Quote Originally Posted by Expat
...Having said that - and agreed that there will be bias in socionics and astrology, as well as in anything - I think that to single out socionics and astrology, together, in that sense, is misleading in the sense that it is unfair to the former, which is based on far more solid scientific methodology than astrology, which is based on none whatsoever.

Especially as that's the reaction I've heard from some people whom I told about socionics, especially regarding relationships, "it sounds like astrology".

There is no "irrefutable" evidence to support socionics, but the thinking behind it is scientific (even if some people - as people everywhere - will have biases when applying and studying it).

Socionics starts from scientific observations of people as they are, and then tries to explain their behavior, especially in interpersonal relations, based on those...
Expat, your points just to say quickly, are very well made and clear. However do bear in mind that the comparison was not between astrology and socionics as whole systems.
Nevertheless, to move on and take a broader look at the systems as you have done, I think I would need to have more evidence to consider from both systems. I am not an astrologist and from what I have read about astrology, I have to say that evidence to verify astrology's claims seem rather weak and appear to be centered around the effects of the moon on gravity and human body fluids at the time of an individual's birth. I guess I could expand in greater details about this, but as neither you nor myself have any belief in this system, I will spare myself the effort. To be honest, I feel ridiculous discussing astrology even in the "anything goes" forum.

The methodology that socionics uses to gather information is not entirely clear. I have searched hard to find well-conducted research that adds a huge amount of credibility to socionics. I have been unsuccessful so far. I am not thinking that socionics is total garbage, but it just seems that too many of its methods and premises have not been satisfactorily investigated.

When people identify with characteristics from their own socionics personality profile, I do not believe that the influence of the Forer effect can be ruled out.
I was about to discuss V.I but at this stage self-respect is restraining my ability to do so. However, I may try and trample upon my dignity enough to look at it in detail at a later date. I do try to V.I people for fun though, so at least socionics has brought me some idle pleasure.

For my own benefit, may I ask, what controlled studies if any have you analysed that has lead you to support socionics' claims? Is it purely based on self experience and your observations of your relations with other types? How did the functions come about and what reasons do you have to trust that they work like socionics indicates they do?

Quote Originally Posted by Expat
As long as it [socionics] sticks to analysing people as they already are, through observation; and tries to reach conclusions based on those observations, it will deserve to be called a science.
Do you think that if I simply engaged in this practice then I might rightly officially represent myself as and claim my profession to be that of scientist?
Just kidding, don't answer that one. :wink:

By the way, I have found out since my last post that astrologically, I have both a sun and moon in scorpio and a capricorn rising. So unless I am an eagle scorpio (astrology has subtypes too), being a scorpio sun and moon type means that I am a very evil person . I am currently using this to explain the personal boredom, iniquity and wickedness that engulfed me and caused me to simplistically demean socionics like I did by comparing any aspect of it to astrology. Damn evil .