To Prove, Or To Understand?

[Maestro]

It seems as though there is much disconcertion on this board about whether socionics is an actual certified honest-a-goodness above-board bona-fide science. But I ask you: what good is it to you personally if socionics is "proved" or "disproved"? That's the lazy man's cop-out. Whether or not socionics is valid, the interest in another human being's essential nature -- intrinsic to the act of typing -- is a wonderful avocation to exercise. To some extent astrology can be useful in the same regard. The diffence of course is that astrology is arbitrary and socionics is based on careful observation. But to the extent they allow us a framework to delve into another's character they both serve the same laudable function.

I don't mean though to give socionics short shrift here by comparing it to such blatant quackery. Whether or not massively parallel processed supercomputers fed reams of juicy data would eventually inductively spit out the boolean value of true or false, it's probably the most fundamental model in use, but from a deductive standpoint.

Here's an entertaining (for me) attempt to (mostly deductively) bisect out to the 16 types:

One of the first discoveries an infant makes is that, unlike in the womb, they can alter their world. If they close their eyes, everything goes black. If they cry, their mother comes to feed them. A baby begins to sense its power and freedom.

This power manifests itself in two forms. One way is the power to alter or adapt one's perceptions, to navigate perceptually the thick and wonderous world around them. The other way is the power and freedom of choice, to realize (not conciously at first, of course) that for every act there is a consequence.

A preference must soon develop between these two modes because the exercise of one mode limits the exercise of the other. How? A choice requires a steady perceptual framework to be meaningful (should I sit or stand on that strangely shaped wooden thing? is influenced heavily by the perceptual framework that interpets it as a chair). Now any perception that might get in the way of making that choice becomes a hindrance. At the same time perceptual freedom limits the ability to make definitive choices because one has the ability to shift perspectives (thank you Labyrinth for this insight) and thus the ability to undermine the absolutism so useful in this endevour.

Thus the first dichotomy solidifies, J vs. P.

The next discovery is the discovery of the self, or the discovery of objectivity. These two things are closely related, in fact different ways of talking about the same yet opposing things. The sense of self requires self-awareness, which requires looking at oneself as if one were not oneself. This not-oneself is the beginnings of objectivity. However this not-oneself-that-is-oneself is in a tenuous position. It is being pulled in two directions, by its two parents, as it were. One parent is the objective world that first awakened it to the realization that we are not alone; the other is the deeply subjective, non-introspective self, the dark sea that knows without understanding that it is completely alone and complete in itself.

The identification of self at this stage of development determines the next dichotomy, I vs. E.

I have to go to sleep now but if you are intrigued I will continue with the next two bisections...

[CuriousSoul]

It seems as though there is much disconcertion on this board about whether socionics is an actual certified honest-a-goodness above-board bona-fide science. But I ask you: what good is it to you personally if socionics is "proved" or "disproved"? That's the lazy man's cop-out. Whether or not socionics is valid, the interest in another human being's essential nature -- intrinsic to the act of typing -- is a wonderful avocation to exercise. To some extent astrology can be useful in the same regard. The diffence of course is that astrology is arbitrary and socionics is based on careful observation. But to the extent they allow us a framework to delve into another's character they both serve the same laudable function.

You are absolutely correct. I thought I had to answer since I have been complaining far too much about this. There is definitely a lot to socionics that confirms quite closely to my everyday observations. I am not sure about astrology. I have so far just dismissed it out of hand because I can not see any causal chain, and frankly for the layman it looks like quackery but I suppose there could be something to it too. On the other hand one should not let oneself be limited by socionics, and I am not quite fully convinced by the intertype relations, but that is another story.

[discourse]

So according to you:

firstly young human being would have to choose between the rationality and irrationality.

the type is xS/Nxp or xxT/Fj, we have Sp;Np and Tj;Fj types.

Then the type has to choose between the subjectivity I and objectivity E.

Does this mean, that when the type is E/IS/Nxp or E/IxT/Fj, we have Nep;Nip;Sep;Sip and Tej;Tij;Fej;Fij types? When the child is young?

Can we functionally we talk about eight types, secondary function X.


This is really interesting. But I think that firstly baby has to choose

a) to accept objects around it

or b) to withdraw from them.

a) means E and b) means I. Jung spoke of this dichotomie as inborn.

When the child has to,

c)to manipulate with them

or d)to move around them.

c) means j and d) means p.

So we have ac- Ej;ad-Ep and bc-Ij ;bd-Ip types on dichotomies, when child is young. These are the Socionics temperaments. So at early age we can talk:Cholerics,Phlegmatics;Sanguines;Melancholics.

[Maestro]

Well and good, you seem sufficiently interested to be subjected to more speculation...

So according to you:

firstly young human being would have to choose between the rationality and irrationality.

Well I'm not sure if it's a choice as we like to think of choosing between a whopper and a big mac. Maybe more like an innermost predilection. As for the order, I have absolutely no idea if there is any chronological precidence. (I hope I disclaimed enough to make it clear I was hypothesizing...) But the point that you raise that if I-E and J-P are formed initially that an infant could be classified with a temperment before a type is very suggestive.

And if there is an order, then I think judging vs. perceiving would be the first, because it seems to me the most fundamental. In computer terminology you could think of it as the I/O: perceiving is the input and judging the output. A judger utilizes their perceptions to manipulate themselves and their world, while a perceiver makes choices to guide their perceptions.

When the child has to,

c)to manipulate with them

or d)to move around them.

c) means j and d) means p.

Is this something you read about or observed, or are you paraphrasing me?

Okay. On to the rest.

At the same time that the identification of self develops, the primary function begins to take on its particular flavor. The flavor of the judger is based on how they begin making their choices. It's way too early to start talking about making sense vs. being ethical at this point, since these are relatively mature social constructs. A more primitive way might be to say that thinkers organize the world around them with the object at its base, where feelers organize their world with the relationship at theirs. Only later could you say that thinkers assume separateness (objects) and strive for integration (reason), while feelers assume integration (empathy) and strive for separateness (morality).

A primitive way of describing the flavor of perception might be that intuiters navigate in favor of zooming out, while sensors prefer zooming in. An intuiter likes to climb the metaphorical mountain, the sensor likes to get lost in the steaming jungle. (okay, this last analogy is rather weak, but give me credit for taking chances here...)