define the sub-atomic structures that causes the various phenomena whereas Socionics seems to still be rearranging and arguing over its data without attempting to define information processing structures that could cause the observations. Socionics is a strong clue that there's a lot more to learn so it needs to move beyond just talking about the weather....

a.k.a. I/O

Actually most russian socionists with their descriptions are giving examples of information processing structures of types which try to explain the ppl behavior with respect to personality because most of them are psychologists...but that doesnt happens in this forum, because ppl has detached socionics from psychology but psychology is basic to understand socionics imo.

[The Reality Denialist]

Some people try to make it much more than it is.

So, take it as information categorization and that certain forms information processing will suppress something over something else.

It won't serve in predictive sense as if you can share type. You'll need more information.

Lots of it is just pure guessing. Like values.

[Sol]

Jung's types' model + 8 functional model + IR

> There's a lot of confusion over how Socionics actually works

read Jung's and Augustinavichiute's texts, think adequately, type good and such you'll remove "a lot of confusion"

[Singu]

"It has happened before, so it will happen again"

Astronomy is also somewhat like that because nobody really knows how stars or black-holes really function but a lot of it is predictable. At least, physicists are trying to define the sub-atomic structures that causes the various phenomena whereas Socionics seems to still be rearranging and arguing over its data without attempting to define information processing structures that could cause the observations. Socionics is a strong clue that there's a lot more to learn so it needs to move beyond just talking about the weather....

a.k.a. I/O

But they do.

For example, why did Newton think that things fell? Because of gravity. Why is there gravity? Because of the planets.

So following this logic, we can say that "There is gravity, as long as there is a planet which pulls the other objects around it. If there's no planet, then there would be no gravity".

We can't just say that "There is gravity for no reason" (or at least why we don't fall off the Earth), because then there wouldn't be any rationale for things falling. It would be just random.

Before Newton, why did Kepler, Tycho, etc, thought that planets orbit around the sun? They knew that there was some sort of order in the universe. But unlike Newton, they didn't quite figure out that the gravity was caused by the size of the planets. But it was still a weaker explanation, which said "There must be some sort of an order that makes the planets orbit around the sun in a predictable way".

Of course after that, Einstein figured out that the gravity had to do with the curvature of space-time, and not "Force" of gravity.

And if they can't still figure out the correct explanation, then at least there is a hypothesis for why we observe the things that we do.

So like I've been saying, the explanations precede everything else. Explanations precede even predictions. First there is an explanation, then we make predictions, using "math", "data", etc. Not the other way around.

--

So how does Socionics compare to this? Well Socionics doesn't even have hypothesis for its observations. There's no evolutionary hypothesis, there's no neurological hypothesis, etc, for why we observe the supposed regularities that we do.

Of course, it could be a regularity, or it could not. So the question becomes, why should it be a regularity?

[Singu]

Socionics is not a cohesive whole but a thousand different ideas all competing with one another. It's the process of sorting and tying together all those threads that can entangle a person, and if you start pulling them together into a shape that makes sense, threads are always unraveling in some other corner. You will never get all those ideas onto a single page, because holding one eliminates others, pull that one in, and others fall out. There is no single understanding. Just knotted strings being pulled in different directions. And so each individual creates their own personal creation from that jumble of threads. And no two are alike.

They are each individuals' separate observations, yes.

But the question should be, "Why should a certain observation be a regularity?". As in, why is it predictable? "Predictable" is an interesting word, because it really means "staying the same". You can only predict something if things stay the same.

I think the problem with a lot of human psychology, sociology, etc., is that people aren't very predictable, because of humans' incredibly ability to be creative, as in to create or do something new that has never been done before (this seems to have something to do with self-awareness). So how can we predict things that we have never done before? Well we can't really. I'm sure some things are predictable. But a lot aren't. So again the question becomes, why should it be a regularity, as in why should it be predictable?

[sbbds]

But the question should be, "Why should a certain observation be a regularity?". As in, why is it predictable? "Predictable" is an interesting word, because it really means "staying the same". You can only predict something if things stay the same.

*gives you a gold star sticker*

[woofwoofl]

For example, why did Newton think that things fell? Because of gravity. Why is there gravity? Because of the planets.

So following this logic, we can say that "There is gravity, as long as there is a planet which pulls the other objects around it. If there's no planet, then there would be no gravity".

We can't just say that "There is gravity for no reason" (or at least why we don't fall off the Earth), because then there wouldn't be any rationale for things falling. It would be just random.

Easy/concise model -- mass likes mass.

Gravity's a term. A portion of a model, a good one imo.

"Fell" is local. Needs "up" to be sky and "down" to be center of earth. Zooming out, we can keep "mass likes mass", though the "up"/"down" model warps. For day-to-day use, up/down's good to have.

"Random" happens most afaik at the unwitnessed super-zoomed-in. Subatomic.

Planets have mass, stars have mass; mass likes mass; center of gravity is pure local-down, opposite direction is pure local-up.

Before Newton, why did Kepler, Tycho, etc, thought that planets orbit around the sun? They knew that there was some sort of order in the universe. But unlike Newton, they didn't quite figure out that the gravity was caused by the size of the planets. But it was still a weaker explanation, which said "There must be some sort of an order that makes the planets orbit around the sun in a predictable way".

Of course after that, Einstein figured out that the gravity had to do with the curvature of space-time, and not "Force" of gravity.

And if they can't still figure out the correct explanation, then at least there is a hypothesis for why we observe the things that we do.

So like I've been saying, the explanations precede everything else. Explanations precede even predictions. First there is an explanation, then we make predictions, using "math", "data", etc. Not the other way around.

--

So how does Socionics compare to this? Well Socionics doesn't even have hypothesis for its observations. There's no evolutionary hypothesis, there's no neurological hypothesis, etc, for why we observe the supposed regularities that we do.

Of course, it could be a regularity, or it could not. So the question becomes, why should it be a regularity?

Correct model can be any peak area of easy/concise/useful. I recently ran with "there's ghosts in the computer" for pre-empiricist explanation for the compu's audio line-out not working. This explanation saved time, did what I needed it to do, and then I continued living.

[Rebelondeck]

.....So how does Socionics compare to this? Well Socionics doesn't even have hypothesis for its observations. There's no evolutionary hypothesis, there's no neurological hypothesis, etc, for why we observe the supposed regularities that we do.

Of course, it could be a regularity, or it could not. So the question becomes, why should it be a regularity?

Like weather phenomena that's become more predictable but it took centuries to figure out that it wasn't the gods and still more time to figure out that humans also have an effect. Socionics comprises nothing more than categories of observations/associations and the categories aren't likely correct - but it's a start. The proposed associations shouldn't be dismissed outright because there's likely a solid basis in the brain's firmware and closer approximations can be developed; Socionics is simply not yet headed in the right direction.

a.k.a. I/O

[Muddy]

Socionics is the key towards godly transcendence and becoming one with the universe. Will you join us, brothers and sisters?

[Singu]

Like weather phenomena that's become more predictable but it took centuries to figure out that it wasn't the gods and still more time to figure out that humans also have an effect. Socionics comprises nothing more than categories of observations/associations and the categories aren't likely correct - but it's a start. The proposed associations shouldn't be dismissed outright because there's likely a solid basis in the brain's firmware and closer approximations can be developed; Socionics is simply not yet headed in the right direction.

a.k.a. I/O

Yes, it took centuries, because it took centuries to find and change the explanation to a newer and better explanation. Before that, it was more or less "it has happened before, therefore it will continue to happen again". How could we ever find something new with that kind of thought?

"It has happened before, therefore it will happen again" is not a start. It's an absurdity. It's simply a flawed way of looking at things. It's just a kind of a prejudice, even a common, "intuitive" prejudice of human beings (perhaps this is how we evolved to think and see the world).

If you don't find or change the explanation, then you'd have the same old prejudice running the show, whether it's God or thinking that a certain pattern of the past will keep repeating into the future indefinitely.

Relationships aren't actually that predictable. People don't have the exact same kind of relations over and over again with the same people. People don't have the exact same kind of thoughts, feelings and do the exact same things for years and years.

This is the exact kind of absurdity that creates ideas like "Quadra progression". You just keep on adding newer and newer observations on top of observations. So in the end, what you have is a piece of history, not a theory. Well of course they are, since they're nothing more than observations.

I'm not discounting the observations. But if the observations were to have any meaning or basis, then it would need to have explanations for the observations.

I do think that trying to predict people in such a precise way is mostly an act of futility.

[squark]

They are each individuals' separate observations, yes.

But the question should be, "Why should a certain observation be a regularity?". As in, why is it predictable? "Predictable" is an interesting word, because it really means "staying the same". You can only predict something if things stay the same.

I think the problem with a lot of human psychology, sociology, etc., is that people aren't very predictable, because of humans' incredibly ability to be creative, as in to create or do something new that has never been done before (this seems to have something to do with self-awareness). So how can we predict things that we have never done before? Well we can't really. I'm sure some things are predictable. But a lot aren't. So again the question becomes, why should it be a regularity, as in why should it be predictable?

You know Singu, I wasn't really talking to you in that post, just like you're not really talking to me. I gave my thoughts because I just wanted to put them out there, for whoever might get something from them, not to answer your question or try to reach you personally. But, I'll address the predictability question. People often alter their behavior based on expectations, either to foil expectations or to prove them, so when you give an explanation for some behavior you're in some ways just introducing another variable. When you study animals, they don't have any idea what conclusions you're drawing or how it effects them. When you study people, they're constantly adjusting and reacting, responding to whatever information they have. A number of people (I don't know how many, or have any sorts of statistics on it) when told that they are some type that has particular characteristics and acts in certain ways will try to fit those expectations. They in effect, become the stereotype. Other people do not. The people who predictably fall in line with the stereotype often have traits in common with one another, even if they are identifying with different types.

So, can we find traits (traits people possess in varying degrees, not types they supposedly are) that predict behavior? Yes, remarkably we can. And that's some of the work of psychologists studying Big 5 etc. Socionics may not predict anything (in my opinion it doesn't predict anything. other people may disagree) but watching how different people interact with socionics is pretty interesting. Why do you have the need to prove your case, why have you gone to the lengths you have? Might all this be tied to a need for closure? Might it be tied to another trait? I have no idea, but those are the interesting questions imo. And once you've identified traits like this, they are predictable. Someone doesn't just stop doing something they feel a drive to do even if they want to, it takes a whole lot more effort to change those kinds of things. Type on the other hand, isn't really like that.

Today someone can completely identify with one type and be completely convinced that they use Te or something, and tomorrow decide it was all Te role, or hidden agenda, and that explains everything so much better. . . Because you have people trying to evaluate themselves without clear standards of what it means. They are also trying to evaluate other people. Some people are using VI, others reinin traits, others trying to go purely by information elelments that are visibly being used by the person. Lots of different methods, and lots of different opinions on how to go about it. The primary socionicists that wrote all the material everyone else uses don't even agree on methods or standards. So, each person creates something that works for them. Something they can apply and make sense of. And they discuss ideas, and sometimes these ideas match other people's experiences, and sometimes they don't. And it's a hobby. It's something a lot of people find fun or interesting. Walk into a discussion on a popular new book, and is it that much different? Everyone has their ideas and opinions, and they want to share them with other people. That's why I tell you that it's pointless to keep bringing this stuff up, because it just looks like you're walking into the middle of a book club and shouting "This book isn't even real, it's just fiction!!!" The whole book club knows it's fiction, but they're discussing it anyway, because they want to. It's entertaining and sometimes you can even suspend disbelief for just long enough to almost believe it's real.

[sbbds]

My assessment of Singu is that he is looking for someone to finally prove him wrong and offer some grand theoretical explanation in a way that he finds acceptable. That is why he keeps asking the same questions and bringing up the same issues with Socionics in different threads.

Also,

I wasn't really talking to you in that post, just like you're not really talking to me. I gave my thoughts because I just wanted to put them out there, for whoever might get something from them, not to answer your question or try to reach you personally.

Lol, introverts.jpg.

[Singu]

So, can we find traits (traits people possess in varying degrees, not types they supposedly are) that predict behavior? Yes, remarkably we can. And that's some of the work of psychologists studying Big 5 etc.

Big 5 works in the same way that I've explained how Socionics works. We're only supposing that there are certain traits like Neuroticism etc, that supposedly stay stable over time. They may or they may not stay the same over time, we don't really know, because there is not yet any rationale for the reason why they should stay the same. But all we're saying is things will stay the same. There's nothing new or magical about that.

What separates Big 5, Socionics, etc. from the other theories is that other theories at least have explanations for the mechanisms of how things work. If they stay the same, then they have explanations for why things should stay the same.

Socionics may not predict anything (in my opinion it doesn't predict anything. other people may disagree) but watching how different people interact with socionics is pretty interesting. Why do you have the need to prove your case, why have you gone to the lengths you have? Might all this be tied to a need for closure? Might it be tied to another trait? I have no idea, but those are the interesting questions imo. And once you've identified traits like this, they are predictable. Someone doesn't just stop doing something they feel a drive to do even if they want to, it takes a whole lot more effort to change those kinds of things. Type on the other hand, isn't really like that.

Well why not? I'm only interested in why this whole thing doesn't work, and when it should work. Figuring out why it doesn't work is an interesting thing to figure out. And I can apply this to not just Socionics, but things outside of Socionics that work with the same logic.

Today someone can completely identify with one type and be completely convinced that they use Te or something, and tomorrow decide it was all Te role, or hidden agenda, and that explains everything so much better. . . Because you have people trying to evaluate themselves without clear standards of what it means.

My view is that there's no such thing as "Te", or "Te" is something that more or less everyone uses at some point. There's just not going to be a single person in this society who doesn't "value" facts or practicality or whatever.

And it's a hobby. It's something a lot of people find fun or interesting. Walk into a discussion on a popular new book, and is it that much different? Everyone has their ideas and opinions, and they want to share them with other people. That's why I tell you that it's pointless to keep bringing this stuff up, because it just looks like you're walking into the middle of a book club and shouting "This book isn't even real, it's just fiction!!!" The whole book club knows it's fiction, but they're discussing it anyway, because they want to. It's entertaining and sometimes you can even suspend disbelief for just long enough to almost believe it's real.

Well see I have a problem with this view, because it's not "just" a hobby or some fiction. People really treat this whole thing as if it were 100% real. It is the reality for them. It really affects how they view and treat others. And I find this to be sad, because the whole thing is obviously fictional and not how things or people actually work at all.

If they want to hold onto their fictional world, then sure, they're free to do so. All I'm doing is explaining how it actually works. They're free to not read what I'm writing. Am I taking away their fun? Well that's too bad, because it's only the truth. If they disagree, then they're free to offer counter-arguments, but I have yet to hear any other than some lame defenses.

What's more interesting to me is, why do you have the need to defend it, when you think about it rationally, it obviously doesn't work?

[squark]

@Singu, What I've found with you and a few others is that it doesn't really matter what I say, because you have an agenda, you're locked in, and nothing I say will be heard at all. I don't defend socionics, and never have, and yet that's what you see whenever you read my posts. If you really want to know why it doesn't work, I've already told you multiple times in multiple ways why it doesn't. And yet, you somehow continually manage to read my criticisms and explanations as defenses, literally for years now. I don't expect this to suddenly change. And with that I will address one problem I see in your thinking:

Can past behavior predict future behavior? Yes. 100? No. Something that happens on a regular basis, does tend to keep on happening unless something changes it. A river continues to flow the same approximate path from year to year, with only subtle changes unless something changes the topography or water flow. Over time it can end up looking like a completely different river, but the normally gradual changes aren't big or drastic. The river is overall pretty dependable from one year to the next. The sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west unless something quite extreme happens to the earth, sun or solar system as a whole. Is the sun 100% guaranteed to rise tomorrow? No, but you can reasonably expect that it will. That's not a flaw, any more than it's a flaw to believe that if you drop a brick it will fall to the ground. If instead it flies up and hits you in the face then something unusual is going on, and that's interesting in itself, yeah? You ask, "What changed?" Same with observations of people.

Your behavior doesn't change all that much, your arguments don't change, your approach doesn't, how much you comprehend complex thought doesn't change that much from one day to the next, but you're most likely continually growing, changing in small ways, learning even when it doesn't appear that way on the surface. You're the same person you were as a kid, but you're also not the same person. Knowing where you are today gives everyone a reasonable idea of where you'll be tomorrow. Somebody having a sudden personality change is noticeable and alarming to everyone close to them - they can see that something is suddenly different, something happened, and it alerts them to a problem. Those same changes taking place gradually don't alert anyone because the person still looks pretty much the same from one day to the next. The changes are small and subtle. That's what is meant by stability. A stable trait can indeed be counted on to remain intact over a decent period of time. And you can reasonably expect a person tomorrow to be the same person they were today. But that doesn't mean that people don't also change. It's not the expectation of continuance that is the problem with socionics, and expectations of continuance are the only way you make it through each day.

Imagine thinking that every time you take a step that your foot could go off in some random direction, or that you could suddenly shoot off into space, or that water could suddenly start to boil at room temperature. Just walking to your kitchen to get a glass of water would be a huge unknown unpredictable experience and every second of your day would be occupied in confusion. Perhaps nothing is truly stable, but we operate as though it is, because things are stable enough and to act otherwise would be a recipe for insanity. Within our lifetimes, our environments are stable enough that we can make predictions. And people too are stable enough that they too can be predicted in some ways. Changes from this are immediately noticed. Someone who you've always known to be reliable and on time, is 3 hours late and you haven't heard from them. . . do you think something happened, or do you think their personality suddenly changed and now they no longer care about time? Which prediction do you think has a greater chance of being accurate? These are rhetorical questions of course, so that maybe you'll consider that predictions don't have to be 100% reliable or accurate, all they do is give a reasonable chance for something. You consider what option is more or less likely. It is more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow than we will be plunged into eternal darkness. That's a prediction. Is it remotely possible that the sun won't in fact rise? I suppose, but why bother with that when it's ridiculously unlikely. Do you get what I'm saying?

I also predict that nothing I'm saying will make a single bit of difference to you, and you won't even give it a thought. So, why do I still write it? Because it's in my personality to keep trying, to persist, and I'm a stubborn fool, and have always been a stubborn fool. Maybe someday I won't be, but that's not today. And probably not tomorrow.

[Singu]

Can past behavior predict future behavior? Yes. 100? No. Something that happens on a regular basis, does tend to keep on happening unless something changes it. A river continues to flow the same approximate path from year to year, with only subtle changes unless something changes the topography or water flow. Over time it can end up looking like a completely different river, but the normally gradual changes aren't big or drastic. The river is overall pretty dependable from one year to the next. The sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west unless something quite extreme happens to the earth, sun or solar system as a whole. Is the sun 100% guaranteed to rise tomorrow? No, but you can reasonably expect that it will. That's not a flaw, any more than it's a flaw to believe that if you drop a brick it will fall to the ground. If instead it flies up and hits you in the face then something unusual is going on, and that's interesting in itself, yeah? You ask, "What changed?" Same with observations of people.

I don't see how that contradicts my argument.

Yes, the sun keeps burning as long as there is fuel. The sun is burning because of the nuclear reaction. That's part of the explanation for why the sun rises every day.

We can't just say, "The sun will always rise, because it has risen yesterday, so I will expect it to rise tomorrow". There comes a day when the sun expands into a red giant and explode into a supernova. This is also the explanation for why there are supernovae in the universe. And why we even find gold on our planet.

That's the difference between an explanation, and simply an observation, and expecting the observation to always stay the same and keep repeating itself.

Imagine thinking that every time you take a step that your foot could go off in some random direction, or that you could suddenly shoot off into space, or that water could suddenly start to boil at room temperature. Just walking to your kitchen to get a glass of water would be a huge unknown unpredictable experience and every second of your day would be occupied in confusion. Perhaps nothing is truly stable, but we operate as though it is, because things are stable enough and to act otherwise would be a recipe for insanity. Within our lifetimes, our environments are stable enough that we can make predictions. And people too are stable enough that they too can be predicted in some ways. Changes from this are immediately noticed. Someone who you've always known to be reliable and on time, is 3 hours late and you haven't heard from them. . . do you think something happened, or do you think their personality suddenly changed and now they no longer care about time? Which prediction do you think has a greater chance of being accurate? These are rhetorical questions of course, so that maybe you'll consider that predictions don't have to be 100% reliable or accurate, all they do is give a reasonable chance for something. You consider what option is more or less likely. It is more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow than we will be plunged into eternal darkness. That's a prediction. Is it remotely possible that the sun won't in fact rise? I suppose, but why bother with that when it's ridiculously unlikely. Do you get what I'm saying?

Obviously I'm not saying that nothing is stable, and everything is just random and we can't predict anything. We can predict things, but only if they stay the same.

But the problem is that there's no way to tell whether something is actually stable, and whether something isn't. Unless of course, you give it an explanation for why something should be stable. We know that the sun will burn for billions of years, but after that, the fuel will eventually run out. And that explanation is obviously missing if all you do is observe things. We obviously can't be observing the sun for billions of years to see what happens. At least, not yet.

So obviously there already are counter-arguments for why people's behavior should be precisely predictable. Because you already know that "It will stay stable, unless there's something to change it". And that "unless" is something like environmental influences, or even his own thoughts. There are too many factors that could change the person's behavior.

I'm sure that there are many things about people that are predictable. But people also constantly try new things. People find new inventions, new theories, new explanations. Some people will try to do things that have never been done before. That's why people are not exactly predictable.

--

Can we not know anything more than what we have personally observed? That is a rather sad and limiting way of looking at the world, because there are a lot of things that we can never observe. The world isn't just a repetition of past observations. And that's the entire problem with Socionics, because it's going to be limited to just our own observations. And all they do is repeat themselves, apparently. That would a nightmare scenario.

[photon]

Unless you're saying that a sociotype is genetic and not nurture based, you've completely disregarded the age development theory, and therefore any socionics system that endorses it. It's so inaccurate to say that. Being a logical type now doesn't you will always be in every situation for the rest of your life. Ever heard of using your functions? A sociotype uses all 8 of them, model A makes that pretty clear.

Also what is an emotional person?? That isn't even the right term.

[Singu]

Unless you're saying that a sociotype is genetic and not nurture based, you've completely disregarded the age development theory, and therefore any socionics system that endorses it. It's so inaccurate to say that. Being a logical type now doesn't you will always be in every situation for the rest of your life. Ever heard of using your functions? A sociotype uses all 8 of them, model A makes that pretty clear.

Also what is an emotional person?? That isn't even the right term.

Where's the age development theory in Socionics?

[photon]

Where's the age development theory in Socionics?

Yermak, can be found on School system of socionics.

[Singu]

I've discovered something, Socionics is actually a gigantic statistics-collecting machine, which is generated by the slave-labors in the "What's my type?" forum.

[Raver]

I've discovered something, Socionics is actually a gigantic statistics-collecting machine, which is generated by the slave-labors in the "What's my type?" forum.

For someone that doesn't believe in Socionics, you really seem to care about it. If you've paid attention, a lot of the regulars here like myself don't really care about Socionics that much. We probably make more posts that have nothing to do with Socionics rather than dealing with it. So the fact that you still keep talking about Socionics fervently shows that you haven't moved on at all for someone that doesn't believe in Socionics.

It's like you're stuck in some weird twilight zone stage where you are on a meaningless mission to prove Socionics doesn't. A lot of the regulars already passed through this purgatory/idle stage and moved on to not caring about Socionics that much or taking it that seriously. So at best we entertain the theory from time to time, but don't let it take control of how we define people or ourselves. Long story short, we don't really care and find your anti-Socionics rants amusing at best.

[sbbds]

@Singu

Pls reread the definitions of the words “statistics”, “collection”, and “machine” and then revisit what you’ve just said here. :|

[Desert Financial]

I've discovered something, Socionics is actually a gigantic statistics-collecting machine, which is generated by the slave-labors in the "What's my type?" forum.

Socionics is also a tool to divide people into segregated compounds from which people of different quadras will come out and fight to the death in a Hunger Games-esque gauntlet.

[Singu]

For someone that doesn't believe in Socionics, you really seem to care about it. If you've paid attention, a lot of the regulars here like myself don't really care about Socionics that much. We probably make more posts that have nothing to do with Socionics rather than dealing with it. So the fact that you still keep talking about Socionics fervently shows that you haven't moved on at all for someone that doesn't believe in Socionics.

It's like you're stuck in some weird twilight zone stage where you are on a meaningless mission to prove Socionics doesn't. A lot of the regulars already passed through this purgatory/idle stage and moved on to not caring about Socionics that much or taking it that seriously. So at best we entertain the theory from time to time, but don't let it take control of how we define people or ourselves. Long story short, we don't really care and find your anti-Socionics rants amusing at best.

For someone who doesn't really care about Socionics, you really take any criticism of Socionics way too personally and get offended.

It's just a bit of a joke, relax. If you don't really care about Socionics, then you'd find the whole thing funny.

The fact that you can't take a joke and find it amusing shows just how seriously you actually take the whole thing.

[sbbds]

We do find you funny. I think Raver just wants you to be aware ...

[Singu]

We do find you funny. I think Raver just wants you to be aware ...

I'm sure the rest of the world finds Socionics and this entire community funny. You should be aware...

[Desert Financial]

Socionics is basically death for society.

[Raver]

For someone who doesn't really care about Socionics, you really take any criticism of Socionics way too personally and get offended.

It's just a bit of a joke, relax. If you don't really care about Socionics, then you'd find the whole thing funny.

The fact that you can't take a joke and find it amusing shows just how seriously you actually take the whole thing.

If you're trolling then good job, mission accomplished I suppose. However, if you're on a mission to prove how false Socionics is then your time and energy is wasted as a good chunk of us have moved on from it. So which one is it?

[Singu]

If you're trolling then good job, mission accomplished I suppose. However, if you're on a mission to prove how false Socionics is then your time and energy is wasted as a good chunk of us have moved on from it. So which one is it?

Both. What I've found from "trying to prove Socionics wrong" is that what's wrong with Socionics can be applied to any other theories that are using the same methodology as Socionics, namely, Instrumentalism, Empiricism and other purely statistical systems.

So the fact that this explanation can be applied to things other than Socionics, means that this explanation is an objective, "real" explanation, since it has much more use than just proving Socionics wrong or whatever. So I didn't find this particular finding to be a wasteful effort, however putting time and energy into Socionics is a waste, since you'd have nothing coming out of it.

[Raver]

Both. What I've found from "trying to prove Socionics wrong" is that what's wrong with Socionics can be applied to any other theories that are using the same methodology as Socionics, namely, Instrumentalism, Empiricism and other purely statistical systems.

So the fact that this explanation can be applied to things other than Socionics, means that this explanation is an objective, "real" explanation, since it has much more use than just proving Socionics wrong or whatever. So I didn't find this particular finding to be a wasteful effort, however putting time and energy into Socionics is a waste, since you'd have nothing coming out of it.

I see. What are your thoughts on MBTI, enneagram, instinctual stackings, tri-type? All in the same umbrella of being wrong I suppose? Well, like I said before a lot of the regulars don't put time and energy into Socionics. We use it sparingly to get some faint idea of how people function, but don't get carried away with it to cause any real harm or waste. I agree that Socionics is damaging and wasteful when you take it too literally at face value (ex. This person is X, I am Y, so that means Z has to happen).

Then when something else happens other than Z, it leads to disappointment and despair because real life didn't correlate to exactly how the theory said the interaction would unfold. However, if you're able to use Socionics in a way where you assume person is X and you are Y, but don't make any conclusions off of it then that is acceptable. Since, you look at other more credible and objective means of psychological analysis instead and that is when Socionics is mostly harmless because it doesn't become a holy grail of psychological interaction, IMO.

[Singu]

I see. What are your thoughts on MBTI, enneagram, instinctual stackings, tri-type? All in the same umbrella of being wrong I suppose?

Yes, I think all of those are pretty much the same thing, and that also includes things like Big Five. They all have the exact same approach and hence the exact same flaws.

They're all based on purely statistical approach, even if they don't employ any mathematical or statistical methods. Big Five is the most rigorous and statistical one in that it employs the "factor analysis" statistical model. But that doesn't mean that its approach is any different.

I'm not saying that they're wrong, but they can't offer us anything more than what we have already previously observed.

I'm sure that you'll agree, that statistics can't offer us anything more than the things that we've already observed or some data that we have collected. What matters is interpreting what those data mean.

Then when something else happens other than Z, it leads to disappointment and despair because real life didn't correlate to exactly how the theory said the interaction would unfold.

Well I'm not sure why you should despair, more like the theory has been refuted. If you're invested in Socionics a lot and wanted the theory to be right, then maybe. But people don't want to improve or modify the theory, they just say that the observation was incorrect or incomplete or something. Or they blame the measurement, which is "typing" by people. So they end up blaming the people.

However, if you're able to use Socionics in a way where you assume person is X and you are Y, but don't make any conclusions off of it then that is acceptable. Since, you look at other more credible and objective means of psychological analysis instead and that is when Socionics is mostly harmless because it doesn't become a holy grail of psychological interaction, IMO.

Well, yes. A lot of people, myself included used to believe, that Socionics was the only theory that explained the entirety of personality. That is obviously not the case. But the problem is that things like Socionics or Big Five pretend that it does. And it has often been criticized on that ground.

I also don't necessarily think that you can "combine" many theories without noticing the contradictions. Theories are supposed to explain the observation, and nothing more. So if you have many different, competing theories that can explain the same observation, then you'd have to pick only one. Because that theory is going to be the closest theory in explaining reality.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Isn't this like your 4337492833th thread about this? It's okay though I guess, I've probably talked about homosexuality more than even that.

You seem to to be overly obsessed with something 'working', its practicality, or 100% actual scientific stuff. The 'realness/workability' of something never really adhered to the innate value of something, as far as humans are concerned. People are motivated by ideals, values and beliefs. Unless they aren't. The point is, people are valuing different things.

The fact that I logically know that a small green-haired angsty girl can't IRL shoot fireballs out of her hands doesn't make me enjoy Final Fantasy IV any less... in fact, the improbability of such a thing relates to it's very charm. When something goes down too much into the corporeality/'workable'/'reality' tube - it also points to that very thing's ability to be destroyed. Which is nothing more than depressive nihilism disguised as SCIENCE! You just want people to wake up to the reality and stop believing in the stupidity, I get that, but what they FEEL on a very deep, deep subconscious level is you taking away their hope & faith, so they will argue against you. The hope for a shy useless social phobic nerd to find their dual and thus true love after feeing misunderstood by others. Even if you're right, why take that away?

Yeah I know you think finding hope in socionics is silly/ridiculous/easy to mock and I would three-quarters agree with you, but who are we to say what inspires somebody to turn their life around or do something good in this black hole shitty world? I mean truly good not 'This is good because a deep state news reporter said so fakely on TV!' Maritsa searching for her dual in another toadstool castle still inspired me even though I know how improbable/ridiculous it all was. It was naive and innocent, and yes maybe even dangerous and stupid too- and horrible and lame, but hey it beats somebody condescendingly talking down at me what is 'real' and 'what is not' 24/7 as if I didn't already know the difference.

Socionics has been a tool people have used to hate and harm, a thing they've felt that has given them permission to hate and 'I couldn't help it! It was a Beta!', but the hatred is the root cause of that- not socionics. And the hatred itself, is just a symptom of a larger issue going on with the person. And even that is deeper... you go deep and deep until the person can cleanse it and move on somehow.

I also really like what Raver said, but he's delta so I'm supposed to want to choke him to death or something...

[Dalek Caan]

Heraclitus vs Aristotlean forms of matter

eat da poo poo

[Singu]

Isn't this like your 4337492833th thread about this? It's okay though I guess, I've probably talked about homosexuality more than even that.

As opposed to 4337492833th thread that people post about some super cool & original theory that they cooked up about Socionics? Honestly, I don't understand why people act a bunch of angry bees that attacked their nest when Socionics is even a little bit criticized, but I'd suppose it has to do with what you have posted below. And the ironic thing is that this thread wasn't even "anti-Socionics", I just merely stated... it's what Socionics is.

You seem to to be overly obsessed with something 'working', its practicality, or 100% actual scientific stuff. The 'realness/workability' of something never really adhered to the innate value of something, as far as humans are concerned. People are motivated by ideals, values and beliefs. Unless they aren't. The point is, people are valuing different things.

Well no, that's not really what I've been saying, but you probably think so because you've typed me as a "Te type" or something. That's just one of the many distortions that people have, when they're into Socionics. And that's just not how I am at all. And on the other hand, people like sbbds think that I value "Ti" and hence I act according to her stereotypes of what Ti is. But both describe me in the wrong way, and they're merely distortions.

As for "working", why would you want to waste your time on finding things about the things that are ultimately wrong? I mean this is not merely about people having "different values", I think wanting to be correct and accurate is a fairly universal value that most people tend to value. People don't want to waste their time on something that doesn't work, unless they're crazy.

The fact that I logically know that a small green-haired angsty girl can't IRL shoot fireballs out of her hands doesn't make me enjoy Final Fantasy IV any less... in fact, the improbability of such a thing relates to it's very charm. When something goes down too much into the corporeality/'workable'/'reality' tube - it also points to that very thing's ability to be destroyed. Which is nothing more than depressive nihilism disguised as SCIENCE! You just want people to wake up to the reality and stop believing in the stupidity, I get that, but what they FEEL on a very deep, deep subconscious level is you taking away their hope & faith, so they will argue against you. The hope for a shy useless social phobic nerd to find their dual and thus true love after feeing misunderstood by others. Even if you're right, why take that away?

Well it's more than that, it's this sort of incredible self-centeredness and egocentricity that mask this whole thing.

So you think that you have the right to push down your distorted views onto others, even though you have been told countless times, that it's wrong and it doesn't "work", and that's just not how they really are, just because it gives you a sense of control over others?

You think that you have the right to have this overly romantic and unrealistic view of "duality", where the dual is just willing to and happily accept all of your flaws and love you forever, as if you are a baby to his/her mother? You think that you have the right to push down this self-centered expectation on the poor person who gets typed as his/her "dual"?

You think that you can do this just because it gives you "hope" and perhaps reduces some anxiety that you have about the world or people or relationships in general?

You think that you have the right to bash and mock anyone who even dares to criticize this sort of insanity, even a little bit?

And on and on. Basically the whole thing is rooted in this incredible amount of self-centeredness. So if you want to solve the "root cause" of the problem, then that is it.

So all I can say is, get fucking real, and grow up. This isn't aimed at you BandD, but the people in general who go on with this nonsense without even a bit of self-awareness.