Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Ineffable
It does matter, because you made an ascertainment, your conclusion is applied to certain methods for which you can't find empirical confirmation. You claim for instance that Socionics does not predict anything about people in practice, yet this is not my experience. You may just have not the proper information. It predicts nothing concrete most of the time, yes, but it isn't even supposed to do so. I give you an example that I used before to assess this point: other types of people exists, unrelated to a specific research field, like child/adult idealist/pragmatist, often male/female and so on. According to you, if I understand you correctly, we should either try to measure the psyhological traits of all these types and predict their actions in concrete terms (which is obviously not really possible), or dismiss them entirely as a completely useless madeup.
I see a contradiction here... if socionics is not supposed to predict anything relating to behaviour (that is, concrete), then how can you state that your experience is the opposite, that is, it does predict such things?
OK, that contradiction is resolved by saying that it is nothing concrete it predicts - but then what is it that it predicts? So far, to avoid running into a contradiction, I can conclude from your statements that it doesn't predict anything that is related to behaviour, but then what does it predict? Can you put this into distinct terms? Surely it is not something indescribably vague?
Sure, the notion of certain stereotypes do have some basis to them, but it is not guaranteed (or even attempted to be proven) at all that it is due to these cognitive functional structure differences and that is what I also talked about in OP.
Yes, to properly research this instead of sticking to personal subjective ideas, you have to define concepts that are defined so as to be measurable to check on them. Standardize instead of refining abstract ideals of definitions. This way the theory can move forward, and yes it will face the risk of getting changed or discarded too. The tough rules of evolution... :)
Yes, you can measure traits according to some standard and see how weak or strong the correlations are between themselves (the different traits), or between them and actions of people or interactions with other people. You can even use VI to do this. Or even functional imaging. The point is it should be an established standard. Then instead of running in circles, you can move forward based on the observed (or NOT observed/too weak) correlations, but still staying careful about assuming causality.
Quote:
Socionics is not supposed to be an organized collection of data about people, it is a model of cognition... even less so, the Socionics types are merely a preference for different manners of interpreting the information (strength, value, etc). There is not even a fundamental difference between sociotypes but this preference, and this is very important because for instance, collective behavior can be explained this way, the induction of a mass of people with a style of perception normally specific only to some.
This (last sentence) is an assumption that is unverified. This assumption uses the first assumption mentioned by me in OP. (Which was that interaction is to a big degree defined by the socionics preferences.)
Yes, it is a model in theory. In practice, a lot of data collected together. :P
Quote:
What is strict in Socionics is the understanding, the model, the rules of cognition. For example why Ne Base necessarily implies Ni Ignoring, Se Role and so on. I studied this and it makes sense, not yet easily to articulate, because it's something totally new, but still... some people are right now working on it, as others before did about metaphysics, logic or mathematics. In fact I believe that Socionics' information metabolism will merge, at least partially, with epistemology. You will still not be able to wet the flowers in your garden using it, though... it really matters if you expect from it to be something that it is not.
Is it just philosophy? That is fine by me. But, then, why do people attempt to use it for practical goals such as finding duals? See, I can't reconcile this contradiction here.
Quote:
In comparison with Socionics, does logic (or any field dealing with information and knowledge) satisfy your requirements for an useful discipline? How? How do you measure it objectively?
By "logic" do you mean mathematics? Or what? Sorry, I can't answer until I know what you meant exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Ineffable
The reification is made when people try to find physical support for these so-called functions, and such similar attempts. For instance, I heard some hilarious hypotheses around - findings that claim that different functions are objects, even more so, that they are located in different parts of the brain. :lol: But this is not an issue of Socionics per se, but of the idiots who make these claims in its name. The content of functions does not exist in reality as "things", pretty much like the time (not sure about the space). They are just a way we can understand how we understand shit.
My problem with that is that it is not guaranteed whatsoever if this understanding does describe anything really. Much like pulling analogies out of thin air. Socionics does use those physics analogies too, a lot of the theory is based on them, and that also doesn't help at all in verifying it really works that way. You can make an analogy between any two unrelated things easily. This is the reason why I don't trust analogies; they don't necessarily illuminate anything for me, because they are never real explanations. Sure it can sound "cool" but that's not enough for me.
Quote:
BTW, the existence of the perception of time in humans, which is itself a mental function, was never proven by measuring something or whatever manner you required, as far as I know. And I don't think this will ever happen... Again, I think it matters what you expect, what you think these functions are, your understanding might be wrong, don't blame it on Socionics.
Oh, not sure why you think time perception is not measurable. Even with a simple google search, you will find information about the role of a biological structure, the suprachiasmatic nucleus in maintaining circadian rhythm in animals and humans. If you want, you can dissect the brain in a pretty concrete manner to find this structure. :P But of course the circadian rhythm is not the only method of time perception, there are other systems in the brain responsible for short time interval perception. The perception of somewhat longer intervals is more complex, of course. (And subject to a lot more errors in humans.) There is also fun research on how subjective our perception of event succession is, you can devise experiments where our mistakes about it will be shown easily, how you will feel like event X occurred after your response Y to it. Anyhow, I won't go on about this, but the point is that all this is concrete research. Time perception can be defined in terms of such research, it isn't just a mental function.
Again the old argument, my understanding must be wrong if I find some issue with socionics... so why isn't socionics officially part of any scientific discipline yet? Mental constructs of the theory inside the brain of a socionist is not accessible by anyone else in an acceptable way. It involves subjective reinterpretation... that is just the nature of the thing. So then yeah, if someone doesn't agree with you it must mean their understanding is wrong. But see, by definition/nature of it, it can never be the exact same as yours, so I see no point in blaming someone for their "incorrect understanding". I'd rather blame the topic itself for being too subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Ineffable
I guess I don't use them... The first is not something I can conceive, what means "big part" of communication. If someone for example uses the entailment from messages, while someone else takes implicatures as if they were necessary, how different these people would be? I can tell the difference, but I don't know how "much" this means.
You do seem to use some of it; I pointed it out a few lines above in this post too.
"Big part" simply means big enough to define interaction styles in detail between types... and then letting people rely on that.
Quote:
I generally disagree with the second maxim as well, that there are direct links between the type and behavior. It matters very much to understand the context and not take the described traits literally, out of it - because really, they can mean many things by themselves. I used to notice many such mistakes, but nothing comes to my mind right now. Let me search the forum for my posts containing "context", perhaps I find something.
OK, this one point is unclear about your expectations of causality between type and behaviour, I asked you about it above in this same post of mine, so I'll just wait for your reply on that.
Quote:
Oh yeah,
here there is a discussion about the alleged strict dependence of Ne types on novelty. This is a misconception I often wrote about.
I do see what you mean here... yeah, seeking out novelty is just a behaviour and it is even perhaps only in one specific situation as well, and can be interpreted within as many kinds of theory frameworks as one wishes.
Btw, that link is interesting about how you said "Ne Egos receive empirical information in analogies, interconnected". I do understand that this way of seeing the world could be useful at times but I usually just don't take in most information by searching for analogies or parallels. I take in information by focusing on the data itself as it is on its own. Then if I happen to need it in a bigger picture, I will take the details I know about the topic so far and try to understand all of them inside some logical system... beyond actual experience with the thing, clarifying the exact definitions and the implications is very important for me in this process, analogies would just distract me from my focus on seeing the thing itself. I'm not saying that parallels between two very different things are completely useless, I can see the point of them, because *if* it is logically sound too, then it can be helpful - it's just something I don't strive for by default. An example where I do consciously utilize such strategies is learning the vocabulary of a new language: a word can have several seemingly very different meanings but I can connect them together by finding something common between them and so I can learn all of them in one go. :)
OK, I described all this to show to you why I don't think that in terms of this theory, I can be categorized as Ne ego. It is only relevant because you think my conviction that I'm not "ILE" even though I'm "ILE" according to your analysis, contributes to my views on socionics. (Now of course you could still argue that even though I'm not "ILE" after all, I could still be mistyping myself.)
Quote:
It is merely your misconception that correct methods of typing in Socionics are either tests or VI. That is completely wrong.
I did not say anything like this. You thought I said thing A and thing B, and so I must have implied thing C. But I didn't. I don't even think that VI is "correct" in any sense of the term. These two are things that can be standardized, though, so yes they do have this advantage at least.
Quote:
I use the analysis of the type/function descriptions and the Model, then the personality of the subject and eventually interaction with other individuals. Someone can be typed based on his or her writings, or based on depictions made by others.
Whoa, nice subjective methods, not easily repeatable by others.
Quote:
Although not 100% reliable, I sometimes find VI useful
Do you not mind that there is no real basis for VI whatsoever? Just because sometimes the VI result falls in line with your typing does not mean it is not utter bullshit.
But okay, if you do know of some basis for VI beyond the "it sometimes seems to work" line, I'd like to hear it. In what way(s) can IE's manifest themselves in facial structure?
To me right now it just seems like something that humans like to resort to intuitively. MBTI/JCF systems also have their VI systems by several different groups. But just because something seems intuitively good it doesn't mean it is true. The Earth seemed intuitively to be flat.
Quote:
I will probably continue with the rest, but I don't know if at this point it really matters, I think I brought sufficient arguments for why the assertions made in this thread by you are in my opinion incorrect, and perhaps make you change your mind.
Sorry, some things are not clarified sufficiently enough yet. It would be nice to get on the same page in terms of understanding at least even if not in opinion.
Some things I mentioned are not as relevant as others, it's OK if you focus only on the most relevant points.
Also, if you have the time, I would really like you to respond to these parts from my previous post (the rest of that post is not so important indeed):
1. Also, my typing can't really be correct or incorrect as the theory is not falsifiable anyway so everything and its opposite can be supported by arguments.
2. Of course, another thing adding to this chaos is that a few other people typed me as "LIE". They had the same input, and yet, a different output. Completely different valued functions, too (when comparing to "ILE"). And there is no method to determine which opinion is the final one, which authority is the real one. Again, chaos.
One last thing I find important. You said somewhere:
Quote:
I understand the type as merely a preference
I wanted to ask here about one finding. That was with MBTI tests, though, but they found that the replies were not distributed in a way that would have supported distinct function preferences (functions: T/F, S/N, in MBTI terms and also E/I). There is apparently no evidence of bimodal distribution for them, instead, most people score towards the center, between the two extremes. The meaning is that someone who scores a T preference could easily be very similar to someone who gets tested as having F preference. What if the same is true for socionics function preferences? I see no reason why it wouldn't be, tbh. I actually see this as most likely. So anyhow, if this is true, what is the idea behind types then?
