Frustration at the Lack of Socionics Research

[IEI]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

[Jarno]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

I think (but do not know for sure) that the russians have done much research. But you'll probably end up some unreadable website for that stuff.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

If you want to read Russian, Ukrainian, etc. socionics sites, Google Chrome has a translation feature, and machine translation sites dealing with those languages are freely available.

Sites:
http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.ru/
http://socioniko.net/en/
http://www.socioscope.com/
http://psychotype.ru/
http://www.psihologia.net/
http://socionika.lt/
http://www.socioforum.su/
http://www.slideconsulting.com/Table/Sixteen-Types/
http://socionics.ws/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

See also http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...consensus.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioni...m_of_socionics

[silverchris9]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

The problem isn't that socionics isn't being taken seriously. I mean, it's mostly individuals with free time in the US, but there are some Russians who do this for there job, legitimately.

The problem is more in the fact that socionics is inherently hard to test for. It's concerned not even with discrete brain activity, but an overall pattern of functioning. How are you going to test for something as multifactorial as that? And then there's no surefire way to establish type---there's always going to be some degree of bias/subjectivity in how you decide who is what type, and that will result in compromised data. I mean, when somebody says "9 out of 10 SLEs are meatheads," the question is immediately "and how did you determine who is SLE or not? Could it be that you determined that anybody who is a meathead is SLE?" So yeah. The brain function aspect is so complex that we're probably not advanced enough to detect it, and then there's the inherent problem of determining type in the first place in a way that is unbiased and objective.

Personally, I'm glad socionics is remaining in the realm of what could be called "speculative psychology," purely because in order to be scientific, socionics would have to be reified somewhat. Some of the ideas, terms, and concepts, would have to be given fixed or definitional meanings, reducing the options for interpretation and invention.

[ashlesha]

Personally, I'm glad socionics is remaining in the realm of what could be called "speculative psychology," purely because in order to be scientific, socionics would have to be reified somewhat. Some of the ideas, terms, and concepts, would have to be given fixed or definitional meanings, reducing the options for interpretation and invention.

ya. i think it would take a lot of the fun out of it.

[Capitalist Pig]

Is anyone else frustrated at the lack of scientific research into Socionics? Perhaps I am checking the wrong sites. I have read all the usual sources (socionics.com, wikisocion, socionics.us etc etc) but I feel there is a severe lack of scientific research in this area. Google Scholar doesn't help much and I checked some of the big journal publishers such as Emerald but can't find much.

Should I be looking elsewhere or is Socionics not really being taking seriously?

Socionics is nowhere in the scientific literature, in English or Russian or Swahili. Socionics is pseudoscience.

It is not taken seriously because it does not lend itself to falsification. It has nothing in the manner of empirical evidence, it makes no testable predictions, it relies on anecdotal evidence, and nearly everyone on this board suffers from some manifestation of confirmation bias.

edit: lol 'bored'.

[tcaudilllg]

That, and you have APD.

[CILi]

Afferent Pupillary Defect?

[Capitalist Pig]

Afferent Pupillary Defect?

Maybe he meant Auditory Processing Disorder.

[Bluenoir]

Socionics is nowhere in the scientific literature, in English or Russian or Swahili. Socionics is pseudoscience.

It is not taken seriously because it does not lend itself to falsification. It has nothing in the manner of empirical evidence, it makes no testable predictions, it relies on anecdotal evidence, and nearly everyone on this bored suffers from some manifestation of confirmation bias.

It's still a fun and interesting model to work with. I don't pretend socionics to be anywere within the same realm of the hard sciences.

[Creepy-male]

^what Iso said. It's not science. It's more philosophy. It's not a theory, merely a model.

I don't think acknowledging what it isn't in any way compromises its usefulness, either in utilitarian terms of helping you deal with your relationships and choose your company more wisely, or in enjoyment terms, because it's a fascinating way of thinking about the world, and a great source of conversation.

</alpha quadra>

[Not A Communist Shill]

There is a way of testing it, and that is through measuring the success of intertype relationships.

[Bluenoir]

There is a way of testing it, and that is through measuring the success of intertype relationships.

But, how do you go about testing the types of the test subjects? How do you account for all variables that may be present within a relationship? The lack of controls is a big problem, and you still have to contend with confirmation bias.

Show me how you can test the intertype relationships, with enough falsifiability to be labled as "scientific"

[Not A Communist Shill]

Well, you could it via consensus. With variables, you could either account for them in your research (for example by using categories) or you could just ignore extreme cases and otherwise you use the data set you have. It may not sound brilliant, but that's the way to attempt progress.

[Creepy-male]

You would need:

An assertion (your hypothesis)
*this has to either be able to be proved to be false through observation, or
*the conditions for it being false being within imagination--one could conceive of how they might observe a counter-example

I think you're on the right track, perhaps. Quadras would be an excellent place to start.

As it stands Socionics would have to be rebuilt if you wanted it to be scientific, salvaging the parts that are actually testable (such as quality of relationships).

Just because something is abstract (like happiness or satisfaction), does not mean it cannot be measured.

Anyway, please correct me if I've completely misunderstood science in this post.

[Bluenoir]

You would need:

An assertion (your hypothesis)
*this has to either be able to be proved to be false through observation, or
*the conditions for it being false being within imagination--one could conceive of how they might observe a counter-example.

This is hard to do when we are dealing purely with the qualitative, beacuse the goal posts can always be moved so to speak.

Just because something is abstract (like happiness or satisfaction), does not mean it cannot be measured.

I agree, we can measure the abstract via our reactions to it. What we can't do, is quantify.

Socionics is a fun model, but human interaction has so many variables that no single formular is going to take in to account everything. The world is just a tad more complex than that.

[Creepy-male]

So you're saying it would be impossible to quantify comfort in a given close relationship?

[Bluenoir]

So you're saying it would be impossible to quantify comfort in a given close relationship?

In an objective sense, yes. But we can qualify.

I obviously would feel more comfort in an alpha heavy enviroment than a beta one, but my comfort level is still only a emotional subjective. How much comfort still depends on the people there, my surroundings, how well I know the people on a personal level, as well as the subject being discussed.

I could not actually give a hard and fast number that would mean the same thing to everybody. If I said I felt 7/10 "points" of comfort, that is again still open for alot of interpretation, my seven could be your eight.

We are dealing with something extremely abstract, not the hard and fast empirical.

I am not a strict empiricist though. If I was, I would not even glance at socionics.

[IEI]

Thanks for the tips and links.

Assuming Socionics is the real deal (and I think it is or I wouldn't be on this site), there must be a HUGE amount of untapped potential. Life is full of relationships. To be successful in love, work, family matters and day to day society it is key to be able to collaborate with other people. With Myers Briggs and other models it is possible to gain some insights however only Socionics (as far as I know) provides a way of predicting how people will interact in relationships.

Perhaps my Ni is becoming over excited but surely it follows that if we can predict what's going to happen we can plan for the most successful outcome? I mean what's the point of telling people a hurricane is coming unless they take action and try to mimimize the damage. In a society where people are complaining about increased stress and unhappiness surely Socionics can help? Would you marry your conflictor?

People say hindsight is 20/20 but that's the point! Socionics claims to give foresight. But to what extent? Is it a guarantee? How much weight should we put in Socionics? By pairing up customer's with a sales person from their quadra would I increase sales/ customer loyalty? Or is that taking it to the extreme? I think I would find it really hard to refuse my dual once the warm fuzzy feelings started to kick in.

Much research has been done around team work and myers briggs, but where socionics is concenred I am finding I have a whole bunch of questions but very few answers.

I am sure the problems around typing could be overcome. Similar challenges must have existed for research into the practical application of other models i.e. MBTI.

[Creepy-male]

In an objective sense, yes. But we can qualify.

I obviously would feel more comfort in an alpha heavy enviroment than a beta one, but my comfort level is still only a emotional subjective. How much comfort still depends on the people there, my surroundings, how well I know the people on a personal level, as well as the subject being discussed.

I could not actually give a hard and fast number that would mean the same thing to everybody. If I said I felt 7/10 "points" of comfort, that is again still open for alot of interpretation, my seven could be your eight.

We are dealing with something extremely abstract, not the hard and fast empirical.

I am not a strict empiricist though. If I was, I would not even glance at socionics.

Well, in economics, it's possible to quantify the enjoyment someone derives from consuming a product as its "utility". It's an abstract quantity but a quantity nonetheless.

What I was thinking is that perhaps you could devise some hypothetical instrument to measure, across a broad sample, their comfort within inter-quadra relationships, and assign something akin to the idea of "utility" to it.

Vaguely on the right track?

[Bluenoir]

Much research has been done around team work and myers briggs, but where socionics is concenred I am finding I have a whole bunch of questions but very few answers.

Socionics is also very obscure in the english speaking world, information unfortunately, is mostly limited to the internet.

Hell, it's a funny story how I got involved, but that is a story for another thread. (My introduction to socionics story has World of warcraft in it )

[Bluenoir]

What I was thinking is that perhaps you could devise some hypothetical instrument to measure, across a broad sample, their comfort within inter-quadra relationships, and assign something akin to the idea of "utility" to it.

Intresting, I see another vent conversation when I start WoW again.

[Creepy-male]

Intresting, I see another vent conversation when I start WoW again.

I thought you'd never ask

[IEI]

Hell, it's a funny story how I got involved, but that is a story for another thread. (My introduction to socionics story has World of warcraft in it )

DO IT (pretending to be SLE)

[CILi]

DO IT (pretending to be SLE)

[EyeSeeCold]

Lol
methinks LSI

[KeroZen]

I see a lot of people complaining about:

1) socionics sources scarcity
2) wikisocion innacuracies

It's clear we're only where we're at: meaning not very far... Our western community is small, but a lot is happening lately.

Some books get translated, articles like the excellent information semantics study are very recent (2005-2006 iirc) our online sites are even more recent (wikisocion: 2007, socionics.ws: 2008 etc...)

In my country there is a single horrible MBTI site looking like your grandma's homepage in the 90's... that's why I saw the chance to push socionics in France as it will be really easy to get more visibility than MBTI there (but French people are very skeptical anyways...)

So instead of complaining, try to find Russian/Ukrainian speaking persons around you, even if they don't know socionics they might help us translate articles.

If you feel you are confident enough, then create a wikisocion account and start contributing.

In front of us is the Unknown, the big Void, the yet-to-be-discovered, it's exciting! No?

[tcaudilllg]

Ya'll should stop stressing about the lack of neurocognitive socionics research, and instead read my posting history from the very beginning.

(or at least since 2007)

[JuJu]

Socionics' next step, IMO, should be testing inter-type relations.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that there's something to Socionics.

With testing and refinement, what seems "pseudo" now, could help a lot of people someday.

[EyeSeeCold]

Socionics' next step, IMO, should be testing inter-type relations.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that there's something to Socionics.

With testing and refinement, what seems "pseudo" now, could help a lot of people someday.

I don't know, I'm mixed about this. While I think it's stress reducing to know of potential problems beforehand, it really limits your will to interact with other people, moreso than what you would decide upon from empirical knowledge. It's kind of like" Woah, I knew I didn't get along with certain people, but you're saying I can only get along well with 4/16 types? Why even bother then?". Plus it's that unknown frontier that allows for new knowledge, wisdom and understanding from experimentation.

[IEI]

So instead of complaining, try to find Russian/Ukrainian speaking persons around you, even if they don't know socionics they might help us translate articles.

WANTED

Russian/ Ukrainian speaking friend with plethora of Socionic reasearch material. Must be able to read and write English and be willing to put up with constant complaining.

[Sir Knight]

I don't know, I'm mixed about this. While I think it's stress reducing to know of potential problems beforehand, it really limits your will to interact with other people, moreso than what you would decide upon from empirical knowledge. It's kind of like" Woah, I knew I didn't get along with certain people, but you're saying I can only get along well with 4/16 types? Why even bother then?". Plus it's that unknown frontier that allows for new knowledge, wisdom and understanding from experimentation.

Well, you'll only get along famously with a fourth of the people you meet, decently with half the people you meet, and not that great with another fourth of the people you meet.

...which, in my mind, is just business as usual, socially.

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

Give it another 13 years or so.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

14 years late to the party but nah that doesn't frustrate or bother me in the slightest. I can't take it seriously like that. But I'm kind of the type of person that doesn't really take anything seriously or I can easily pretend that I don't, it seemed to piss off my Fi-valuing therapists. Oh well. And the stuff that bothers or frustrates me probably wouldn't bother you either. It's the human condition that keeps us apart and everyone has a story that can break your heart lol:

[Aster]

I’m relieved tbh. I don’t think it would be a good thing for it to be widespread. I don’t know anyone in real life who knows about socionincs, other than my kids, who’ve I’ve indoctrinated to the Word of G through his Socionics Book. Sometimes I regret that. Maybe I want to keep this Secret Knowledge to myself

[The Reality Denialist]

My current estimation is that it may pop back as something else. The base of it seems quite bad (as of Aushra... who seems to suffer from Soviet indoctrination) but there has been some revival to actual roots where it can become more viable to quantify it (such as real SHS if you can somehow begin to pin down Jungian model of consciousness with clarity) that could be a stepping stone or dead branch.

Anything that deals with people, I tend to take it as bullshit.
So I guess the moral of the story is that people are BS. And if you try to model BS, you will get BS.


Lately I have been reading physiognomy for fun.... It is total BS. But you know what? These moralistic attitudes only shape-shift in societies through times. I think I see plenty of parallels with modern research in so-called soft sciences. In this vein I see Jungian psych quite interesting because it sort of shakes up stubborn short-sighted ways of humans by eating it inside.

[rizz]

as of Aushra... who seems to suffer from Soviet indoctrination

Maybe that's just your tolerant Western leftist bias. 100 years ago ppl were different. Just because ppl were similar in Lithuania and Russia, doesn't mean that that was exactly just because of KGB brainwashing.

[The Reality Denialist]

Maybe that's just your tolerant Western leftist bias. 100 years ago ppl were different. Just because ppl were similar in Lithuania and Russia, doesn't mean that that was exactly just because of KGB brainwashing.

It is not inherently soviet propaganda. There are some traces of it, just like most of social research has its own propagandist traces too.

[FDG]

Talanov did some quantitative research. I can't find it anymore on the internet. Edit:


here it is https://sociotoday-narod-ru.translat..._x_tr_pto=wapp

(just linking the LIE description here with results but you also have all the other types)