Scientific and unscientific typologies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

Science... if you believe in such a thing.

Here is a critique of MBTI, not Socionics, but the premises of MBTI and Socionics are basically the same, except that some of the orderings are different, etc. They are both based on the Jungian dichotomies, namely the I/E, T/F, N/S and J/P.

The critique is mostly based on scientific enquiry, brain science and more evidence-based psychology:

Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die - Psychology Today


What are some of the main problems? Brain science says, they are based on false dichotomies:



It ignores your key features in your personality traits that already exist:



There is another problem, Jung's theories aren't exactly based on science:

Weaknesses of Carl Jung's Theory



Okay, so what is actually based on science and backed up by science? Although not perfect, there seems to be growing support and scientific evidence for the Big Five:



So, there you go. Amazing and insightful insights from the world of brain science.

---

So, all of this rests on how much we choose to value science and empiricism. Science is okay, but I don't use it for everything.

Big Five is not a type theory, though. Probably, what we're looking for isn't really a type theory or a trait theory anyways, but a theory about underlying processes, which Jung did attempt to incorporate into his type theory, but probably messed literally everything else up, since his whole purpose was to create a racial consciousness for the Germans.

Problem with -Se/+Si and +Ni/-Ne divide that only "concrete sensing" "evidence" is considered as such. LSI's often run into this problem and get into quarrels with gamma NTs, often enacting themselves as supreme judges of what is "Scientific" or isn't. Scientific is anything that can be replicated, observed, or proven by standart means.