Has anyone ever thought, as reality being objective, that socionics, which is in many cases subjective, has many flaws because it does not completely correspond to reality? I personally like to work out flaws in something in order to improve it, and I think that the key may be to ground this subject to reality as much as possible.
I do think that there are some facts in socionics because I have been able to predict the relationships I would have with other people as well as know what their hidden agenda is and knowing how to purposely affect it.
So patterns do exist, but there are also many flaws involved. By going in the direction of basing socionics in reality, we might be able to not only give more credibility to the subject, but also save from major potential errors, like MBTI.
I call using flawed postulates to form theories to be "intellectual entropy", in which the accuaracy of the theories are less accuarate then the original postulates, unless by some bizarre chance that something of greater accuaracy arises from the postulate, which would imply that you merely misunderstood the postulate, and your conjecture would be completely accidental, assuming that the person assumed the original postulate to be true, and not have some sort of distorted idea of this postulate.
Thus, one can plainly conclude, that without rigorous testing of Socionic's most basic elements, and proving that all the elements are true, it is senseless to attempt to objectify the secondary components, which are alll based upon the ground compenents. I believe the means to this objective verification of Socionic's idea is neurobiology, which in my opinion is the zenith, or will be the zenith, of psychology.
This would certainly be great. However this is a problem with psychology in general. It's extremely hard to look at the physical brain and describe how it affects a person's personality and psychology. Scientists still have no idea how most of the brain works. Maybe we'll get some advanced in our lifetime but as far as having the resources to ground socionics to objective facts and reality is going to be very difficult.
I see three places where psychology is objective: neurobiology, measurable patterns, and an essential human nature. An essential human nature is definable that people want to be productive and want to achieve their values, as well as to be fully conscious to control reality around them. Anything else would indicate problems in that person’s life, whether it would be acting on anger or having a gun pointed at the person.
What about the methods of identification? It seems like everyone has their own personal and implicit way of identifying different types. I have not found any clear, explicit way to identify each type 100% of the time. This problem can be found throughout this forum as well as on every socionics and MBTI website.
Of course we probably won’t find a solution in this forum, but I want to try to work this “bug” out. I would personally like to see the identification method go from being implicit where the method of identification cannot be fully explained to being able to objectively explain how the patterns of socionics exist. So far, www.socionics.com comes the closest in being explicit.
If we had a more explicit method of identification of socionic types, socionics would become more practical.
Now as far as philosophy and reality is concerned, I will submit that in the “Anything Goes” category.
I think that they call Socionics the mathematical scinece of human relations for a reason. Socionics predicts how relations will develope over time quite good and over all this theory in present is the only one, which has a method to predict human relations. Rest of the psychology uses methods which are not better than analizing characters in literature lesson. However, the flaw is that Socionics doesn't have a good method for typeing people. Specially for a nonsocionists. Socionists them selfs work in pairs actually. And that's why there's a chrisis in Socionics, reliablity of typeing is too low.
Another bad thing in Socionics is that it's young and there is not enough people working with it. It's 30 years old and there are very small number of older socionists. But great discoveries need time to make. Jung was allmost 50 years old, when he published hes work ''Psychological Types'' , because he needed time to make his notes from which he made hes suggestions.So there is not enough people to make big contripution to this science. It takes time, after years,when there are lot of experienced scientists, people will start doing constantly big science in this field.
I am wondering if there are any psych grads or profs from America here, and if so whether they have brought up socionics with any of their collegues and if so what the reaction was.
I mentioned socionics when I met the guy who runs http://www.theforteinstitute.com/, a competetor to mbti in the US. He's been doing (not typing theory) but interpersonal relationship analysis for over 30 years. He had never heard of it, he found it intereting since MBTI does not cover intertype relations.
i will try to ask one of my professors in the future.