aestrivex's essay on research approaches
i don't have much to say about this since i'm not really knowledgable enough about the science behind it (and i wouldn't have time right now anyway) but i thought it might be an interesting conversation stimulus.
http://socionics.ws/wiki/index.php?t...rch_approaches
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 01:37 AM.
Okay, an actually decent Socionics discussion topic.
For a while now, I've approached the established Socionics paradigm somewhat critically. Although the application of information metabolism theory to Jungian typology is intriguing, it has either been generally misapplied or is incommensurable. At least from the translated material I've read and the general views of forum-goers, Socionics is also "required" to encompass other paradigmatic dimensions, like trait theory, behaviorism, biology, etc... I do not believe that it can. The features of a function/type/relationship may "bubble up" into these paradigms, but as Niffweed points out, it is difficult to reliably or validly detect type from the usual metrical methods of these perspectives. It is true that Socionics has greatly expanded on Jung's concepts and derived new concepts that seemed to logically follow from the gaps left in Psychological Types. However, some go further and suggest that Socionics is really conceptually distinct, and that the Jungian references were purely inspirational and now irrelevant. There is no truly convincing way that I can disprove that view, but suffice to say I strongly disagree.
Jung's concepts are mostly original (extraverted/introverted, rational/irrational, functions, dominant, auxiliary, inferior etc.) and heavily dependent on his psycho-analytic paradigm/background. To use these concepts, one either takes the paradigm as a package deal, or pries a word from its context and in doing so loses the meaning. It is not always the case that concepts are so context dependent, but because Jung was opening a new realm of unconscious psychology the concepts are not independent enough to stand on their own. They cannot be plugged in and out of other theories whilst keeping their original meaning in the process. Many Socionics enthusiasts constantly reference the Jungian paradigm through the use of his terms, and yet disregard the contextual relation between the terms and the paradigm. Even when people substitute new words or phrases in place of the Jungian ones, aspects of the Jungian meanings cling to the new concepts, as if some relation to Jung must be maintained or it can no longer be considered Socionics. Thus, I am of the opinion that Jung is relevant Socionics. Further I see Socionics as limited to derivatives and refinements of Psychological Types, rather than being capable of selecting a portion of the book's concepts at whim.
In determining one's type or that of others the best approach is introspection or intimate case studies respectively, with a particular focus on the features of conscious and unconscious expression. I am amused with tests as exercises in describing Socionics concepts, but I am unimpressed in the idea of ever being able to use them to validly determine type. Due to its foundational Jungian concepts, Socionics is best understood psychoanalytically. Quick and dirty metrics will not be satisfactory to anyone intellectually invested in the theory (meaning, I think the results will be seen as dubious and the implications arguable, especially to those of different schools). A panel of experts that share a school would be ideal, but gathering such a panel and maintaining its coherency would be obviously difficult.
The end is nigh
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 01:42 AM.
Thanks. Like I said, the theory is certainly intriguing. Perhaps it is commensurable, but inappropriately applied in many cases or has been misconstrued. For instance, the over-emphasis on formulaic models and information elements, as if the functions exist external to the mind and are simply filtered differently by the various types, rather than the functions being a sort of filtering schema themselves.
The end is nigh
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 01:42 AM.
i should start naming my toilet droppings "essays".
I would grade this essay with a B- for content (makes sense, but it´s rather obvious and the points are contrived, plus socionics is a relational-centered theory rather than type-centered, so if two freshmen did not get along the only conclusion you could derive is that "their types are not compatible", irrespective of their initial tests results), C- for style. Overall, a passing grade.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
After having read few lines, I can say it is science for some and for some other it isn't, apparently. All in all, every one that thinks is outside of it, talks about it and lives it. Same as people who are inside it.
I wonder where niffweed stole this from?
He didn't, he wrote it last night. Frankly, I had no idea lungs paid this much attention to his work, I'm impressed she brought it up so quickly. Yesterday it was just him rightfully bashing Filatova, I'm glad he added the constructive bit in there about how to do it correctly.Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
Easy Day
Lungs can read minds - she knows what you're thinking and it's terrible I say. You think you're awesome, don't you?
*chuckles* He's still a very polarizing figure it seems.
Easy Day
i saw he had just recently written it and i hope he didn't mind me posting it. i figured i should just link it instead of copying and pasting in case he was still working on it and he probably wouldn't put it online if he didn't want it read. i check the recent changes on his wiki periodically.
Well I think he's done working on it. The only thing I was aware of him modifying was adding his own methodology in at the end and he completed that last night it seems, so I'd assume he is done. I'm fairly certain he won't be offended by the posting of his article. Its never happened before anyway. I'm sure he'll be interested to see if anyone has anything constructive to say.
Easy Day
I can write something when I get back, but I would like to know first, what is constructive, JWC3? I mean, I had a reply ready to some bits of that text there, but deleted it, thinking, I'm going to ask first.
I was simply referring to the addition of his own methodology as constructive. As I sad, yesterday afternoon it was simply him cutting Filatova down, which can be constructive in its own right. Though I generally think that the addition of the correct methodology is somewhat more valuable than the exclusive removal of incorrect methodology.
Easy Day
It is well documented that Aestrivex was involved in taking the hacked material from typewatch and posting it around.
He is well known in many circles to be linked to a certain crew who are well known to have been involved in hacking 3 typology websites and still have compromised access to the full database of another one.
Thats good to know he has decided to be 'more legit'. I'm sure you can understand my cynicism however. I have engaged with him on multiple occassions across numerous media and I never found him particularly insightful; however the article seems generally acceptable. I guess he must be a slow burner.
Okay, JWC3.
Did he hack it with Filatova?
LOL! Priceless.
No, he isn't. Sniper is simply obsessed and confused. He wants someone to blame and is pointing fingers at anyone he can. I think the connections he is making, while numerous, are incredibly tenuis. I'm hardly persuaded by who linked what youtube video regardless of what that video might be called. Everything sniper has gathered is circumstantial at best, and at worst makes sniper look a little too invested in the whole situation. He seems to have gone off the deep end in his worry about his own website.
Easy Day
That would indeed be the first assumption. Though you wouldn't relate these relationships to shallow generalizations of ability to think, be open-minded, or one's view of the world, but definitely to the misinterpretation of information itself (usually where one person misconstrues subjectivity for objectivity, and in a more personal hindrance, visa versa.)
Last edited by 717495; 10-19-2012 at 03:15 PM.
Speaking from experience: Tracking that IP address takes you right down the rabbit hole.
Let the bickering commence.
I have little faith in the validity of Sniper's research on its own merits. That is neither here nor there however.
Easy Day
Strange that, because I don't believe peoples claims unless I research them myself either.
So heres a pro-tip: Go lookie!
Date Time IP
06/05/2011 17:30:10 72.87.110.124
So, what is this - alpha NT vs. Gamma NT lick fest? Wouldn't want to see it turning into Alpha NT vs. Alpha NT lick fest.
EDIT: Never mind, changes are coming. It is going to be alright, and I'm going to actually bite some of this text tomorrow.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-19-2012 at 04:38 PM.
I've always assumed it was more building upon Kepinski's model rather than elaborating on it, ie conceived with the ideas of IM as a model of the psyche in mind.
Can you elaborate on this?Since orthodox Socionics declares that IEs correspond to objective facets of reality
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Niffweed? Lol are you fucking serious?If he is then there's a lot more to him than I initially gave him credit for...
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Niffweed is my dad's student.
Wonder who is going to fund that kind of experiment and who is going to do it. Any one rich and knowledgeable enough, please take a step forward...The reaction that I am focusing on here is that of people who are not brainwashed into thinking that socionics is deterministic and all-encompassing, and would like to test it critically. Almost invariably (and this surprises me somewhat), this group seems to believe that in order to critically demonstrate the usefulness of socionics, we should identify its biological, neurological, and genetic signatures, as this will bring some objectivity to a field otherwise difficult to objectively operationalize.
I have a place one can do research in and rent it, so if any one is interested, give me a call.
I will.
Easy Day
Cool
Last edited by Absurd; 10-24-2012 at 04:16 PM.
Have you touched Niffweed's hair before, because I need full reports on how it feels =/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote