Empirical Justification of Intertype Relationship Theory?

[Mariano Rajoy]

if socionics is about behavior, then why try to correlate it with the psyche? why use terminology such as "psychological functions?" is that not a bit misleading? is socioinics behaviorism or not?

what about the "socionic model of the psyche"? is it not a socionic basic?

if socionic type describes psychic mechanisms so "deep" that they are difficult to gain an awareness of, how is it possible for anyone, even socionicists, to determine their existance? what about the first two functions? the functions are also believed to be unmodifiable. with this in mind, how is it possible for a non T type to exhibit T behaviors, or a non F type to exhibit F behaviors? what is the relation of psychic mechanisms to behavior?

and how is the profile written? i dont understand how the socionicist knows that the behavior is due to a "psychological function". to what extent can we trust correlation?

[Mariano Rajoy]

Mariano Rajoy, this might be beside the real issue, but on the other hand I'm not sure it is irrelevant. How do you know that you are a LII?

http://www.socionics.com/main/types.htm i used this page. i could be wrong.

i am not convinced that the psychological functions even exist.

[Phaedrus]

i used this page. i could be wrong.

i am not convinced that the psychological functions even exist.

1. To use only that kind of information to determine your type is not enogh.

2. Your initial post gives the impression that you could be a LIE or an ILI.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i used this page. i could be wrong.

i am not convinced that the psychological functions even exist.

1. To use only that kind of information to determine your type is not enogh.

2. Your initial post gives the impression that you could be a LIE or an ILI.

ok

[Rick]

i am not convinced that the psychological functions even exist.

Okay okay, there are no functions, no types, and no information elements. We can all take the type names off our signatures and go home. From this moment on intertype relations shall cease to exist, and all those of you who are faking conflicting relations -- will you stop it now? The party's over.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i am not convinced that the psychological functions even exist.

Okay okay, there are no functions, no types, and no information elements. We can all take the type names off our signatures and go home. From this moment on intertype relations shall cease to exist, and all those of you who are faking conflicting relations -- will you stop it now? The party's over.

i just have questions, and i thought this would be the place to ask them. augusta sought to explain marriages with and without conflict. could there be other explanations besides socionics for her observations? the websites i have seen claim that socionics is a science. scientists ask these questions all the time.

my initial question still has not been answered:
what is the relationship between "psychological function" and behavior?

[FDG]

what is the relationship between "psychological function" and behavior?

GET A PAIR OF GLASSES GUY I HAVE ANSWERED

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Mariano Rajoy]

what is the relationship between "psychological function" and behavior?

GET A PAIR OF GLASSES GUY I HAVE ANSWERED

you gave a method. if you were to actually perform your method, you would not arrive at the same results.

[Rick]

i just have questions, and i thought this would be the place to ask them. augusta sought to explain marriages with and without conflict. could there be other explanations besides socionics for her observations? the websites i have seen claim that socionics is a science. scientists ask these questions all the time.

Of course, an infinite number of explanations can be created. If you approach it strictly empirically, you will get a bunch of data like "people who have the same level of education are 1.2 times more likely to remain married than those who do not," etc. Internet news abounds with these findings. Hundreds of such studies have been conducted. They can be interpreted many different ways, and no general theories have been produced from them that I am aware of. Socionics founder Augusta approached it from a theoretical angle: "let's assume there are some built-in (structural) reasons for relationships being the way they are." And she went looking for structural explanations, which are necessarily non-empirical, or their tie to empirical data is very general. In the area of personality, relationships, and much of the social sciences and humanities, this is a normal approach.

To get a better idea of the logic behind socionics, look at http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/typology.shtml

[Rick]

my initial question still has not been answered:
what is the relationship between "psychological function" and behavior?

Socionics is really not about all behavior, but just about a slice of it -- the slice that is most influential in relationships and can be generalized into perceptual patterns. For example, having a clean vs. messy room is a behavior, but it is not decisive in relationships. However, the tendency to consistently point others' attention to the comfort of one's surroundings and to insist on applying one's own concept of comfort is indeed decisive in relationships. Thus we see that the slice of behavior socionics looks at is very general and large-scale. It's hard to define, hard to measure, and often even hard to see in oneself, and yet is self-evident to those around the person and defines how they relate to the person.

When we see that a person consistently pays attention to and keeps track of a certain kind of data, or situations, or information -- we can formulate something like "this person's perceptual channel of this certain kind of information is very wide and well-developed." Again, our attempt to define the information we are talking about will lead to semantically vague and general definitions. So all of this will be unsatisfying to a pure empiricist, but that doesn't mean it's all a bunch of hooey.

[Mariano Rajoy]

http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/typology.shtml

sound. i will accept that. thank you. it should be a permanent link on the side bar of your site.

i dislike the fact that there is so much confusion about unconcious and concious and the "psychological functions" of individuals. it is inconsequential to what you have established before, but a little clarification as to how a type could use supposedly "unconcious" functions would be helpful.

it would also be helpful if the regulars on the site would stop berating anyone they disagree with, and actually use the forum as it was intended.

[Rick]

http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/typology.shtml

sound. i will accept that. thank you. it should be a permanent link on the side bar of your site.

Well, few people are interested enough to plod through all that, so it will stay in the "philosophy" section.

i dislike the fact that there is so much confusion about unconcious and concious and the "psychological functions" of individuals. it is inconsequential to what you have established before, but a little clarification as to how a type could use supposedly "unconcious" functions would be helpful.

The terms "conscious" and "unconscious" are misleading, and I try not to use them. The problem is, people haven't found better words to replace them. The vast majority of our psychological mechanisms are unconscious anyway. If there is any "consciousness" to our first two functions, it is probably in the fact that we sort of understand and can describe pretty well what's going on with us and other people in this area.

it would also be helpful if the regulars on the site would stop berating anyone they disagree with, and actually use the forum as it was intended.

I think these reactions come from having to answer what often seems like provocation. Also, logical types tend not to realize that they're coming across emotionally. To them they are just responding to the question.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rick]

Abrah Ioffe, Soviet physicist and SEI by consensus of 6 prominent socionists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Ioffe
http://images.google.com/images?svnu...&q=ioffe+abram

This forum has the difficult task of reprogramming folks from the MBTI matrix.

[Mariano Rajoy]

by berating, i mean foul language and personal attacks. yes, i took a position that was unpopular. if you actually knew more than me, then you could show me how i was wrong. if you didn't, i really wasn't interested. how else could i have possibly known where misunderstanding lay, unless i expose my thought process? don't misunderstand, i knew something was amiss, but with scant recources on socionics available, this forum is an invaluable tool. i apologize for the ugliness.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Ms. Kensington]

I have experienced to varying degrees each of the socionic relationships --most of them at a close distance, having lived with about 40 people for a period of a month or more. In each case I can say that the functional and informational interplay "works." If it doesn't, I wonder if I have correctly identified the person's type. The interaction between these people (with me out of the picture) also seems to work.

The intertype relation descriptions that are posted everywhere are mostly fairly superficial -- few actually show what is happening at a functional level. There are a lot of possible external varieties of intertype relations based on a single underlying pattern of information interchange, so if you are looking at the right level, there don't seem to be any contradictions between reality and socionics. However, this "right" level is internal, semi-conscious, and very difficult to objectivize. It is much easier to slip back to the external level and talk about things like, "we get along together," "we argue a lot," etc. But at this level you will find apparent contradictions -- duals who break up, other partners who say they're a "perfect match," etc. etc. But when you get back to the internal level and subjectively experience the functional interplay, it all fits back together again.

i dont see how its hard to objectivize (do you mean its difficult to give examples? I just mean it should be able to be described). Do you know of a non-superficial description?

[Rick]

To go beyond superficial you'd need to either assume the reader understands socionics and talk about how the functions interact, or give a description of the relationship between specific types.

[tcaudilllg]

Phaedrus, your post smacks of intuition . I'm trying to get at a concept of intelligence that doesn't naturally favor intuiters. I think that IQ tests have a slight intuition bias because they focus on conceptual intelligence. Probably they were created by some smart intuiters who wanted to demonstrate quantitatively that they were smarter than others .

The idea of "degree of generalization" is vaguer and thus harder to measure, but it may have practical value when you have two people together who seem intellectually incompatible despite, say, type compatibility. One keeps reverting to a greater degree of generalization than the other wants to think about. I don't think IQ tests would necessarily catch this, and in some situations might show a large difference in IQ when no intellectual incompatibility was felt.

Let's take the sphere of fashion, for example. One person might be very interested in fashion but go by only his or her tastes, and give others advice based on this taste. Another person might go further and study other people's tastes as well and try to reconcile them with his own. A third person might study the entire society's current tastes and find words to describe what exactly is happening in fashion today. A fourth might study how society's tastes have evolved over time, etc. etc.

Imagine that you are very interested in fashion, but you focus on the tastes of people in your immediate environment. It might be interesting once in a while to hear generalizations about fashion trends in society or even about how fashion in the past was much different from today's, but if the other person constantly talked at this level, it would soon become irritating.

Some war generals are very studious and broad in their study of warfare. The most "intelligent" of them gain a very generalized understanding of the concept of war, while still being able to hold on to the details.

Actually, come to think of it, it's not enough to just generalize data, as intuiters are somewhat more prone to do. You would have to have a grasp of both the details and the generalizations and be able to move within this range and talk about any level of generalization necessary. Some "less intelligent" intuiters can speak in generalizations, but they can't analyze details very well. But this can be learned to some extent as well...

Oh well, take that as just a discussion. It's a complicated topic, much like defining socionic type. It can be approached from many different angles.

*sigh* the blind leading the....

If only he'd consider that all of those assessments of intellegence correlate precisely to psychorelativity, he'd see that they are the same perspective. I find it comical that our critics have nothing left but to say we are "wrong" for the sake of being wrong. The truth of our position is immediately evident.

[mike_INTJ]

I'm really looking forward to read your posts to come, crazymaisy. I'm already quite concinced that we are the same type, which, if that is true, is the INTp/INTP of both Socionics and MBTI and Keirsey and whatever.

In the last month or so my understanding of myself, my type, and how that type fits into different models has increased significantly. What you say about thinking in pictures is one of the parts I have had difficulties with. I know that the description of introverted thinking at http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...erted_Thinking is very much to the point as a description of how I think myself. We have to keep in mind, however, that this is not a description of , but probably, at least to some extent, a description of . That is also indicated by someone at the end of that text.

Phaedrus, Thank you so much for that post! It's always great to see what others are thinking and I can see in that entire post of yours that you do see in pictures.

Just to be brief: I do think that INTP/INTp people are usually very bright, usually, and that their Ni and Ti and Te are really quite useful for them, that they are mostly right-brain dominant, but not just that, are nearly whole brain, to some extent, maybe just partially dominantly using the left side, but at least that. I mean to explain this as "Dominant Usage" that most everyone (every human of any of the types) does use their 'whole' brain, one side or the other and mixed levels of dominance, but that at least for INTP/INTp's the right side is very dominant and the left is partially dominant as a slave sort of, but a dual thing moreso. Maturity to the INTP/INTp's system through knowledge and maturity of age brings a better understanding of how oneself does work and think.

Reading your description of how you think is a perfect example of how one forms pictures. Pictures aren't like photos, sometimes they might be, but for everyone they are unique to themselves, (think of art, anything goes, any graphical representation of color and shape is "thinking in pictures") but many I have heard that see words in their head and don't understand it as "pictures" but it is, as you described it. I too see words and it's graphical representations, they can all appear at once, or one at a time, I can see it and turn it around, twist, flip, change the font, color, size. (It's right brain and left brain working together, and visions often have sounds, speaking or music or both.) It's blind seeing, it's the minds eye, pictures are sometimes muted, impressionistic (Like a Monet painting) and too big and beautiful to explain. That's what this whole topic of INTP stuff is for me, I wish I could Sync my brain to yours so you could just see my picture of it. I did grasp it when I was young, but I lived with it and knew it without knowing, and I've gained understanding of myself partially through reading some Temple Grandin articles online (the, autistic, successful creator of agricultural betterments.)

Alas it's words we must use to communicate what we think and see in our heads. I'll read the things on the page you linked, and respond in a bit. I have briefly skimmed it and have much in mind, and look forward to a deeper reading.

i've seen temple's stuff. the descriptions were detailed enough that i was able to see what she was seeing, down to the point that when i saw her on tv - i already knew what it looked like. however she needed to walk on the cow's eye point of view (for what she was designing), i didn't have to do that.

thinking in pictures has no words. it may have sounds, thoughts, feelings, textures, smells, tastes, etc. everything you find in the real world goes on inside my head. i really don't see words. sometimes just a flash of a word.


do you remember your dreams? how real they are when you in them. sometimes you can make enough sense out of them to remember them in the morning. this is what i can do on a daily basis. only i'm in control. and if i want to design something, all i have to do is see me using it and that's it. from there i reverse engineer it. or i'll build prototypes in my head, and play with them there. thinking out anything that can go wrong, before building anything.

to the outside observer, it makes me look like a master. no effort, simple. but in my head, i built it so many times that this is just another sequence. most things thought out ahead of time. most contingencies and back up plans met.

[tcaudilllg]

INTP - Observation of the possibilities for internal objective reasoning.

INTJ - Observation of the possibilities afforded by internal objective reasoning.

P = action, J = analysis of action