Why is socionics so rounded?
Ok, so one thing i like about socionics is you have the 16 types, 4 quadras, 4 personalities per quadra. Each one has their dual etc. The idea of this makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. But life to me is not normally like this. What would the evolutionary basis be for this seemingly even system? It just seems to me it would be more likely that some types would have no duals and others might have a number of "duals".
Last edited by meatburger; 04-13-2008 at 11:07 PM.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
Just to throw something out there ...
Maybe there used to be more types, but evolution has brought it down to just 16, and 4 quadras.
Or...
Maybe it's been built up a system from a time when we have no types.
After all, we are social creatures, it's one of the reasons why we've survived as a species, and as social creatures (complex social creatures even) it would make sense for evolution to develop a social (socionic) system, a system in which we all interact within that framework.
does it matter?Originally Posted by meatburger
yes, because it's saying you wouldn't have any duals in a fair system, and i'd have 14 duals.
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Well yeah i think it does. Humans have an amazing history of believing in systems that are faulty and wouldn't want us to fall into that trap. Exactly Kam would be ok because he would be dualing it up with everybody while i would be all alone. (DAMN you evolution).
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
I don't think there truly is an evolutionary basis for this. IMO, type in itself is biological as well as experiential, but not necessarily evolutionary.
As far as the bit about certain types having no duals and others as having many duals, I think it's in the interest of the socionic system, a system that would most likely be found to be factually based(an assumption i'm making because I don't know if there have been any empirical tests in an attempt to prove the validity of socionic theory) that all types would have a specific core relationship to the other types, a relationship that is indifferent to all other aspects of human society simply because they do fit into a single cohesive structure without which the concepts behind socionics would lose validity(at least they would to me). Just my thoughts on the matter....
does it matter?yes, because it's saying you wouldn't have any duals in a fair system, and i'd have 14 duals.@ that picture!
Evolution and Socionics cannot be reconciled.
Socionics fails because it is not scientifically verifiable.
However...
Perhaps some types are better at living without their duals. ESEs and IEIs and ESIs can take an information beating and not give up.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Just curious, wouldn't you say that much of the evidence at present for both evolution and socionics is emprical?
I think its fair to say that our socialness as creature comes from an evolutionary development, so pretty much to make a not completely unreasonable connection, why couldn't evolution have developed socionics as part of our socialness as humans?
What empirical evidence do you have for socionics?
Prove the functions exist.
There is a reason socionics is not accepted within the scientific community.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
The empirical evidence comes initially fom Jung, and then for socionics, Ashura, also observing behavioral patterns, and then also for socionics, these behavioral patterns being backed up with an observable pattern in relationships. Further empirical evidence being accordingly observed mainly by the prominent socionists.
I never said that it could be proven (well, that depends on your definition of the word prove)
What is the reason it is not accepted within the scientific community?
It is not accepted within the scientific community because it cannot be subjected to the scientific method.
The work of Jung is antiquated and dead. It has been replaced with neuropsychology because the latter can be subjected to the scientific method and empirical evidence can be collected. The empirical evidence you cite does not compare to the evidence being gathered in contemporary psychological research.
Despite this, let us consider what you present as evidence; behavioral patterns. How many different type descriptions that describe these 'behavioral patterns' are available within 'socionics'? Is one more accurate than another? How often do people complain that the type description does not fit?
Even if the correlation between behavior and type description rises to an acceptable(?) level, how do you use that to prove that the functions actually exist? If the functions, which are the building blocks of socionics, cannot be proven to exist, then where does that leave socionics?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Yeah thats right. There is no real empirical evidence for Socionics it is an observational study. Perhaps you could test function strength by getting a group of say ENTp's and ISFj's and test them doing Ne and Fi tasks. Maybe using a PET or MRI (or whatever scan) you could see the levels of brain activity? It wouldn't be a true experiment though as there wouldn't be random selection. Could be interesting though.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
What is this scientific method that you speak of? Collecting data is a scientific method, is it not?
I agree with that. However there is much to the mind (and to science as a whole) that we do not understand. We can observe things without having to understand them (which i'm somewhat reluctant to say but that could be a Te Ti thing)The work of Jung is antiquated and dead. It has been replaced with neuropsychology because the latter can be subjected to the scientific method and empirical evidence can be collected. The empirical evidence you cite does not compare to the evidence being gathered in contemporary psychological research.
There are good type descriptions out there, some not so good. People should identify with the good type descriptions.Despite this, let us consider what you present as evidence; behavioral patterns. How many different type descriptions that describe these 'behavioral patterns' are available within 'socionics'? Is one more accurate than another? How often do people complain that the type description does not fit?
We do not need to prove that the functions exist in order for socionics to exist. If we are satisfied that behaviour and intertype (which is the basis of socionics) play out, then what difference would it make in practice if we were to prove the functions?Even if the correlation between behavior and type description rises to an acceptable(?) level, how do you use that to prove that the functions actually exist? If the functions, which are the building blocks of socionics, cannot be proven to exist, then where does that leave socionics?
Overall, my point was that Darwin had nothing but observable information about evolution. As far as I can see, that was/has been accepted into the scientific community, and on the face of that, I am curious of the distinction you make.
I look forward to Mariano Rajoy's response because I probably agree with his stance yet I wouldn't be able to explain it in a competent way (i.e. counter Cyclop's responses which to me right now also have some credence)
But can't you just view socionics as a model of reality, rather than a perfect description of reality itself? All models are imperfect, so although reality might not be quite as neat as it says, socionics could still be useful if it gave people some sort of framework through which they could better understand reality
There's a perfectly rational explanation for this. Aushra Augusta, with her Fi PoLR, wanted an explanation for why certain relationships worked, and others did not. She identified Jung's functions, adding her own spin on them, and hey presto! Socionics was born.
ETA: It's rounded for a reason; it's a man-made product, and men (I use the term gender-free, ladies, for convenience's sake) like well-roundedness. They can't help doing so; humans cannot be random. They cannot be ordered in a certain way.
yes, socionics is a system which conceptualises reality - it is not reality itself
Yeah but we want our conceptualisation to as closely mirror reality as possible.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
Collecting data is but one step of the scientific method. Furthermore, the type descriptions do not count as data collection. What you are reading is a group of generalizations written by someone. It is not based on observations of a population. I am guessing here, but I doubt Spencer Stern conducted extensive observational studies before publishing his book on socionics.
But what happens when people identify with more than one description, or none at all? What is socionics offering that MBTI has not already contributed?
You are confusing observation of behavior with the theory explaining the behavior. The functions and the intertype relations are the theory behind the behavior. Furthermore, socionic's success at predicting behavior is not established.
Darwin had a theory on natural selection that was backed up by his observations. Natural selection is but a small piece of evolutionary theory. Socionics has very limited observations and an ad-hoc theory to explain those observations.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
For socionics to be accepted as a model, it would have to prove at least limited validity in a certain situation.
Many people would accept socionics as a model, but this position concedes that socionics is not accurate and simply a representation; for example representing the orbits of the planets around the sun as circular.
Proving validity in a 'certain situation' is difficult as most people accept socionics as a model based on their own unverifyable observations.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
We could debate this of course, but the descriptions provided by say Ganin, DeLong, Gulenko are arranged from observations of a large amount of people, and when you tie the amount of people observed together for the descriptions by these and such people, I think it's possible there would be a sufficient number and variety to make it statistically valid.
People should identify the most with the descriptions of their type. If someone identifies with more than one of the types then it's likely they don't understand themselves enough, and simply have to do more investigation. A reasonably healthy minded individual should then eventually identify the most with one type.But what happens when people identify with more than one description, or none at all? What is socionics offering that MBTI has not already contributed?
In regards to your other query, socionics offers intertype relations which MBTT does not.
I would say that the functions could be called theory to an extent, but they're also from observations of peoples preferences. Intertype relations definately came from observations. Model A was the theory created to try to provide an explanation to these observations.You are confusing observation of behavior with the theory explaining the behavior. The functions and the intertype relations are the theory behind the behavior. Furthermore, socionic's success at predicting behavior is not established.
Yes, there is more evidence nowadays for evolution, such as genetic similarities between species. But I don't think it can be proven yet. I think there might be something which is close to proof later last year, from further research into the town moth.Darwin had a theory on natural selection that was backed up by his observations. Natural selection is but a small piece of evolutionary theory. Socionics has very limited observations and an ad-hoc theory to explain those observations.
Evolution was pretty much accepted at the time of just natural selection, basically because it 'made sense' (At that time, Darwin didn't really have that much observation to go by. Darwins initial book for instance isn't too big.)
Well, I would say that socionics is not as accepted because, well perhaps because, the mind is observed to be more fickle, and some people don't like the idea they can be categorised in a way socionics tries to. It could of course still be rubbish
Basically what I'm saying is that it's a theory born from observation, which could explain both the (origins) of the theory of socionics and the theory of evolution.
There's more evidence nowadays for the theory of evolution, who knows, maybe some point brain scans for instance will show more evidence for socionics (I do believe some scientist is or has done some research into MBTT brain scan types, yeah?)
You continue to leave behavior and theory indistinguished.
Socionics offers nothing more than MBTI, even though socionics has 'intertype relations'. The correlation rates of behavior are not going to exceed those presented by MB researchers, and 'intertype relation' theory is not very accurate when trying to determine relationship success in terms of romantic partners remaining so. At best, duality is only one aspect of a crude model; not an accurate description of the behaviors of a specific romantic partnership that somehow applies to every other dual romantic partnership.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Then perhaps you can explain your definition of this.
Perhaps you could explain why it offers nothing more.Socionics offers nothing more than MBTI, even though socionics has 'intertype relations'. The correlation rates of behavior are not going to exceed those presented by MB researchers, and 'intertype relation' theory is not very accurate when trying to determine relationship success in terms of romantic partners remaining so. At best, duality is only one aspect of a crude model; not an accurate description of the behaviors of a specific romantic partnership that somehow applies to every other dual romantic partnership.
In regards to this and your other point . It appears you have not done enough research, because every type of duality pair is different, and the intertype relations pattern was observed by numerous studies by Ashura ... The relationships came from observable patterns, not the other way round.
Alchemy anyone???anyone???
To this day I cannot find any empirical evidence in my school's library, or the internet. Anyone else find any? Till then all of this (personality theory) still seems incredibly.... iffy to me.
Hey, we figured out how to make stuff into gold... so it's extremely expensive to do, and even if we managed to do it more cheaply it would deflate gold's value... details.
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Haha, true, I'm not saying Alchemy was useless, just, it wasn't what we were claiming it truly was.
And lemme thank you, Mariano, for putting into words precisely what I've found out. I really suck
Last edited by xyz; 04-14-2008 at 04:45 AM.
These questions presume that Socionics (and Jungian typology as a whole) is a biological theory. However, implicit in the question is that Socionics is a theory primarily about information aspects (e.g., a theory about existence, phenomena) that naturally apply to people as they would to anything else.
Of course, a large part of it is the anecdotal evidence that these symmetries seem to "work" in real life. However, it's quite possible that Socionists, biased by the system, may incorrectly interpret some of the data.
The answer for your question, my fellow meatburger, is that socionics describes the full range of possibilities of the mind. The whole theory revolves around the idea that the mind is dichotomic, so it starts with a single division and two "types" and it grows up to 4, 8, 16... types. There is no reason for 16 being the exact number; only that socionics only goes that far.
But, one thing is theory and another is reality. It is very likely that types are not evenly distributed among the population. MBTI people says that intuitives only make up a small part of the population. Even people informed about socionics says so indirectly as I recall FDG stating recently that "the value of the functions is the same, but like in economy, goods which are scarcer are considered to be more valuable". According to that idea, since intuitives goods are scarcer chances are intuitives are rarer.
It could mean two things: that intuitives are about to extinguish or that intuitives are just starting to flourish. Of the two options I pick up the later, because it seems obvious that the modern society relies more on abstract ideas and other stuff where intuitives have an advantage.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I like this question Meatburger. A lot of nature is well rounded. Like leaves having symmetry. I don't think there is as much randomness as it seems. We just might not always see the connection behind everything.
It makes sense to me that this would develop like evolution. If all people had the same drives and traits, then we'd probably die out. It makes sense that different personalit traits would evolve to serve various practical needs in all the areas.
It's sort of amazing when you think of it. That all the types combined creates a successful society. Some focused on building and preserving the present, others creating new theories and driving change, some socially focused, some not, some risk takers, some not, all somehow blending together and cancelling eachother out into balance.
Even with dogs, you can tell that some dogs are more aggressive, some more cuddly and friendly, some run away a lot, others are afraid to leave, etc. The differences combine in a way that allows dogs to befriend eachother, chill, and accomplish tasks (if they were like in the wild or whatever).
It makes sense to me. Now, within each type I'm sure there are lots of variations, much more than subtypes. I mean, you have all the other categories of all the things that people can be. It probably branches out like a tree from there, which is why two people of the same type can be so different. Just like men and women are two different categories, but within that category there are endless variations of differences between a bunch of women, or men.
Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)
In regards to socionics being valid-i'm not saying wether it is or not. There's nothing to show why this theory came about any differently than Darwins theory.
maybe the difference is the nature/quality of the evidence which has been used to support each theory?
The quality of evidence has greatly improved, but when Darwin published his book The Origin of Species, (don't know if you've read it?) it's more like an extended train of thought brought about by observations, of which the observations and train of thought made sense. When you look at it like that, socionics would seen to have been produced along the same principle.
no I haven't read it, which is why I didn't try to flesh out my idea - but given your impression of it, I do see your point
Trying to look at it objectively-the origin of species was published in 1850 I believe, which means over one hundred and fifty years of further evidence, and supposedly most Americans still don't believe in it?
I guess they're still called a theory as still hasn't been proven.
Last edited by Cyclops; 04-14-2008 at 10:32 AM.
given that relationships are constituted by two individuals, thus the number can only be a power of two, otherwise there would be multiple corrispondences among the individuals! this is why the number seems always "well rounded", because the total MUST be 2^x if you suppose that most human relationships take place between two individuals
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The 'evidence' cannot be verified independently -- it is anecdotal.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Yeah, that seems to be the case
Yes, evolution is a theory, and socionics is no where near a theoretical level.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
The difference lies in Darwin observing the differences of physical characteristics of different creatures on an island, and socionics describing behaviors of humans in certain circumstances.
The problem is, the behaviors being described by socionics often do not match real world behaviors. How does socionics explain dual couples that do not find each other satisfying and leave the relationship?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
could it be a case of "necessary but not sufficient"? Does socionics puport to explain all there is to human relationships? Perhaps it only tries to explain a part of human relationships, but does not suggest that other factors have no influenceThe problem is, the behaviors being described by socionics often do not match real world behaviors. How does socionics explain dual couples that do not find each other satisfying and leave the relationship?
(though I don't know if this is relevant to your more general point)
This mirrors my own position on every personality typology I've ever encountered. In fact, this applies to all systems I've ever come across as well. Bits might make sense to me intuitively, but can't ever be proven irrefutably to apply across the board for ALL situations. Every conceptual theory regarding behaviour is just that: theory.
Perhaps I'm simply loath to believe wholly in any system, because systems wrought by humans always inherently contain human flaws. Theories can certainly be tidy and comforting, but hardly tend to be absolute. We also should be reminded that any collection of observations is merely an attempt @ classification for our own convenience and collective comprehension.
My own personal theory of personality is that there must be an uneven distribution of "types" in any case. It seems logical that some types would be simply more productive for society as a whole, the cogs keeping the wheels going efficiently. Others are less so, contributing occasionally but perhaps more originally. Probably a bell curve. (Most things seem to be so...)
socio: INFp - IEI
ennea: 4w5 sp/sx
**********
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
