Printable View
What is the reason, being as awesome as it is and pretty easy to learn, that Socionics has not become more widespread and/or mainstream in Society yet? I mean, it has been around since the 70's, and only a handful of people know about it (and it is one of the biggest discoveries of humanity ever IMO).
Is MBTI to blame? Is there some sort of conspiracy ?
A combination of factors:
- MBTI's dominance means Socionics is easy to be dismissed as obsolete since a lot of the structure/language is the same across the two.
- Socionics outside of Russia lacks any kind of centrally recognized authority from which the "right" interpretation flows. Attempts to put material out to the public is often met with dissenting viewpoints dragging it back down.
- The community engages in more overt pseudoscience than MBTI does (that's not to say MBTI communities don't do this too, but these practices are generally kicked out of the public eye). The prevalence of VI is especially detrimental, as well as the esoteric tangents in Augusta's work.
- Socionics is a more daunting system to learn at first glance. MBTI is usually content presenting the letter signifiers and nothing deeper, while Socionics communities often insist on the learning of elements/functions.
Those factors aren't necessarily all equal, but I think they're all very valid roadblocks in the West.
I've got some things to comment:
How can Socionics be considered "obsolete", or superseeded by MBTI, when it has a much more complete body of knowledge? Moreover, MBTI was created in 1942, while Socionics was first developed in the 70's; would it be instead that the pertinent venues (FBI, intelligence agencies, nuclear plants, etc, use MBTI) are accustomed to MBTI, and would not drop it in favor of the superior and more modern Socionics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
That's one of the benefits of Socionics. There must be established some sort of institute in the west, but for that, money or funding is required.Quote:
- Socionics outside of Russia lacks any kind of centrally recognized authority from which the "right" interpretation flows. Attempts to put material out to the public is often met with dissenting viewpoints dragging it back down.
I agree that in order to publicize it or market it, this might be detrimental. But this is another of the benefits of socionics. VI is true. Moreover, I personally have cracked what it means, and it is indeed all very "esoteric".Quote:
- The community engages in more overt pseudoscience than MBTI does (that's not to say MBTI communities don't do this too, but these practices are generally kicked out of the public eye). The prevalence of VI is especially detrimental, as well as the esoteric tangents in Augusta's work.
Yep. It is more complex. This could be solved if it simply is taught as a subject in schools. Physics and chemistry are more complicated than Socionics IMO, and everyone studies them in secondary. The problem I think is the self-taught nature of Socionics, which does not sit well with most people.Quote:
- Socionics is a more daunting system to learn at first glance. MBTI is usually content presenting the letter signifiers and nothing deeper, while Socionics communities often insist on the learning of elements/functions.
More stuff I think is to blame:
- Ganin's site.
- Stupidity of people in general in this time and age.
- Capitalism.
- Conspiracy, because some inteligence agencies do use it, and they know the empowerment that being able to operate socionics bestows on someone, and have no interest in it being spread.
- Bad rap b/c it is russian. The name "Socionics" sounds foreign and weird.
Primarily because people that are already attached to MBTI aren't that willing to read the whole thing, or those that already see MBTI as a workplace horoscope won't think of socionics any more highly.Quote:
How can Socionics be considered "obsolete", or superseeded by MBTI, when it has a much more complete body of knowledge?
I don't think an institution is necessarily needed. If you're only shooting for popularity, a loud and charismatic person with a sales pitch to companies is all you need.Quote:
That's one of the benefits of Socionics. There must be established some sort of institute in the west, but for that, money or funding is required.
No.Quote:
VI is true.
I honestly don't think Socionics is worthy of taking up education system resources.Quote:
Yep. It is more complex. This could be solved if it simply is taught as a subject in schools.
McDonalds is bad for you and has no value. Facebook is run by a soulless demon whose aim is to destroy people’s privacy. Why do these things take off?
Why is Edison a million times more well known than Tesla?
It is not easy to learn btw. How many different complex articles and schools of thought in socionics are there again??
People prefer fast food (MBTI) to learning how to cook well (Socionics).
I think it's mostly this:
MBTI is a significantly more "user-friendly" system than Socionics is, particularly for people just getting into personality typology stuff. One of my cousins (EIE) who I've tried to get into Socionics told me she just preferred Enneagram + MBTI because it's what all her friends already understand and she doesn't feel she has the free time to dump into figuring out SocionicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
We really do be the Linux of typologyQuote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
How do you think it could be done that someone like your cousin dropped MBTI in favor of socionics? Maybe explaining the benefits of intertype relations?Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
Somebody famous like an actor for example? Maybe if someone like Brad Pitt for example got into socionics it would finally take off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
Yes.Quote:
No.
It is.Quote:
I honestly don't think Socionics is worthy of taking up education system resources.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by mysteryofdungeon
Lol that's a great way of summarizing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
I should really figure out Linux sometime... XD
If I knew then she'd already have switched lolQuote:
Originally Posted by roger557
I myself switched because I wanted more depth and MBTI wasn't offering it. I don't know how to make someone interested in depth though. My motivation was intrinsic to myself
Do it! I'll be happy to help you install a distribution and figure it out if you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
I'll definitely think about taking you up on that! Right now though it's very important that both my PCs stay in working order, so I'd rather not mess with it until I've got a burner PC I don't care as much about. I've been thinking of getting a Japanese laptop though, so if I go through with that I'll hit you upQuote:
Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
I don't have an opinion on the OP; only here to crap all over Microsoft. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerH...ee_on_windows/
This blog is regularly updated.
https://itvision.altervista.org/why-...-10-sucks.html
https://itvision.altervista.org/why-...-11-sucks.html
Quote:
MS has some very talented programmers. They're not very common, but they exist. The problem is that the entire company is completely and totally focused on developing an absurd number of new features and products, giving them completely unrealistic deadlines, and then shipping software on those deadlines no matter how half-assed or buggy it is.
The idea is that everything is serviceable over the internet now, so they can just "fix it later", except they never do. This perpetuates a duct-tape culture that refuses to actually fix problems and instead rewards teams that find ways to work around them. The talented programmers are stuck working on code that, at best, has to deal with multiple badly designed frameworks from other teams, or at worst work on code that is simply scrapped. New features are prioritized over all but the most system-critical bugs, and teams are never given any time to actually focus on improving their code. The only improvements that can happen must be snuck in while implementing new features.
As far as M$ is concerned, all code is shit, and the only thing that matters is if it works well enough to be shown at a demo and shipped. Needless to say, I don't work there anymore.
I explained this before, I think it's because socionics has a more in depth personality system. Americans esp. are taught to be hyper independent and competitive and to not really openly focus so much on intertype relationships, but to sell themselves type of thing. Socionics is very 'Fi' in this sense. MBTI otoh is more career focused and more superficial/shell-like, like a LSE corporate person going 'be nice to the shy EII because he's shy' without a lot of depth. Although both can be pretty shallow- MBTI is very shallow-y and Karen-y and people respond to that better. People don't like to think too deeply of things. They just want a shirtless Mario Lopez to save a baby from an alligator or whatever. Well MBTI has an intertype relationship thingie too but it's not really as focused as much as 'this is what you are indepedently of anybody else.'
I guess because I'm 4D Fi and co-dependent but I've always responded better to socionics and the intertype relationship thing, it was always interesting to me a system explaining why I get along with others or why I don't rather than 'this is how I am fits into this corporation' thing which might be a Te polr thing as well but idk lol.
Because Jesus has departed from this EarthQuote:
Originally Posted by roger557
We haven't had a millionaire who could take full advantage of socionics to increase their wealth. If socionics really is worth it's salt, then any serious attempt to use it as a way of increasing efficiency should succeed.
I'm going to toss this idea out there since I'm an anti-capitalist: a very good way to promote socionics would be to set up a dating site, with the lure of duality as its banner. The only thing you absolutely require is a very good test that pins people to their true to type with at least 90% accuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
That accurate test is a pretty high hurdle, given that most people are simulations, but the other huge hurdle to Dual dating is that, at least in my experience, Duals don't always think you're all that great at first. And sometimes, not ever.
It would be only the lure; once they got interested the site should contain a rating system where it recommends you possible relationships based on your inter-type with them, so people are not only limited to duality. Also, by knowing beforehand who has a good intertype with you, you will be able to bypass the "how annoying is this person" stage of dualization. The only problem I see with this is that in relationships there are too many factors to count to what makes a succesful relationship, or rather, a relatioship worth experiencing, so there should be a disclaimer that the recommendations of the site are orientative and that you should engage whoever you like, as long as you are aware (a description of the pertinent ITR should appear) of the ITR you have with said person (which defines the "tonality" of the relationship).Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
In response to this - "The name Socionics sounds foreign and weird",Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
My friend who is interested in psychology and "what makes people tick" reacted that way to the name. He asked whether Socionics is like Dianetics.
He found the idea of quadra progression disturbing because powerful leaders of a prevailing quadra could use their influence to pray upon members of less successful quadras. My friend quickly summed up the divisions of Socionics as cultlike thought.
Can you tell me which intelligence agencies use socionics? Would they let this forum die?
One reason why MBTI is more digestible or marketable may be that Socionics has potential to cause more personal discomfort or pause. It gets you thinking more critically about your weaknesses and under which circumstances (and with who) those become apparent to you.
Wait a second. What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Strange
It's a long story (and forbidden).Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle
My statement was mainly a joke, but not entirely. Most people who are reasonably healthy have a basic sociotype, but many people don’t believe they have a fixed type, and additional people go against their true type because they have been taught that being who they really are is not acceptable. So they take on someone else’s characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
It's the name, "Socionics" sounds like a damn cult.
...it's not..right?
Yeah, it has "socio" right in the title, which sounds like "sociopath". It's Soviet, which might sound strange or experimental to a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eudaimonia
- all of the primary sources are translated from russian
- lots of jargon and abbreviations
- vague ideas like “energy” and “information metabolism” which scream pseudoscience
- “fi is the internal static of fields” <- excuse me what
- no celebrity endorsement. no tiktok community
- lack of momentum
- the most active socionics forum looks like it hasn’t been updated since 2007
- lack of consensus on basic definitions and examples of types. self proclaimed experts frequently contradict each other
- how the fuck are people going to find out about socionics in the first place? you have to be deeply obsessed with MBTI first
we need a 'love' or 'fuck I love how savage you were and how you pwned just there' button. <3
It makes a lot of sweeping claims regarding intertype relationships. Historically, VI put a lot of people off since socionics.com is a big promoter of the method. It's rather complicated to appeal to the masses interested in pop psychology but it's not scientific enough for researchers to take it seriously.
In Socionics you actually have to find your real, natural, jungian type. Otherwise the ITR and other stuff wont make sense. That can be difficult. Not so in MBTI where many people just identify with a cool type description basically throwing Jung out the window. Then it becomes a meaningless bunch of trivial labels
That could be one reason.
Socionics asserts that people can be classified into sixteen distinct and fixed categories, and that people in each of the sixteen categories will have a distinct and predictable relationship with people in each of the other categories.
Some advocates of Socionics further assert that people can be classified into these categories on the basis of facial features.
On the face of it, these assertions sound fantastic at best and racist at worst.
Personally, when I first encountered Myers-Briggs, I thought it was one of those fun things you do with your girlfriend, like determining how you felt that day based on your three (health, mind, something-else) cycles, which start at the moment of birth and run without deviation for the rest of your life.
When I mentioned Socionics to my SLI son and an ESI friend, just to give two examples, both of them refused to believe that people could be put into boxes. Even I initially thought that everyone I encountered was a special snowflake; one unique creature among billions of unique creatures.
Most people have an aversion to believing that they are simple and predictable.
That’s one problem to overcome.
The second problem is to convince people that, once you fit them into a category, then they will only have one of sixteen fixed, predictable relationships with every other person they meet.
The third problem is the Socionicists who advocate for visual identification. VI smacks of phrenology at best and racism at worst, and the general trend in society today is to refuse to look at a person’s outward appearance when judging them.
So it’s no wonder why there is resistance to accepting Socionics as a true and practical system.
I’m very much a “No bullshit, please” kind of guy, and it took me years to convince myself that Socionics was possibly true and was usually applicable to most people.
As for VI, I thought it might, at best, be slightly useful about 40% of the time in identifying types, but it could never compare to the judgement of skilled Ti investigators. I pursued it only as a tool to be used in online dating, since I didn’t have two years to devote to determining each candidate’s personality type through personal interaction.
My opinion now is that VI is useful about 80% of the time, but that opinion derives from an obsession with Socionics, which most people thankfully don’t have.
I never try to introduce socionics to people because I know how it gonna end. Even my alpha NT MBTI friends don't want to research much about socionics because they think it's too complicated than it should be.
I move to Socionics because MBTI is too simple and it cannot answer many question that came to my mind when I think more about it's system. The most interesting things Socionics bring to me is Quadra's values and in-deep relationship between types, it help typing people much easier.
This. If socionics is presented as just a way to put people in boxes, then MBTI is adequate enough to the casual user to the point where they don't have a reason to learn socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat
From that point of view, socionics needs a "unique selling point", whether the relationship theory (which as we know is limited) or something new. For now people just see it as a more complicated version of MBTI, something to be learned "after" MBTI and Enneagram for whatever reason. Socionics can probably be simplified a lot, say if you only use quadras or something like that (not that I recommend doing that).
Enneagram itself has become a lot more popular lately so it could still happen. The contradictory interpretations don't seem to have made a big difference there.
Insufficient empirical validity of Socionics both in its basis and in its further development, as well as the practical absence of studies on Socionics outside the former USSR.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
I'm grateful for that, too. Socionics doesn't belong in the hands of the majority because most people won't know how to properly navigate the information. It's bad enough that it's taught in universities in some countries.
:thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
Socionics has much to benefit humanity and the "empirical validity" necessary only requires a few tests with an EEG.
I really think you overestimate the "benefit to humanity" this offers. It is useful, sure, but it's not some paradigm-shifting event that will improve the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
And an EEG would offer no results that validate socionics, it can only stand to decrease its validity. If the results don't match the model, that's a problem for socionics. If the results correlate with the model, why are you going in with a preconceived model instead of constructing a model based on the results? Again - that's a problem for socionics, and it's (partially) why Nardi is a hack.
Really? I think it's one of the most revolutionary discoveries ever made. Huge potential in psychology and education and just for general understanding of human beings and relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
I think Socionics/Jung is often UNDERestimated in these forums.
But it might be a few hundred years ahead of it's time.
I agree with everything with the exception of the notion of VI being esoteric and overt pseudoscience. Jung himself described on multiple occasions qualitative differences in terms of gaze and function usage and all typology systems are namely based off of his cognitive function theory and for some reason many people don't know that/assume it was just another thing made up in the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
Now, one could always argue that focusing on one aspect of Jung's work doesn't mean everything else that's part of it should be taken into account (given his spiritual proclivities and et cetera), but this is directly tied to how he describes manifestations of different cognitive functions (namely difference between the eyes of sensors versus intuitives and et cetera). And because of that alone, there are plenty of MBTI typists i've stumbled upon that have been into visual identification (Jung's influence). Again, not at all surprising because if you'll actually adhere to Jung and use his theories as a basis for any other personality type system, entirely dismissing a part of his work extending to cognitive functions specifically is kind of odd.
That's not to say that you're not allowed to disagree with it, but one can easily surmise why people are keen on picking up on it. It's not some seemingly not interconnected or mutually exclusive with analyzing how one metabolizes information in a more "classical" way (going by mostly analyzing behavioral preferences and associating it with different IE usage) thing and it seems like the most vocal VI-related criticisms mostly stem from people that think it's literally based off of concrete physical appearance features/physiognomy which is incorrect and/or people who don't really understand and cannot assimilate it very well.
I myself was a skeptic at first but tried to pick up on it and it turns out - over 95% of the people i try to VI type in my Discord server (usually strangers i have not otherwise interacted with and whose self-typing i am not familiar with) end up telling me that what i attempted to type them based on gaze and et cetera alone is actually congruent with their own self-typing. That seems to happen often enough with actually good VI typists like me, @toska and Ashton to a point where categorically discrediting the mere notion of it is strange... and more of an off-kilter and "esoteric" thing to do than adhering to VI in of itself.
Also re: Aushra's "tangents" - are we really going to act like the majority of this (Western) community actually reads any source material or is genuinely familiar with Aushra's work? "Model Aushra" as we know it has very little do to with Model Aestrivex/Ibrahim that most people around seem to label and perceive as Model A. I don't think it's actually Aushra's writing getting in the way (even if you have valid criticisms of it), in reality it's perhaps more so what passes as Socionics and Model A these days.
Lol, you have an optimistic take! Why do you think Socionics/Jung haven’t been so generally accepted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
I think something like this already existsQuote:
Originally Posted by roger557
https://revolutionarylivingin20thcen...02_n.jpg?w=480Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
If something like that could be done with an EEG, people would've already done it by now. Too many people have a hard on for type theory and would have noticed it in the plethora of EEGs that have already been done with the intention of finding evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
Too difficult to learn, takes too long. You have to rely on your own ability to observe people and vague phenomena. Is Ti>Te, that's generally considered bad. How many people want to watch thousands of videos and argue about typings endlessly, or learn about compatibility from dating?
Why do you think I have an optimistic take?
I think that potentially, it is indeed a world-changing theory. Socionics is the 'theory of everything'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
You seem to believe that socionics is not true. Both VI and socionics are true. Models A and its extension Model B are true. Hard evidence might not be easy to find, but the fact that people are able to operate it successfully means it is true.Quote:
And an EEG would offer no results that validate socionics, it can only stand to decrease its validity.
I don't understand. By operating socionics, one can see that it works. If it works, it must be true. If it's true, then evidence can be found. What evidence? Evidence that the functions/IM elements correspond to particular brain areas (this is pretty easy to find). Finding evidence of the types is more difficult, with an EEG at least (maybe more advanced machinery could find it). I guess that can only be observed in practice (which IMO, also counts as evidence). Btw, your PoLR is apparent that you are LSI.Quote:
If the results don't match the model, that's a problem for socionics. If the results correlate with the model, why are you going in with a preconceived model instead of constructing a model based on the results? Again - that's a problem for socionics, and it's (partially) why Nardi is a hack.
Okay, I came up with a way to test types with an EEG: test the PoLR. You perform a series of tests pertaining to the PoLR to the subject, and hopefully, it should show in brain activity that that aspect of reality is not handled well by the subject's brain (low-activity).
That's not what it means at all. People could successfully operate Newtonian physics which turned out to be just straight-up incorrect, and it is still taught despite the fact because Newton's laws can still predict a lot of phenomena even if it fails to account for everything in the universe and even if we've run tests that have broken Newton's third law.Quote:
You seem to believe that socionics is not true. Both VI and socionics are true. Models A and its extension Model B are true. Hard evidence might not be easy to find, but the fact that people are able to operate it successfully means it is true.
I think applying notions of true/false to socionics is, at best, the peak of naivety. The creation of a label and a set of criteria along with it doesn't really have a right/wrong, to say otherwise is to implicitly claim that the labels themselves exist in a capacity beyond language - it's like saying that labels like 80s culture/90s culture/etc are a trait that is a physical part of a piece of clothing or music, when it absolutely isn't. Yes, you can study if the labels correlate with the real world but that will always fall short of being scientific truth because it's impossible to answer the question of "is there a more accurate model we could make" because the only ways to confirm that question are:
A) Create a more accurate model, rendering socionics obsolete
B) Reach 100% typing accuracy with socionics - good luck
For reason previously stated, even if you can draw up this test, perform it and get results that parallel your hypothesis, it still doesn't work as evidence of socionics. The only way it is valid evidence is if you make a model from the data without any preconceptions and the model you come out with is socionics. If the model the data lets you build is different, the data suggests there is a more valid model than socionics. As previously mentioned, searching for validity of socionics works on the naive basis that it can be true or false to begin with.Quote:
Okay, I came up with a way to test types with an EEG: test the PoLR. You perform a series of tests pertaining to the PoLR to the subject, and hopefully, it should show in brain activity that that aspect of reality is not handled well by the subject's brain (low-activity).
That means there is some truth to it, same as Socionics. Even if the model that exists is not a 100% accurate representation of the underlying natural phenomena, if it can be used and make predictions with it, it means it works. If it works, I guess you could not say it is true, but the underlying phenomena surely you can say it's true. That's what I'm referring to when I say that socionics is true, that the underlying natural phenomena exists. The Models... they're are just useful and nothing more. Either they work or they don't. A 100% accurate model is a utopia, everything in science is an approximation of how things really work. But nobody discards F = m x a , or E =mc2 or w/e just because it is just an approximation (that works) of how some phenomena really works. Until some "theory of everything" is invented (and I believe we have this right here, and that is Socionics -- perhaps in it's most evolved state) all we have are approximations. And this is because the world is analogical, trying to convert something analogic to logic, just means you have to "cut it short". Take note how to this day they haven't been able to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics, and Physics don't really know what gravity truly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
Perfectly possible. The types are there, you just have to "score" and get them right. Thought experiment: an android that was able to be completely objetive in its judgments, and had the capacity to type people, would never err.Quote:
B) Reach 100% typing accuracy with socionics - good luck
Explained above.Quote:
For reason previously stated, even if you can draw up this test, perform it and get results that parallel your hypothesis, it still doesn't work as evidence of socionics. The only way it is valid evidence is if you make a model from the data without any preconceptions and the model you come out with is socionics. If the model the data lets you build is different, the data suggests there is a more valid model than socionics. As previously mentioned, searching for validity of socionics works on the naive basis that it can be true or false to begin with.
Take note that my aim with this thread is identifying and troubleshooting the reasons why Socionics has not become wide-spread already. MBTI is pretty widespread, and it has the same drawbacks, with the added flaw that it's a crap theory. So nothing of that you mention it being a perfect model or w/e is necessary for it to become popular, which is what I want. IMO, in its current development, it's good enough to begin teaching it to young adults and in schools.
There are somewhat multiple MBTI's and multiple Socionics's. For instance there are model A, model T and model G. If you look at different forums many who claim to know Socionics have very different understandings.
So it's like a pyramid. Jung's typology is a not-so-easy system. Different people understand it in different levels. But in general you need more time and efforts to understand Socionics. (This is partly because MBTI occupied most of the market. Also it's because that Aushra understands Jung better than Myers and Briggs)
This is wrong. Newtonian physics is not "straight-up incorrect", it still applies as a limit of relativistic physics where the speed of light is infinitely large (and therefore relativistic effects remain negligible). Science works through approximations and old models are not completely invalidated, only refined. In the same way one can speak of things like 90s culture as broad generalizations that are true but need not apply down to the last detail. Newtonian physics is still what we use for all intents and purposes in many everyday scenarios, proving its truth. In the same way socionics contains general features of personality that still apply, even if certain cases may be more complicated or less typical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teslobo
This is a nonsensically limited idea of science, and it would also rule out theories like general relativity which were conceived prior to being verified by experiment.Quote:
For reason previously stated, even if you can draw up this test, perform it and get results that parallel your hypothesis, it still doesn't work as evidence of socionics. The only way it is valid evidence is if you make a model from the data without any preconceptions and the model you come out with is socionics.
MBTI had a place to take off from and is now used by companies and professionals. Socionics is hidden in a tiny corner of the internet, barely has any resources in English and at first glance looks like a pseudoscience.
Which is a good thing...
Because socionics is filled with potential for serious misuse. Just look at companies using MBTI. But MBTI can only be used to kick people out of their jobs. Socionics shouldn't be known to the general public. Seriously, don't even think about it.
MBTI is its obvious competitor, and is far more known than Socionics. Perhaps Socionics is far too much on the fringe to be investigated by a significant number of those interested in the MBTI.
Socionics types have not been defined to a high standard. As this paper (Condon, D.M., Wood, D., Mõttus, R., Booth, T., Costantini, G., Greiff, S., Johnson, W., Lukaszewski, A., Murray, A., Revelle, W. and Wright, A.G., 2021. Bottom up construction of a personality taxonomy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.) says: "[...] items should be preferred for inclusion in the set when they have reference to clear psychological attributes that respondents can understand, high reliability, high agreement between self-reports and reports by knowledgeable informants (unless there are articulated reasons for why different rating sources should not converge for particular items), and they increase the total information within the set (i.e., are not redundant with other items; have meaningful reliable item-specific variance). That is, the focus is on the properties of items as markers of the lowest measurable level of the personality trait hierarchy, nuances, rather than on the properties of multi-item scales, as has been customary in personality psychology."
There is no evidence that Socionics can describe the range of personality in a comprehensive way, nevermind in a way superior to typologies such as HEXACO or the Big Five.
There is no evidence that most humans can be split into dichotomous personality types or traits - in fact, human behaviour better fits a normal distribution. This is a significant reason why professional psychologists do not take MBTI seriously.
There is no evidence that intertype relations conjectured (I don't think the word "hypothesised" can be used, as hypotheses are supposed to be based on observation - i.e. evidence) by Socionics actually produce the expected relationship dynamics. My suspicion is from non-Socionics research into relationship satisfaction is that duality does not exist as conjectured by Socionics.
I believe that personality makes up much less than 50% of what explains high quality relationships. I think taste for one thing is far more important - although that could arguably be said to be an aspect of personality.
I think most hobbyists and amateur psychologists who are interested in Socionics tend to be concerned with establishing their Socionics type and those of people they know (very much like how people interested in astrology are interested in establishing what star chart they have, or fans of a TV show want to know what character they are most like in a quiz), or trying to place some behaviour into Socionics ("What type does this?" or "Let's split up the types a new way"). There is little or no attempt to define Socionics in a "more systematic and comprehensive framework" (quoting a phrase from the paper I cited above), and little or no interest in exploring what causes "good" or "bad" relationships. But anyone who is interested in such topics could improve on Socionics within about 5 minutes of searching - and yet that's probably NOT one reason why Socionics hasn't taken off.
Alright but here's my thought on this occasion:
Apparently, Socionics really isn't the easiest subject but rather to be one of the hardest to learn since it involves a lot of theories to be evolved into a somewhat empirical system to be induced by the lexemes in the act of deductive method that is still incomplete. MBTI is way more simple therefore more popular since it's been well known and you don't think that Russia, in many ways, is any popular than USA, do you? I believe that, the matter of case here is more about the way how people perceive Socionics as a whole: a complicated system that is meaningless for them, therefore doesn't have the "fun" or "entertaining" element in which MBTI does have.
And I don't think that there will be a conspiracy theory behind the wheel but regardless the application, there are only a sort of people whom also have a deep interest towards typology that are willing to learn about it. And I think that the most fatal problem of Socionics is the descriptions of appearance for each Socionics type, that first introduced by Filatova (?) by using her guide book, and there are too many interpretations or versions that seem to be very rigid than understood by others.
Jung's typology is rather to be a tricky one but somewhat conceivable enough once you tried to make it be applicable since he never meant to make it a scientific system to a certain extent. Albeit, the understanding of Aushra about Jung is rather reverted akin to Myers-Briggs. And both were like working in a still Jungian realm, but rather to be counter-opposite since Socionics realm is more environmental than MBTI is.
Socionics is taking off thanks to the MBTI community, I don't see what you are all talking about.
Ever since the MBTI community has discovered socionics it has majoritarily decided that socionics is a more complex and authoritative form of jungian typology, they even test or type themselves through socionics and then adapt their MBTI letters to it.
You might be worried that socionics could become a sort of puppy for the MBTI, and you might be correct. But if you worry that the MBTI community is less serious than the socionics one, you're wrong.
MBTI is a flawed theory. Some MBTI four letters types, are very rarely their equivalent in Socionics (very common example; MBTI ENTJ's are very rarely LIE's; SLE's, ESE-Si's, LSE-Te's,etc). MBTI is pop-psy; it offers nothing relevant, has no depth, and is fundamented in a great number of people mistyped.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
Where's the relation from what you said to what I wrote? Socionics is deeper, more complex, closer to reality... But it's community is not only pop-sy, it's sectarian and composed of airheads.Quote:
Originally Posted by roger557
That might be so. So what's the solution then.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
Discarding unfounded claims and making electroencephalogram experiments.