Illusions

[Cone]

Behaviorism tells us that all behavior is unique: there are no underlying processes or objects driving the various behaviors we perform. While behaviors may cause other behaviors, a behavior is ultimately at either end of this causal chain. This destroys the basis of all psychoanalysis, and while the observations may possibly still hold, any and all interpretation or theory is meaningless. Freud and his followers were chasing an illusion.

When I look at Socionics, I am truly amazed at how everyone seems to fit into one particular type, given that they are not afflicted by any type of mental disorder. The accuracy of the descriptions are impeccable beyond belief. Jung really hit the nail on the head when he theorized his sixteen types.

Then tcaudilllg came out with his cross-dominancy theory. He must be trying to fit individual traits into specific types, we said. It's a common mistake to try and type every behavior you see. Still, if you use the theory in conjunction with Socionics, once again everyone fits into exactly one specific type, even cross-dominant types. But if his theory is wrong, then what exactly is going on?

Look at every other theory in personality: MBTI, Benis, James, Cattell, etc. Still everyone fits perfectly into one specific type, given room for individual differences. Every theory has its own proponents that swear the accuracy of each is impeccable. Contrary to popular belief, these people are not idiots, as we here at Socionics are apt to believe. If they are idiots, then we hold the exact same connotation.

Are we right? Is every other theory wrong? We see our theory holding up so well before our eyes; what could we possibly be missing? Could we have been chasing an illusion, just like our poor psychoanalysts?

We have to eventually realize that Socionics could very well be completely invalid. No matter how "accurate" the descriptions are, we must accept that it is all an illusion fooling our eyes. No matter how much evidence builds up in our favor, we are always missing the point. And no amount of evidence will prove Socionics if it's completely groundless.

[Expat]

MBTI, Benis, James, Cattell, etc. Still everyone fits perfectly into one specific type, given room for individual differences. Every theory has its own proponents that swear the accuracy of each is impeccable. Contrary to popular belief, these people are not idiots, as we here at Socionics are apt to believe. If they are idiots, then we hold the exact same connotation.

The two highlighted bits above seem to contradict each other.

I'd say that if you indeed "give room for individual preferences" - as obviously you must - you're also "giving room" for the imprecisions found in each typing theory.

So it's no wonder that it's possible to fit "everyone" in one specific type - but not "perfectly", otherwise it would be unnecessary to "give room for individual preferences".

Are we right? Is every other theory wrong? We see our theory holding up so well before our eyes; what could we possibly be missing? Could we have been chasing an illusion, just like our poor psychoanalysts?

We have to eventually realize that Socionics could very well be completely invalid. No matter how "accurate" the descriptions are, we must accept that it is all an illusion fooling our eyes. No matter how much evidence builds up in our favor, we are always missing the point. And no amount of evidence will prove Socionics if it's completely groundless.

Are you sure you have strong :wink: ?

Matters related to the human psyche are hardly going to be as exact as a hard science - not even medicine, dealing with the human body, is an exact science. I think that is the point you are missing.

I don't see that every other theory has to be totally "wrong" to make socionics "right". To me it seems that both socionics and MBTI (I'm not familiar with the other theories you described) are tentative improvements on Jung's original theories. Both are surely imperfect and could never become an exact science. That doesn't mean that either is "completely groundless".

Socionics - and even MBTI, but IMO less so - seem to work well in practice, but it will probably never work perfectly.

[ILENTp]

edit

[diamond]

Socionics, MBTI, whatever, these theories are out of favor with psychologists and have been for awhile.

This happened for a couple reasons: 1. typology theories were used by corporations to stereotype people and at times, keep them out of jobs. 2. due to the problems of testing and type identification, socionics has no reliability for validity, in terms of science.

Because psychologists are social scientists, they cannot support a theory which has no validity or reliability, particularly when it is used for nefarious purposes, such as stereotyping people and pidgeon-holing them vocationally.

Personally, I still think these theories are viable. But they haven't been proven to be scientifically valid. That doesn't mean they never will be!

In the meantime, we can still use them for personal growth and self- and other-understanding.

[Expat]

Blaze,

I agree with everything, with one comment - - Freudian psychology has no scientific reliability either.

In Europe, corporations definitely make you take typing tests when applying for a job - - which is one of the reasons I'm interested in that area.

I totally agree that to use it to freeze people vocationally is nefarious.

[Cone]

Wow, I am truly amazed. You all totally missed my point.

This isn't about how "right" Socionics may or may not be. This is about how our own methods of observation may be fooling us to believe in its validity. I am arguing that the very basis of any personality theory is invalid, and that any empirical evidence in favor of these theories is useless. If you can prove anything about Socionics, I'll eat my shorts.

[ILENTp]

edit

[Gilly]

I see what you mean; it's all very intuitive. I can see plenty of reason for just about ANYONE, regardless of type or perscribed habvior, to doubt something so widely accepted as, say, Freudian psychology. There really is no empirical evidence (psychologists would supposedly cooperate with brain chemists to produce such a thing) that confirms anything about human behavioral tendencies as far as classifying them goes; it's all statistically and observationally based.

[Creepy-]

This is about how our own methods of observation may be fooling us to believe in its validity.

The very possibility of this has always sent chills down my spine. Do I live in Plato's cave? If so, what is outside the world of illusion? How do I/can I perceive the illusionless world?

For now, I choose to believe my observations and the validity of the current socionics theory, simply to keep my sanity. If and when I am able to see beyond the illusion (if there is one, which I am drawn to believe there is), then new observations shall be made and new theories shall unfold based on those new observations.

There are no limits.

[maze]

=)

[diamond]

I agree, maize, we create our own reality in all kinds of ways. Human beings impose all kinds of structures on their perceptions to try to organize and make sense of all the data that comes to us. I think we do it to feel safe, to be able to predict somehow, to get a handle on what is ultimately an unknowable reality. We are in Plato's cave, just another kind - the three dimensions of planet earth.

Who the heck knows what else could be out there?

Heh. Waxing Carl Sagan . . .

[Rocky]

Cone, this is why I enjoy this so much. And I don't want it to seem like I am selling anything here, but what's amazing is, with what he is teaching, you can actually see the types in front of your eyes. With a little bit of observation yourself, you can *prove* to yourself that the types actually do exist, in the way that you are born within one of them. It's like that artical Zeia posted about Introversion and how they've correlated certain functions of the brain to qualities of Introverts.

[maze]

=)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[diamond]

Diana, you seven year old sounds absolutely cool! :-)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[diamond]

Have you guessed his type? He sounds intuitive definitely.

My daughter is 8, she's esfj. She's like a natural manager . . . manages her little sister! Very softhearted and helpful, too.

[diamond]

I agree, maize, we create our own reality in all kinds of ways. Human beings impose all kinds of structures on their perceptions to try to organize and make sense of all the data that comes to us. I think we do it to feel safe, to be able to predict somehow, to get a handle on what is ultimately an unknowable reality.

I agree Blaze, I'll add that we also do it for political purposes. One of my favorite "illusions", political maps. We observe north/south/east/west and of course the western world gets mapped out ON TOP of the lands it's been known to rape. The winners on top, the losers on the bottom. I know this isn't where you were coming from Cone, I just don't know what else to add or how to further your discussion about socionics/behaviorism/illusion.

You sound like a social worker! (no offense; I am a social worker, too) :wink:

Are you familiar with postmodernism?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-pokeball]

"Are we right? Is every other theory wrong? We see our theory holding up so well before our eyes; what could we possibly be missing? Could we have been chasing an illusion, just like our poor psychoanalysts? " -Cone

I think they are too broad to be correct. The mind is fluid for one thing. It is not static. Functions are not exactly specific either. I can think of many explanations for them. There is also no way to seperate nature from nurture concerning this when testing. "Seeing" something not phsyical is just as silly. That belongs in religious ideology as the thought processes are nearly identical. I mainly question the use of particular functions. If extroversion and introversion are capable of being found concerning areas that are far away from areas that are elsewhere then are we not just generalizing something and giving it a label? Why is Fi, Fi and Si, Si? Why are they combined? Where do they combine? Do they have to combine? Can they change? etc..etc...etc And why not multiple preferences? I can idenitify with ALL 4 NF's easily and am capable of using all 4 associated functions with little stress. Where is that line? It doesnt exist lol. Maybe it has more to do with divergent patterns of thought (there's a test for that, too, which they give gifted children)...hmm?


So yes, it is an illusion, until proof is met and specifics are located. Until then, it is basically a crock of shit set into a system of generalizations. This is why I like things like PEPS better. Besides going through many profession psychologists hands, it actually makes sense and realizes that preference can change--that it is fluid just like we all are. But I suppose that we need to give people even finer labels than before which is where ethical debate begins...

[tcaudilllg]

Personality psychology asks: "How can we create supportive environments for a diverse set of experiences?" Socionics tries to answer.

Socionics is concerned with behavior. It deals specifically with signal interactions. It models signal systems in terms of characteristic inputs and outputs ("black box"). The only assumption it really makes is that the system is homeostatic.

The basis for socionics is in physiology, not in some set of descriptors. The attempts to find descriptors for each function I assume relate to efforts to test for type. I think that people read far more into these tests than is actually there. This leads to notions such as "development of the functions", subtypes, cross-types, and other nonsense.

The 16 types are functionally equivalent in the sense that they create the same structure. The only real difference between them is their identity functions. There is no reason for the system to maintain more than one identity.

I agreed with most of what you said. But that closing of the third paragraph is something I just cannot tolerate.

I want to make clear that no denial of scientific fact will be brooked by this INTJ.

[anndelise]

I admit that I don't understand all the whys and wherefores of socionics, MBTI, etc. I'm not interested in learning all the whys and wherefores.

I do use the descriptors, though more for the patterns than for the content.

I admit to using "this person may be type X" in my language, but it means more on the line of "this person seems more comfortable using Functions XY in situation A, and Function X modified by Function Z in situation B".

I was so excited to have found out about Functions because finally I had a language I could use to describe my observations and thoughts.

Is it "true"? I don't care if it's True or not. All I care about is its usefulness to me. With modifications, I find that Function descriptions are useful to aide my understanding and describing my observations.

[MysticSonic]

"Behaviorism tells us that all behavior is unique: there are no underlying processes or objects driving the various behaviors we perform. While behaviors may cause other behaviors, a behavior is ultimately at either end of this causal chain. This destroys the basis of all psychoanalysis, and while the observations may possibly still hold, any and all interpretation or theory is meaningless. Freud and his followers were chasing an illusion."

Well, what are behaviors? Many-a-times they are expressions mental states, hence enabling us to infer some sort of conclusion upon a particular person's mental state by observing their behavior; I'm failing to see how this undermines psychoanalysis.

[Gilly]

Aha...ahahaha...you seem to have..uhh...overlooked something you posted.

"Behaviorism tells us that all behavior is unique: there are no underlying processes or objects driving the various behaviors we perform."

The bold part would imply that "functions," such as we refer to in Socionics, do not exist. I think functions fall under the "processes" category, in this case.

I'm not necessarily saying that I think this is true/correct/absolute, but you seem to have contradicted yourself, MS.

[MysticSonic]

Cone posted that.

[Gilly]

Right, but you said that it didn't conflict with Socionics.

[MysticSonic]

I was saying Cone was wrong: that "there are," "underlying processes or objects dirving the various behaviors we perform."

[Gilly]

What evidence is there to prove that?

[MysticSonic]

Uh, neurobiology?

[Gilly]

You're saying that neurobiology proves the existence of functions?

[MysticSonic]

I'm saying that neurobiology proves that "there are," "underlying processes or objects driving the various behaviors we perform."

[Gilly]

Neurobiology proves that there are electrical impulses that control learning tendencies, and that certain areas of the brain can be tied to useage for particular activities. These certainly have implications in Socionics/BTI, but nonetheless they offer no proof of "functions."

[Zeia]

Gilligan, he said underlying processes, No where in that last statement do I see the word, "Function".

[MysticSonic]

"These certainly have implications in Socionics/BTI, but nonetheless they offer no proof of "functions.""

I didn't say it did.

[Gilly]

I assumed too much. Fair enough.

[Cone]

I think they are too broad to be correct. The mind is fluid for one thing. It is not static.

I am beginning to find that to be the inevitable truth. At first, I thought I could explain the fluidity of the mind by defining some underlying static traits that intermingle, thus appearing fluid, but with the argument in my first paragraph, apodictically one would have to assume that the mind's most basic processes (except perhaps instincts) are nothing more than dynamic behaviors.

Functions are not exactly specific either. I can think of many explanations for them.

And even worse is that Model A tries to incorporate each function into the psyche but gives a very weak explanation as to how they all fit. For instance, how "weak" exactly is a weak function? If one were to build a logical model after Model A, I would bet that Model A would be found to have many, many contradictions and inconsistencies.

Ever hear of the fundamental attribution error? It's the common fallacy of humans to atrribute a specific behavior of a person to his intrinsic nature instead of to the situation. Socionics, or any other personality theory, is more or less a psychology built around this error. This is the main argument of social-cognitive theorists against trait theories.

There is also no way to seperate nature from nurture concerning this when testing. "Seeing" something not phsyical is just as silly. That belongs in religious ideology as the thought processes are nearly identical.

"Seeing" something? Wait, where exactly is this at?

I mainly question the use of particular functions. If extroversion and introversion are capable of being found concerning areas that are far away from areas that are elsewhere then are we not just generalizing something and giving it a label? Why is Fi, Fi and Si, Si? Why are they combined? Where do they combine? Do they have to combine? Can they change? etc..etc...etc And why not multiple preferences? I can idenitify with ALL 4 NF's easily and am capable of using all 4 associated functions with little stress. Where is that line? It doesnt exist lol. Maybe it has more to do with divergent patterns of thought (there's a test for that, too, which they give gifted children)...hmm?

Yes, good points. It just goes to show how limited Socionics is in managing its theories.

So yes, it is an illusion, until proof is met and specifics are located. Until then, it is basically a crock of shit set into a system of generalizations. This is why I like things like PEPS better. Besides going through many profession psychologists hands, it actually makes sense and realizes that preference can change--that it is fluid just like we all are. But I suppose that we need to give people even finer labels than before which is where ethical debate begins...

I would even argue that ANY personality differences between two people are not intrinsic but rather situational. This may sound a bit extreme, but imagine if personality differences depended on things like relative position to someone, temperature, the just previously-encoded memory, etc. Imagine if one's reaction to a person changed if he was standing just four boards to the right of that person. It's subtle determinants like these that make me wonder if personality theory is even possible...

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[tcaudilllg]

Ever hear of the fundamental attribution error? It's the common fallacy of humans to atrribute a specific behavior of a person to his intrinsic nature instead of to the situation. Socionics, or any other personality theory, is more or less a psychology built around this error. This is the main argument of social-cognitive theorists against trait theories.

Now now Cone, who creates the situation? Humans, right? Every situation can be traced to the humans who participate in it.

Social-cognitive theorists use statistics. They have even less evidence than Socionics.

[MysticSonic]

While I share your opinion on the nature of functions, Cone, and have actually articulated a similar view in the past(which no one listened to), I disagree on the asssertion that there are no psychological "underlying processes" by which the mind works. Take a look back upon times in which one is an infant: how does one respond to the enviornment lest there be some sort of underlying mechanism by which behaviors crops out from?

[Rocky]

And even worse is that Model A tries to incorporate each function into the psyche but gives a very weak explanation as to how they all fit. For instance, how "weak" exactly is a weak function? If one were to build a logical model after Model A, I would bet that Model A would be found to have many, many contradictions and inconsistencies.

I don't fully trust Model-A, either, as it is an over simplification. It seems like a lot of people are "systemtizing" things way too much, and I've found that it is becoming more and more sickening. This comes along with a bunch of poor stereotypes, too. For instance, some people will say that Se is tied to "confidence" or whatever, assmuing that everyone with Se is self-confident and everyone with it is not. Model-A doesn't really "connect" the funcitons together; explaing how they work. Extraverted Thinking is obviously also grossly misunderstood in socionics (which, I think, is why some people like Transigent were also confused about which type they were. He's a fuckin' INTp, but we were all too stupid to realize it becuase of the descriptions of Te).

... but, I DO agree with this...

While I share your opinion on the nature of functions, Cone, and have actually articulated a similar view in the past(which no one listened to), I disagree on the asssertion that there are no psychological "underlying processes" by which the mind works. Take a look back upon times in which one is an infant: how does one respond to the enviornment lest there be some sort of underlying mechanism by which behaviors crops out from?

... I believe that there are these 16 underlying "types" that we are born with, that cause us all to think differently. It's our brains. But we can't describe it (in model form) very well.


Oh, and another thing that has been bothering me for a while is the Quadras/relationships. I agree that there are a lot of similarities amongst types within the same Quadra, but they make it seem functions from any outside types are like poison. I don't agree that functions like Te-Fe are always in conflict, and can't enjoy each others company. Sure, Te-Fi together would be more comfortable, but that doesn't mean a Te type should limit himself to that. Steak is nice... but every once in awhile you have to have some pasta on the side, to keep from getting bored.