https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pggDCnt5M
Pretty much all of this is equally applicable to Socionics. Sorry about your "theory."
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pggDCnt5M
Pretty much all of this is equally applicable to Socionics. Sorry about your "theory."
Real theories make testable predictions and are falsifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Person
A friend of mind did a degree in education, and she talked about this crazy prof who wouldn't even talk to people before they told her their Myers Briggs type... yeah.
I don't think anyone is claiming MBTI to be a know-all end-all system. MBTI is really just there for having easy, convenient way for at least getting someone in the right ball park. Unlike socionics MBTI hardly even attempts at understanding the motives and inner working behind people's behavior and how it all fits together, so I don't think it is fair to put them in same level, and especially not on the same level as astrology/fortune telling which don't even use scientific research at all.
Yes there are a lot of type inconsistencies in socionics, but a lot that has to do with either people not fully understanding the system yet or with the more loose theoretical extensions of socionics like romantic attitudes, subtypes, temperaments, etc. The are definitely some flaws within socionics that need to worked out, but I've seen too much that has socionics has been correct with to just say its all bullshit/useless. I'm well aware how some psuedo-sciences use vagueness to make it seem like they have predictive power when they actually don't, but with socionics I've actually been able to use it to pre-determine people's traits with undeniable accuracy.
That's crazy who would do such a thing to people!!! NutzQuote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
Well aware of all and already took it into account. I've got a pretty good sense of what is bullshit is and what is not. Some of the outer socionics subjects may be a bit sketchy but I think socionics at its core is alot more solid then a lot of the other psuedo-scientific bullshit out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
Of course it would be wonderful if there was more empirical evidence to please the :Te: valuers, but that takes time, money, and people willing to run and conduct experiments, which are not exactly things that are easy to come by most people. Unless your willing to provide the resources to help gather statistical information, criticizing socionics for lacking "tangible evidence" is just beating the dead horse.
Lol@ your inability to understand that psychology studies subjective experience. It doesn't need to be falsifiable; get a new slogan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
This is like dr.Brennan - Sweets argument all over:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyx
"Psychology is false because it has no proofs, it is subjective and can't be falsified-everything can be explained with a "...depends how you look on it" trick."
Sometimes i do think it is all false and just a screen for flogging Xanax and stuff(so pharmacoshitty industry could continue poisoning people and making them addicted to their poisons).
Psychology studies conscious reality, how we perceive and understand and deal with our experiences, etc., our qualia. The Scientific Method is for verifying reality independent from our thoughts about.Quote:
Originally Posted by nondescript
So saying a study of human thoughts requires scientific falsifiability is really contradictory. If someone wants falsifiability, then they don't care about people's subjective experiences; they'd rather objectify people apart from their personal experiences, as some sort of lifeless machines. It's just so meaningless to me, but whatever.
i don't understand why people feel threatened and react defensively when its pointed out typology isn't science. they know this already, right? it doesn't mean you're wrong for feeling like/having the belief that its a good theory. feelings & beliefs are totally fine for forming your own lens through which to view the world. how are you limited in your use of socionics by the acknowledgment that its a psuedoscience?
It's more than finding coincidences in numbers. I think you underestimate that you are creating the entire foundation for interpreting many things that the tools aren't there to measure and nobody has described a mechanism that explains the data. It's never going to be science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
Psychology is a broad field of study, with many interesting cross-disciplinary approaches. I'm not sure which one you're promoting here, but good luck. I understand that psychology has suffered in the past as an applied science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyx
It won't stop people from being obsessed/interested with it though. Religion/the occult hasn't been falsified or whatever either, and it still drives people crazy...so I agree with cpig but I don't really think reminding this to people will have any outcome other then kind of getting under their skin a bit for awhile. There is no leading people to the light of logic.
You are essentially going up to little children and telling them there is no santa claus. Yeah you are right, but you are also an asshole. Hehe.
Also the tv shows/stories you personally like, none of them are real or scientific either- but you still watch them. Even if you are a logical type. So humans obviously aren't motivated/influenced by rational crap.
This is why I say , I give socionics up not because of its lack of logic of feasibility or other Te words- but because there comes a point where it just isn't emotionally satisfying to me anymore.
It wasn't that so much faith in a make-believe deity made the person stupid as it made them hateful and closed off. Fight their emotional fantasy with emotional strength of your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
Oh no!!!! My life now is totally devoid of meaning. :(
Arguing whether or not MBTI/socionics/ related fields are factually correct or qualifies as science is debatable. The part I disagree with is your claim that they are "useless" and should disregarded in the same manner as astrology or crazy religion. Just because a system doesn't operate perfectly doesn't mean that there isn't knowledge to gained. Even something that is completely broken may still have some salvageable parts within it. The trick is it takes some skill to be able to pick apart the good information from the junk information. People who lack this ability may simply give up and just say it's all bullshit in order to maintain their self-esteem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
It's not. They aren't science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
I'm sure fortune tellers and astrologists would feel the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
And it takes skill to be a profitable fortune teller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
I don't know if you're talking to me at all. But personally I think Socionics kind of sucks. It stereotypes as much as mbti. But that's a seperate issue from expecting psychology to follow an objective method, such as the scientific method, when it is geared towards understanding the subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
@Capitalist Pig You need a little more then mockery and vague technicalities to make a logical argument as to why MBTI/socionics is "useless". I agree that they aren't really science by standard definition, but that does not automatically translate to the whole thing being wrong. The only solid point you brought up between both the video and your post was how 50% of people tested by MBTI arrive at a different type. MBTI however only measures external qualities and doesn't attempt to explain the causes of type behavior therefore I would expect it to be somewhat inaccurate. There are multiple factors that could play a role in type inconsistencies other then system itself being non-functional.
Socionics is social science theory. Its social science, albet underground. Its not typology as it has a model and different personality configurations are predicted abd different information preferences are associated with this prediction. You can dismiss the type descriptions but you can not dismiss the powerful influence of information prefereence on human cognition. Ultimately this study predicts how you think cpig, it predicts your skepticism, your neurotic attachment to a study and group of ppl you disagreement with as well as your stubborness. It also predicts you negative attention seeking. Its easy to dismiss this study as not a physical science. Its hard to dismiss the infomation science if yor psyche which produces your current skepticism, stubborness, negative attention seekjng, disregard for others feelings and thoughts.
So why do you continue to behave as you do as predicted by socionics and the way it models information preference? Its not star signs its the brain and thought patterns.
I think it's useless because it has no objective measure of validity. If you find value in it, more power to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
Correct, though you also share that distinction in common with astrology, numerology, palm reading, and other systems of fortune telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
I never said anything about statistics, that was the video. It's a valid point because of the low retest reliability. There's no way to control for bias or deception in respondents of self-reporting questionnaires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mu4
yeah, this typology business is no science... but it helped me figure out some stuff and it's kind've interesting, I guess.
that's a little dysfunctional...Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Here is a potentially falsifiable prediction for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
People will tend to enjoy spending time with their dual more than they will tend to enjoy spending time with their conflictor.
Now would Karl Popper agree that socionics is scientific by his strict falsifiability criteria? Probably not, but then he also didn't believe that Darwinian Evolution was scientific either. Socionics currently lacks rigorous evidence and experiments backing it up, but that in no way implies that such evidence will never exist in the future.
I think ppl are trying too hard to convince Cpig that Socionics is useful. The reality is he is simply trapped by a powerful delusion which makes believing this impossible.
For him "X is not science, therefore, x is useless" This is essentially the video, and the sentiment he has adopted in response to socionics.
This is entirely not scientific either, but nonetheless he believes that this is true. From the begining this was never a discussion based on reason but one based on sentiment.
We know very clearly that all sorts of non scientific things are not useless, but nonetheless he wishes to persist in this delusion.
The criteria that something has to be scientific to be useful is a very powerful delusion, when all it says is that. All he can say without relying on sentiment is that the validity of socionics is not scientific. Beyond that, any causal relation between science and usefulness is sentimental and ethical. He has chosen to take a road with socionics that is not scientific but ethical, but his theory about the usefulness of socionics is also unscientific and therefore in his worldview, "Useless".
He negates his own points with this delusion, but it's unlikely he doesn't realizes this because he's not trained in philosophy or science. He's at best a meme repeater, which he has consistently shown himself to be.
This applies in fact to a good number of people who engage in this sort of behavior, going to religious forums and trolling them, going to gay pride pride parade to tell them that they're going to hell, they have adopted a delusion of something as a "One true belief" and act on this with disregard to all cognitive dissonance.
The fact of the matter is that information processing, information preference are sciences and part of mainstream scientific studies.
If the human organism is a information metabolism that processes information and has information preference then you can construct a typology out of it(and this is what is assumed in all Big Data market tools which creates typologies for specific predictions). So up until this point, the explanation mechanism of socionics is entirely scientific and applicable in a real sense. This is being done at a massive level resulting in trillions of dollars of value.
Beyond this point socionics stops being a science because a model of information processing and preference is applied to jungian observations on psychological types, and it's validity/usefulness/etc is currently impossible to determine.
One cannot reasonably say that socionics is useless, useful, valid, invalid, these are simply unknowns.
Of course this perspective is no fun to promote or market, so different groups will market "X is useless", "X is the best", "X is funny", "X is boring". These powerful sentiments and delusions essentially drive the discourse and the drama.
Now how do we explain the nature of these sentimental actions and the delusions which people adopt in order to promote them?
nopeQuote:
Originally Posted by mu4
Of course you are, this is why you continue to be on this forum and haven't spent your time doing something else. You've spent like so many years here without any advancement in your knowledge of this topic or how to criticize this topic. You're basically on the same treadmill you've been on since the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
You can't leave, you waste your time incessantly around something you seem to hate and antagonizing people genuinely interest in this topic with way more knowledge and training than you? Why is that?
If one of your main interests in life is to antagonize people of a fringe theory about the fact their fringe theory isn't science, how small and petty and deranged is that. You've spent what? Around 1/3 of your life doing this. I don't seem any difference between your psychology and say Westboro Baptist. Why define yourself here as just a nuisance?
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mu4
I do kind of wonder why you only choose to rebuke socionics. I haven't read a post of yours in a very long time that participates in any kind of discussion, other than criticism.
I can imagine that you're looking for someone to convince you you are wrong or you would have left already. Or perhaps you want people to agree with you and gain some kind of social approval, to find people that think similarly. Or I don't understand at all. But I don't suppose you even know why anyway, as you don't seem the type to question those kinds of things. Maybe I will get a "lol" and I can consider that your strange way of social love. Come Cpig, we will gently buttrape you into the primal ecstasy of love. You can forget your abrasive ways and make gay love in the glowing light of astrology, socionics, mbti, and all that you love to hate.
i do what i wantQuote:
Originally Posted by Nyx
You've spent the better part of 9 years here, with the same placard that says, "Socionics isn't science, it's useless" or some variation. I don't see any advancement in your understanding of psychology, science, any applicable knowledge either. Neither have you applied much of anything with your life. Instead of repeating the same refrain which you continue to repeat from the beginning. With any understanding of psychology, philosophy, science, etc, you could surely come up with something more or at least alternative explanations of human cognition. I can give you many more explainations about this topic of psychology and cognitive science and many other typologies some of which are entirely empirical in nature and used by major technology vendors. Even other detractors like ath/n0ki routinely introduce new theories and new approaches which inevitably become discussed at some level and he certainly has his share of issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
This study is certainly useless to you, but it's certainly not meaningless to you either because of your continued fascination with it and your years and years of neurotic attachment.
So is that lol at yourself or the rest of us, wasting our times learning various studies to understand the human mind. I mean all we did is read books, articles, share them and discuss things with openness. Surely that is entirely meaningless and worthless endeavor compared to holding a placard that says "Socionics is not science, it is useless". Surely exploring the world and what exists in it is meaningless compared to occasionally being a nuisance on this forum with the same old tired refrain. Surely? At least some of us had enjoyed some of it, small things in life eh..
expectedly vague,Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
I somehow knew @mu4 was going to show up here and completely pwn this thread. These kind of threads are like a Broken Arrow transmission for us alpha NTs. Expect to get bombed to hell and back 100x over whenever you challenge a theory's factual basis yet lack logical arguments yourself.
I think the speculation about cpigs motivations and mental state is pretty off base and not particularly relevant anyway.
Accepting Jung's CFT comes down to belief in its premises without proof of their existence. There is absolutely no proof that people are born as Ti, Ni, Se dominants, etc. However, most people will recognize that they have certain traits that overlap with one or more of the type descriptions and that is enough for some people to say it is true because it describes them. Real, measurable human traits are present in the theory, even if the sources of the traits are incorrect. Recognizing traits in the theory that seem to describe you is not proof that the theory is true. Many people make the logical fallacy and think that just because the theory is true for them and describes their subjective experience, that it must apply to everyone else as well. It is a theory full of personal biases and hence, pseudoscientific. The people that often get mad are often those that really don't understand science, that it is not a "cognitive bias", or "just Te", it is the attempt to remove personal biases in the quest for knowledge. A person who is scientific recognizes that everyone is biased and seeks knowledge that tries to reduce the influence of personal biases.
One of the strengths of the Jungian worldview is that it recognizes that everyone has a subjective experience and it helps form one's worldview, opinions, and beliefs. But this strength is also a weakness because it treats every subjective experience as a valid way toward Truth. Jung basically said that everything subjective and everything objective adds up to reality as it is, which makes intuitive sense, but it creates whole new problems because the definition of Truth and Knowledge become in themselves subjective. As a result, there will be irreconcilable worldviews that are attributed to cognitive functions. For example, if you think that vaccinating your child is putting them at risk for autism, you are likely not interested in empiricism and more interested in anecdotal evidence that supports a personal bias. In typology, this is a perfectly reasonable position to have and is explained away by the person being a Ti or Ni users, and serves to go against the more empirical Te users, despite the fact that many of the most famous empiricists, or scientists, were Ti dominants!
My point is, typology can be used to argue any viewpoint you may have. People get mad because when you ask for evidence, they say "(insert function) user" which reinforces their personal bias that the theory is true. It's kind of like a religion or cult, even though it is not really either. I have no doubt that the 16 types(or 32) describe the personalities of some people. They may very well be spot on for them. But, it does not mean that everyone can be categorized or described in the same way. In other word, there are more basic personalities than Jung theorized, if there are any basic ones at all(as seen in people's attempt to mix a host of different, often contradictory theories(big five, mbti, socionics, enneagram) to describe their true personality).
Also, just because Socionics is more sophisticated than MBTI, doesn't mean it is true. What it certainly is, is more interesting.
It is kind of an art: a way of interpreting the world by the conscious mind, with an element of shared commonalities. Socionics/MBTI is a shared language to cross the sound barrier.
I like socionics more for several reasons, one of which is that it also describes the negative, shallow, petty and pathetic sides of personalities.
It is though, all just art.
you make a lot of assumptionsQuote:
Originally Posted by mu4
yea, carpetbombing with ad hominems!!! go go alpha NT circlejerk!Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
I'm completely open towards discussing flaws within socionics so please tell me them. So far you have provided no logical arguments to tackle in the first place other then whether or not mbti/socionics can technically be considered science, which we already discussed. You accuse me/other alpha NTs of avoiding the main topic yet here you are attempting to lower psychology to the same level as fortune telling instead of providing hard factual reasons of why you don't think it is bullshit. If you don't like socionics for whatever reason then don't like it, but when you stick around making the same old criticisms without ever contributing anything new and constructive expect these kind of replies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
I'm not ad homineming you at all, since I don't disagree with you that socionics is not a science. Also X is useless is a value statement not a logical one. Science is supposed to be about truth not usefulness. Usefulness is determined by the design, you can design all sort of useless things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
My problem with you is entirely ethical and my criticism is that you have been doing this for 9 years with the same message, and you have nothing new too add and what you do is attention seeking. You're free to do this but it's very much a nuisance on my forum an/d I'm informing you of this. It's ok to do a lot of stuff on this forum, including what you do, but I thought people should know what I thought about your 9 years of the same ole same ole.
When you present a logical statement that I can deal with logically and analytically I'll consider it, until then your attention seeking is very annoying to me and of course others as well.
This isn't ad hominem since I'm not attacking your character to discredit your argument, I'm just question your character because your argument is stupid.
To find it useful you should type correctly people and think a little about people's behavior to notice this system. As for that video, - there is nothing to prove MBT or Socionics is totally wrong or hence useless.
It's Jung's theory. Sorry you did not know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
this is an interesting video. This guy makes sense to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQxkt90u7w
The inferences about cpig''s inner character are as factually wrong as they are ethically gross. You aren't very insightful or hannibal lector-ish in that way sorry so plz stop it. It's embarrassing. He doesn't deserve that- and well... I think it's actually reinforcing his point.
I'm the queen of derailment but I wish we all would stay on topic.
I think @Capitalist Pig's issue is more to do with there being (in MBTI) no reliable data to show the dichotomies exist other than Extroversion/Introversion and Rational/Irrational, nevermind the eight functions. According to the wiki page on the MBTI there is also no real evidence that individuals exist within a spectrum (they all generally fall within to a narrow band in the middle). Also in Socionics, there has been no studies of any great scale into whether the IMs in any individual can be reliably measured (whether by the individual, or by a group of experts). The IMs themselves have not been defined as far as I know other than through descriptions (rather than lists of "instruments"/facets), and any research that has been done has probably not be done in a way that is scientifically rigorous.
It is pretty relevant when all he ever offers is criticism. Maybe if he offered criticism with some counter-criticism, we'd know he at least accepts the theories merits, as well as its flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
Stop defending him for being vapid,
You can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfall
stop feeding my attention-seekingQuote:
Originally Posted by Reactance
Alright fine, we can just be hostile assholes. /bored
Have fun...
< redacted >Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig
I am also interested in the empirical evidence of this crap as well. I mean, it's nice to talk with different people from all over the world, but this became too cult like. We need clarity and organisation and most importantly, proof to end up the cult status! It's pointless come on!
not interested in getting involved in the debate in this thread, but why do people who think such-and-such typology is bullshit continue to hang around forums like this, arguing about why it's bullshit? i don't understand what the point of that is. the equivalent is like if someone hung around on astrology forums, arguing with people about how much astrology is bullshit. why would you waste your time doing that? lol
It's usually due to some personal investment and/or disillusionment. Not saying this is the case here. When I left Christianity I spent some time trolling Christians with talk of aliens among other things, like quoting from the book, "Holy Blood Holy Grail". I also knew more about their religion than most of them which made it easy. Not something I am particularly proud of now but at the time I was angry about most of my experiences with Christians and the church. I finally let it go when I found a mentor, of sorts, that taught me that my beliefs were serving a purpose for me just as their beliefs were serving a purpose for them. He also told me that I thought that I was superior to them, just as I had thought I was superior when I was one of them. Letting that go was like a ton of weight off me. I still do it though when someone is too serious but now I am no longer serious about it and I try to have more respect for their beliefs. Until they annoy me past a certain point. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by glam
i identify with this too, because i did something similar when i left religion - i would be angry with Christians and tell them why their beliefs were stupid etc. this was when i was in middle school or something - i got over it eventually, and now have a similar way of dealing with it as you do :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
leaving religion is a very personal and transformative thing, so i can understand having this kind of response after feeling disillusioned. i guess i'm confused regarding my original question, because don't view being into typology, then getting "disillusioned" by it, and continuing to criticize it for years afterward as quite the same thing - it seems so much more petty and pointless. is it really the case that the people who are the most "anti-typology" are also the ones who felt the most disillusioned by it?
I don't think he is critizing typology itself, it seems like more-so he is being critical of people's beliefs in it to begin with. Sometimes people speak in the affirmative when they discuss typology, without paying homage to the truth that this could all be 'not-true' and so in doing so seem silly from a critical stand-point.
yeah but this is a forum to discuss said typology, is every single post supposed to come with a disclaimer "this may or may not be bullshit, don't forget!" would you expect religious people on a Christian forum to do this same (just an example)? honestly if anybody is on a forum just to tell ppl there that their beliefs are bullshit, i'd probably see that person as a troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by wacey
i'm not saying socionics or typology can't be criticized or whatever, i know they've got their problems. i think most people are aware of them too, and they're often alluded to in various discussions.
oh yeah dont get me wrong I am not trying to justify it for him. I might even be wrong altogether...?Quote:
Originally Posted by glam
I think so too, which is why I criticized him for it. It's not that the point he makes is wrong, it's that his actions are not scientific as he seems to be promoting but rather his actions are rooted in ethics and sentiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Socionics may be useless(subjective evaluation) to some on this forum, but it is often quite meaningful still to these individuals.
Socionics because it is rooted in personality, identity, and social designation is in the same domain of questions that humans grip with using philosophy, psychology, religion, art.
The same questions, "Who am I? What is one's place in the world? How can one be happy." are muddle thru in these topics. Somes answers obscure while others reveal and it is hard to determine which answer in which study is right.
Socionics is not a science, and one should not pretend it has scientific validity, but it also isn't a cult, astrology or magic either. The explanatory mechanisms are in line with cognitive science (brain, information processing, information preference) and the descriptions are psychological (Jung). There is no secret knowledge known to just a few or special techniques hidden behind a onerous paywall or indoctrination. This is as open a study as exists operating in a voluntary community.
Science also cannot produce satisfactory answers for many of the questions man asks and even if it could in time, human lives are short and we cannot wait.
I'm not going to go deeply into this because people have said this far better than I, I will leave some links.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
I might have been a bit harsh on him out of frustration but you don't have to rely on only science to live your life, you also don't have to evaluate everything on the basis of some measure of useful/uselessness. It would be immeasurably more banal and stunted world without the subjective and inter-subjective facets of our world, sometimes beautiful and sometimes monstrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mu4
Well said. I think that socionics is very useful for addressing our need to understand our consciousness in real time, something which draws in the people that may eventually come to criticize it.
I think the criticism comes because while people experience life subjectively, socionics claims some sort of objectivity of the subjective life. This should be entirely open to criticism, although I think it should be done civilly. It really wouldn't be a big deal if typing was done for purely understanding oneself, but I have found many people using it to aggressively(and hastily) type people based from limited information because they strongly believe in the premise of pure types. I for one believe that one ought to have the freedom to relate to any subjective descriptions one can relate to. Why? For one, it's my subjective experience and no one else's. Two, because if I'm not honest with my experiences, I can't correctly identify my type, if it exists at all. If I can identify with descriptions that cross a few types and quadra, it makes me quite skeptical that there are such things as pure types. In fact it seems more like something you have to force yourself into than actually exists.
Its really quite annoying and irritating to see what happens to people on these types of forums. Basically, someone comes from the outside, says a few things about themselves and people jump to conclusions about their type. You end up with statements such as "you like nature and must be some Si type". What it does seem to be is a very social phenomenon, where people form little hierarchies based on stereotypes. They often type themselves and others without any sort of standard and many of these people are obsessed with who is really what pure type, almost to the point of paranoia, as seen by the number of MBTI INFJ videos that go on and on about all the INFPs that mistype as INFJs. They are often very condescending, elitist, and not at all objective.
Now I'm concerned with truth, whether it is about myself or the objective nature of the universe, but I can be a real fuck off too. I don't mean to criticize people's beliefs for the sake of it, but to understand what is and what isn't.
While its true the each person's brains has an innate cognitive structure(it must be true), it does not follow that Jung correctly identified what those cognitive structures are. I think he did give us a very good starting point though.
***edit: I think the people on typology forums tend to be more open minded than average and cool people, which is why I like to hang around.
Tjay is fucking nailing it in this thread.
(i don't mean that to "take sides" or whatever. Just the truth of the posts.)
yes, i think these are valid criticisms. a difference i have here is related to the bolded: what you describe in these paragraphs i see as a problem related more to some people's application of socionics, not so much of socionics theory itself. i see these things as being distinct, though often conflated. i don't think using/studying/applying socionics must necessarily lead to the kinds of conclusions some people make - using the theory in the way that you are describing (i.e. overly strict, unrealistic categorizations.) but it often does happen this way - and as you noted, not just with socionics, but other typologies as well. socionics is a (unique) theory and it has the limitations of one (whether it's a "good" theory or not is up for debate), and it's when people ignore/forget this that this kind of stuff happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJay
@TJay
You're right and it is a problem. I think it might be a better theory if they took the types out of it and instead created a theory that posits different ways of being with reality. Then the relationships and explanations become relative to what's going on with people and how they are thinking, perceiving, and feeling in a given context, along with other people.
Because honestly a lot of socionics has made a lot of sense in my life, whether scientific or not, if I throw away the idea of an absolute type and just perceive the interactions with myself and others. I guess it's why I keep coming back. But if I confine myself to its stereotypes and idea of having an absolute type, no it doesn't make much sense and is kind of silly in that regard, of course.
Okay, but Cpig hasn't shown any interest in the merits of socionics here, only criticism. He forces people to justify their time, behavior, and beliefs with socionics, while never acknowledging them as valid. He's forcing people to be defensive and deserves that reaction, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
i saw it as an opening to debate the merits of socionics that could be engaged with or ignored at will. and i don't see how ignoring his posts would cause negative consequences for anyone, so i'm not seeing people being forced into anything. responses are totally justified and interesting to read. (i just thought calling him insecure and painting a negative portrait of him as a person was an uncalled for diversion).Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactance
Well, if you can't see how his approach is hostile, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Fair enough about the diversion; I'm assuming you're talking about mu4s posts then, which I only skimmed.
Alright. :biggrin:
I don't see my frustration with him as being a diversion. It was a frustrated reaction to his actions. His taunt at the end of the first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
His verbalization engages the reader individually and has really zero relevance to the topic. The first diversion was his alone. It's the childish(What I think) "nyah nyah nyah" playground taunt. The evidence of his diversion is clear. I don't even disagree with his argument since it's not "his" but rather an argument against MBTI, which isn't socionics. As far as usefulness and uselessness of socionics, I'll leave that to the individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpig
As far as his attempt to engage the forum at the "Your" level, I think I have the leeway to do this since he opened the door.
And this taunt was not a debate about socionics but about why people discuss it because it's "useless" or somehow interest in this theory has negative meaning for him.
So he was the first to go negative portrait as well.
Let's be quite clear about this.
Capitalist pig is the first to create a diversion, the first to engage in negativity(at a personal level) and he cannot escape criticism for that.
I consider his action a character flaw but others can have their own opinions about this, but this is over and done with and there are more interesting things to discuss.
If he would like to answer some questions. I welcome others to answer these questions as well and I will make some separate threads for this.
"Why is socionics meaningful to you?"
"How did you began your interest with socionics?"
"What did you get from socionics and/or socionics community?"
I agree. I think whether socionics is true or not is irrelevant. Most of us are here bc its just something fun to think about. I dont think most functional ppl really apply it to real life interactions in any life changing way (and they shouldn't!). I feel its mostly about ppl making observations and comparing/sharing life experiences here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJay
"sorry about your 'theory'" is provocative and antagonizing, but it doesn't reach the level of deliberate character assassination. i don't think we'll come to an agreement about this. but -on the forum, several people collaborating to paint a negative picture of one other person is a fairly frequent occurrence, usually involving assigning them a different type (and i've played my own role in this before), and i think this is something to consider when wondering why some people might carry hostility about the way socionics is practiced (and ultimately the theory itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by mu4
I think I was harsh but I was frustrated. I do question his character but this is a very subjective distrust, based on how I have seen his behavior for many years. I sort of wish he would stop just like I wish people would stop protesting gay pride rallies. I would say my response was not my best moment, I could have been more creative instead of angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOhIUAjg5UY
Nevertheless, I think socionics is meaningful to Capitalist Pig and think this question is something he should ask of himself. and perhaps answer.
There is a certain fact that in social life people will form groups and spread similar opinions, sometimes not exactly in a nice manner. I can't see that being a consequence of the study but mere human nature.
If he does happen to have a grudge against socionics, it's perhaps better to let it go and find forgiveness. Holding on to a grudge is toxic and painful.
"Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies." Nelson Mandela
Annnnd here we have yet another socionics predicted interaction with a Fi-base (lungs) supervising a Fi-polr (mu4).
^ Out of curiosity, how do you figure?
I think maybe Lungs cares more about how people characterize one another than she does about how someone makes others feel. Fe vs Fi perhaps.
You mean where do I see supervision?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactance
If that's what you are asking I noticed how lungs picked up on mu4's weakness with Fi and put pressure on him for it by instructing to him that an antagonizing opening comment doesn't make it ethical to engage in what she sees as "character assassination". You can see how this caused mu4 some discomfort were he backtracks and admits to being too harsh.
Assuming mu4 is ILE, this interaction seems to suggest an EII typing for @lungs rather then ESI since it plays out more like supervision then conflict.
then feel free to use the ignore featureQuote:
Originally Posted by mu4
oh okQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I don't know why people like that do such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by glam
Interesting observation. Not sure if I agree on the typing of lungs though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
my take on the conflict is that mu attacks an attitude thats somewhat prevalent on the forum rather than the individual specifically. Carpet bombing so to speak. Its more ruthless and less personal then character assassination.
Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless.
I agree with video title. Tests are meaningless in this area if you want to get deeper. However it actually explains something very important: There are lots variability in our thinking. The idea is to understand how you are aligned towards the world. MBTI does not do very good job in this. You can use it nonetheless.
First: You need to understand that there are 8 base types and each of them are divided into two subcategories. And they are bit blurry because every real world category is bit blurry. It is not exact.
Furthermore: When you introduce outside variables into your system does it mean that it collapses? Any personality system there is is very crude and is not supposed to be taken as the truth. You can still play with them, develop them, compare them and try to look if patterns are plausible and maybe even test them.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...3bb71de240.pdf
here's some science which seems to indicate NP (MBTI) types are more generally represented among the gifted.
this makes sense to me, as :Ne: tends to have an academic, universalist quality to it, while :Ni: types (like myself) tend to be caught up in our own schemes.
I'm a skeptic myself, but I think to say it has NO scientific applicability is wrong. I took a PSY 110 course recently, and they still include MBTI in the survey textbooks. Just like Freud is still in there, and as I'm almost certain there are psychoanalysts who apply Freud's "unfalsifiable" ideas and improve the lives of mentally ill people.
that's what interests me: do things work? if heuristics work, whether they come from science or bureaucracy or religion or tradition, I think they are at least worth considering. Jungian psychoanalytics seems to help identify gifted kids (even if there are no actual types) and might help them get in a better position than shitty, one size fits all public education. Is it the magic cure to all your problems which will give you a multitude of friends and the love of your dreams? fuck no. but it's a tool amongst many
Ok:Quote:
Originally Posted by mu4
1. Because it allows me to preempt other persons and to stay in control so to speak. Self-typing is a bitch though. And frankly, completely useless.
2. Because the MBTI nomenclature ( INFJ being NiFe ) didn't make any sense at the time. Now that I better think about it, logical reasons aside, MBTI's way of describing it is better and more applicable. Socionics descriptions and...things are just needlessly complicated just for the sake of it(to "explain" something?).
3. I even lost things: I lost my time, I lost a lot of energy and even kinda chipped my relationships. What's the up side? Nothing, I'd say. But I did learn how different people can be.
Yeah, I agree. For conflict relationship, see my and mu's interaction: hint there is none. He IGNORED me 2 seconds after I spoke. And I still can't believe the obscenities he has a habit of saying in the chat ( he once said, quote, " let me put my D in your V, A and M " ...fucking REALLY? Other person is just a TOOL to you? ) . He is most often rude, vulgar and completely self-absorbed. Which actually doesn't mean a conflict relationship, but rather that I don't care for him as a person. Neither would I want to be around him tbh. Shame that I can't ignore him ;) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
This was...very enlightening tbh. I can understand what he is talking about because I do get the mathematical concepts that correlate to a fallacy thad DNardi did. Namely:Quote:
Originally Posted by TJay
If:
f(x) -> x+1
DOESN'T MEAN:
f(x) -> x+1, x e C , x != 0(or in other words ANY number)
or that:
f-1(x) = 0 (or in other words inverse does not exist)
This is what DNardi did. Just because he proved f(x) -> x+1, he IMMEDIATELY assumed the second true were, get these kicks, true as well! Hah! But where are the tests, where is the proof lol? Just because one is proven, doesn't mean that everything related to it is true as well. Oh wtf...
Maybe DNardi should go back and study High School math some more :D ...