Empirical Justification of Intertype Relationship Theory?

[Rick]

Cool. I haven't kept records, but I can add some, too (using the socionics abbreviations):

Duals:
I know a bunch of LSE-EII couples that all seem happy, calm, and focused and. Two have been together for 20-25 years and have great relationships with their kids.

One LSE-EII couple seems less successful, married 8 years. Husband (LSE) had abusive father, can't find stable work.

IEE-SLI: married 5 years, seem happy, have their own business together

ILE-SEI: married 20 years, happy, have their own business together

EIE-LSI: married 25 years, happy, stable, great relationships with 2 sons



SLE-LII (supervision): married 30 years. Mildly dysfunctional. Wife (LII) always complaining that her husband never has let her make any decisions or let her develop

SLI-LIE (supervision): married 1 year (because of pregnancy). Clearly going to be a dysfunctional marriage.

SEI-ESE (mirror): married 25 years. Semi-dysfunctional. Each partner complains constantly about the other on the side.

SLI-IEI (super-ego): semi-dysfunctional, 20 years of marriage. Spouses avoid each other, openly have relationships on the side, stay together only for the children.

SLI-EII (activation): divorced after 5 years. Quiet and... too quiet and boring.

EII-LII (business): married 30 years. Quiet and stable, but with quite of bit of conflict with their two sons (I lived with this family and had major problems with the LII father)

[Angel von Himmel]

No one is asking you to poll the whole population but in routine research in Psychology, it is not uncommon to have 2,000 people used as sample points. If you think there is still a margin of error that is statistically significant then perhaps you need to study some more about statistics especially data sampling.

I don't quite understand your reasoning as to why a statistical analysis would not give socionics more merit. There is nothing more supportive than a statement saying, "60% of all relationships work as predicted as socionics!" Don't you agree?

No, I think that anyone who trusts a statistical assumption such as that without question is a fool, and I think that a 2,000 people sample poll would be too low a margin for any statistical analysis used to determine anything in socionics, and that is assuming everyone has been typed correctly. If it is going to be proven at all, it needs to be proven through another means and not just something statistical.

I hate to make you sound stupid but science broke off of Philosophy in the 1600s with the Scientific Revolution. Before then, almost all the "science" that was conducted is actually Philosophy, especially the stuff that Plato was dealing with.

I disagree again. Not only is the date that you gave [1600] something that could be solely debated except within the context of history as that was the time of the Italian Renaissance [and hence, many people were reviving old philosophy and Greek and Latin writings], that was not the only place and time that there was science unless you are talking specifically about Europe and its cultural taboos. In fact, much of science was viewed as a taboo and in many instances it was considered witchcraft, and in other cases actual science had to be disguised as something mythological or philosophical before and during the time of the Italian Renaissance in order to make it seem as though it was something that involved an old classic. The odd thing was that this is exactly what Plato had to do with Socrates to avoid finding himself as a guest or victim of the state; by placing his own words into the mouth of Socrates he could avoid public uproar against him. People did something similar during the times upwards towards the Italian Renaissance, except for a few bold few such as Da Vinci, who almost got himself killed over his dissections of dead bodies. On the other hand, most of the supposed scientific discoveries that happened then and later were actually imported or based on scientific or theoretical concepts from the middle-east and were allowed to be adopted, or found in the study of literature that survived from earlier times in that region.

Nowadays, Philosophy is only related to science in that Philosophy is used to justify scientific inquiry (aka empirical science). The specific branch is called, "The Philosophy of Science." As mentioned, the most important aspect of scientific inquiry concerns with the formulation of explanations of physical phenomena using empirical evidence. This is quite different from the way Philosophy works.

Yes, but it still fits under the realm of philosophy in that you can not first truly have science without having theory or speculations of those things which remain unseen. Therefore, science in its evolution and its appearance fits within and under the realm of philosophy even though by the time it has become something scientifically apparent it is no longer it touch with its own origins in pure philosophy.

What you mentioned about Da Vinci falls in to the same catagory as Taxonomy. Furthermore, Taxonomy, though is an important aspect of Biology, is only related to scientific inquiry in organization of the data (which is not even strictly required for scientific inquiry), but not the most sigificant portion, which is formulation of explanations and their empirical justification. Taxonomy is not a scientific hypothesis/theory at all, despite the fact it is called a science because the word for science has been abused to the extent that any study is a science.

More specifically it falls under the realm of Ontology, which falls under the realm of Metaphysics, which falls under the realm of Science, which falls under the realm of Philosophy. I disagree that it is an abuse to refer to such things as a ‘science.’

Huh? Where did you read that from? Are you trying to argue that just because he is a Philosopher, and he started to do science, philosophy drove him to do start scientific experiments? Wow, that's very logical, lol! Then, what drove people like Louis Pasteur, who was not a Philosopher to science? Perhaps a better explanation is: Voltaire started to doing scientific experiments, like Louis Pasteur, because philosophical inquiry is insufficient to determine the properties of energy. If you try to use Philosophy to determine the properties of energy, all you get is a bunch of drivel that is completely useless to the real world. "What is energy? When we move, we need energy. What makes us move? If we don't eat, it is harder to move. That means food is energy. Water is energy." This is really useful for understanding why burning coal will power a steam engine.

This is the sort of arrogance that pisses me off, thank you for your time …

[Rick]

I concede that this experiment is riddled with sources of errors but I was not really looking for too much though. I just wanted to know whether Intertype Relationship is pertinent to reality (even if only slightly) or just a mere intellectual curiousity. The breadth and elegance of the framework leads me to believe the latter.

Ha! Until Expat figured it out, I assumed you were arguing about things at an abstract level. It didn't even occur to me to cite real-life examples .

[mimisor]

SLI-EII (activation): divorced after 5 years. Quiet and... too quiet and boring.

LMAO!! but as true as poosible I imagine

Here's another one (my observation)

SEI female - LII male (activity) - married for 28 years, with frustrations from the part of both

[wym123]

No one is asking you to poll the whole population but in routine research in Psychology, it is not uncommon to have 2,000 people used as sample points. If you think there is still a margin of error that is statistically significant then perhaps you need to study some more about statistics especially data sampling.

I don't quite understand your reasoning as to why a statistical analysis would not give socionics more merit. There is nothing more supportive than a statement saying, "60% of all relationships work as predicted as socionics!" Don't you agree?

No, I think that anyone who trusts a statistical assumption such as that without question is a fool, and I think that a 2,000 people sample poll would be too low a margin for any statistical analysis used to determine anything in socionics, and that is assuming everyone has been typed correctly. If it is going to be proven at all, it needs to be proven through another means and not just something statistical.

I think someone who would rather trust empirically unjustified beliefs without question, instead of statisifically justified beliefs is a bigger fool. There is no proof for socionics other than to establish correlation of the theory with empirical evidence and that by definition is statistical.

Nowadays, Philosophy is only related to science in that Philosophy is used to justify scientific inquiry (aka empirical science). The specific branch is called, "The Philosophy of Science." As mentioned, the most important aspect of scientific inquiry concerns with the formulation of explanations of physical phenomena using empirical evidence. This is quite different from the way Philosophy works.

Yes, but it still fits under the realm of philosophy in that you can not first truly have science without having theory or speculations of those things which remain unseen. Therefore, science in its evolution and its appearance fits within and under the realm of philosophy even though by the time it has become something scientifically apparent it is no longer it touch with its own origins in pure philosophy.

Huh? Science is about theorizing or speculating the things unseen? What kind of planet are you from. Science specifically deals with the world that is seen (not neccessarily with the naked eye). If you cannot observe it, it is unrelated to science. Pure and simple.

What you mentioned about Da Vinci falls in to the same catagory as Taxonomy. Furthermore, Taxonomy, though is an important aspect of Biology, is only related to scientific inquiry in organization of the data (which is not even strictly required for scientific inquiry), but not the most sigificant portion, which is formulation of explanations and their empirical justification. Taxonomy is not a scientific hypothesis/theory at all, despite the fact it is called a science because the word for science has been abused to the extent that any study is a science.

More specifically it falls under the realm of Ontology, which falls under the realm of Metaphysics, which falls under the realm of Science, which falls under the realm of Philosophy. I disagree that it is an abuse to refer to such things as a ‘science.’

Sure you can philosophically analyze scientific inquiry but to attach the philosophical discipline to empirical science is unjustified. Hence, Metaphysics does not fall under the realm of scientific inquiry. I have already mentioned that science is very different from Philosophy and is considered to be different from it. Heck, technically all means of inquiry fall under Epistemology but that's because Philosophy can be used to analyze ANYTHING.

Huh? Where did you read that from? Are you trying to argue that just because he is a Philosopher, and he started to do science, philosophy drove him to do start scientific experiments? Wow, that's very logical, lol! Then, what drove people like Louis Pasteur, who was not a Philosopher to science? Perhaps a better explanation is: Voltaire started to doing scientific experiments, like Louis Pasteur, because philosophical inquiry is insufficient to determine the properties of energy. If you try to use Philosophy to determine the properties of energy, all you get is a bunch of drivel that is completely useless to the real world. "What is energy? When we move, we need energy. What makes us move? If we don't eat, it is harder to move. That means food is energy. Water is energy." This is really useful for understanding why burning coal will power a steam engine.

This is the sort of arrogance that pisses me off, thank you for your time …

Arrogance? You faith in Philosophy and understanding of science are sorely misguided. Your belief that Socionics is a branch of Philosophy and should be studied using philosophical inquiry is seriously retarded (I wonder whether forum members here agree with you on this point). Thank you for your time too.

[wym123]

I concede that this experiment is riddled with sources of errors but I was not really looking for too much though. I just wanted to know whether Intertype Relationship is pertinent to reality (even if only slightly) or just a mere intellectual curiousity. The breadth and elegance of the framework leads me to believe the latter.

Ha! Until Expat figured it out, I assumed you were arguing about things at an abstract level. It didn't even occur to me to cite real-life examples .

Nah, from the very start I wanted real-life examples. That's why I was rejecting the opening responses where they were piling more and more theory.

So do people have any anecdotes or references that they can share about all relationship types except Duals that might give a more experimental look at the Intertype framework and its actual relevance to reality.

[Rick]

I think wym123 and rmcnew are clearly overemphasizing their differences. rmcnew isn't calling for non-empirical socionics. He's just defending socionics as a good theoretical system and demonstrating that science implies theoretical constructs (if I understand him correctly). wym123 is emphasizing the importance of empiricism.

This sounds like a vs. debate to me: theory-driven science vs. algorithm-driven science (inductive vs. deductive).

[wym123]

I think wym123 and rmcnew are clearly overemphasizing their differences. rmcnew isn't calling for non-empirical socionics. He's just defending socionics as a good theoretical system and demonstrating that science implies theoretical constructs (if I understand him correctly). wym123 is emphasizing the importance of empiricism.

This sounds like a vs. debate to me: theory-driven science vs. algorithm-driven science.

I think rmcnew is calling for non-empirical Socionics. He is calling for philosophically driven Socionics and even emphasized that Socionics is taught in Russia as Philosophy.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicability of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

[Rick]

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicabiilty of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

I understand what you're saying, and I think I would agree with you. I just responded to your way of saying things, which struck me as being overly categorical. I tend to sympathize more with rmcnew's more 'rounded' and conceptual way of saying things, so there's some subjectiveness in my response. But I am sure you are justified in criticizing his statements.

[Olga]

Rick said:
I understand what you're saying, and I think I would agree with you. I just responded to your way of saying things, which struck me as being overly categorical. I tend to sympathize more with rmcnew's more 'rounded' and conceptual way of saying things, so there's some subjectiveness in my response. But I am sure you are justified in criticizing his statements.

You can say people what ever you want I just give you my feel:

1. What type is Wym 123? No doubt a logical one and most probably with as one of the strong functions.

2. Why is it Rick likes rmcnew's 'rounded' (...?) and conceptual (read:generalised) way of saying things?

What 'experts' who knows theory of socionics 'in and out' can say about it? If you need more clues look in the in the article and especially at the pictures to this article (the article of rmcnew about ideal-crisis). You may get some very obvious info that just waits for you to be discovered.

[Angel von Himmel]

I think rmcnew is calling for non-empirical Socionics. He is calling for philosophically driven Socionics and even emphasized that Socionics is taught in Russia as Philosophy.

Actually, all I was really saying is that in its standard form socionics is pure philosophy, and I disagreed that socionics can really untimatelly be proven if brought within the realm of science or scientific methods. However, I do think that if one was to make attempts at discovering the scientific properties of socionics and what it has to offer, there is a great possibility that something new, great, and origional will surface that can be used to better mankind somehow. And I am all for that.

On the other hand, I hate to see the system become convulted in its perfection when the imperfections of nature are shown in its application; though, I am not sure if that can be helped taking the very nature of its application.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicability of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

What we have here is two diffrent ways of applying data, and that alright even though I think you are a total asshole. I wish you luck with whatever you plan to do with socionics.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicabiilty of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

I understand what you're saying, and I think I would agree with you. I just responded to your way of saying things, which struck me as being overly categorical. I tend to sympathize more with rmcnew's more 'rounded' and conceptual way of saying things, so there's some subjectiveness in my response. But I am sure you are justified in criticizing his statements.

I think wym123 and rmcnew are clearly overemphasizing their differences. rmcnew isn't calling for non-empirical socionics. He's just defending socionics as a good theoretical system and demonstrating that science implies theoretical constructs (if I understand him correctly). wym123 is emphasizing the importance of empiricism.

This sounds like a vs. debate to me: theory-driven science vs. algorithm-driven science (inductive vs. deductive).

More specifically I would actually sat this is possibly more of an "EGO vs ID" or "EGO vs Super-EGO" block type deal in general, though Rick is right I believe. I hate people who apply too much and it makes me want to argue and tear them a new one, especially if they expect me to just go along with whatever it is they are thinking [which I mind usually does not happen very often].

[Angel von Himmel]

Rick said:
I understand what you're saying, and I think I would agree with you. I just responded to your way of saying things, which struck me as being overly categorical. I tend to sympathize more with rmcnew's more 'rounded' and conceptual way of saying things, so there's some subjectiveness in my response. But I am sure you are justified in criticizing his statements.

You can say people what ever you want I just give you my feel:

1. What type is Wym 123? No doubt a logical one and most probably with as one of the strong functions.

2. Why is it Rick likes rmcnew's 'rounded' (...?) and conceptual (read:generalised) way of saying things?

What 'experts' who knows theory of socionics 'in and out' can say about it? If you need more clues look in the in the article and especially at the pictures to this article (the article of rmcnew about ideal-crisis). You may get some very obvious info that just waits for you to be discovered.

I think Rick is an ENFj, and wym123 I would agree is some obnoxious logical type.

As for me, there is a big possibility I am ENFj I have always thought, along with ENTp.

[wym123]

On the other hand, I hate to see the system become convulted in its perfection when the imperfections of nature are shown in its application; though, I am not sure if that can be helped taking the very nature of its application.

LOL??? From what I can gather, the whole point of socionics is to make predictions about the relationships between the types. The fact that it can predict that Duals make good relationships, Conflicts make terrible relationships implies that it an applicable area of research. You can either stick to your "perfect world" where Socionics is only a mere intellectual curiosity of a strange set of geeks or you can think about how you can improve socionics into a full-fledge area of study in higher education. In a world where almost all new knowledge is the result of scientific inquiry or mathematical inquiry, applying the scientific method to socionics more rigoriously is the way to go. Philosophical inquiry will get it nowhere, especially not past the theoretical realm.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicability of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

What we have here is two diffrent ways of applying data, and that alright even though I think you are a total asshole. I wish you luck with whatever you plan to do with socionics.

I have no plans for socionics. I am not a researcher. I am just interesting in knowing its actual empirical evidence before I contemplate even zealously assuming that it is some fundamental truth of the universe. And if you think that socionics truly lies in the study of Philosophy, I would prove the assertion of socionics using deductive reasoning. I wish you luck on it because it is impossible.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicabiilty of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

I understand what you're saying, and I think I would agree with you. I just responded to your way of saying things, which struck me as being overly categorical. I tend to sympathize more with rmcnew's more 'rounded' and conceptual way of saying things, so there's some subjectiveness in my response. But I am sure you are justified in criticizing his statements.

I think wym123 and rmcnew are clearly overemphasizing their differences. rmcnew isn't calling for non-empirical socionics. He's just defending socionics as a good theoretical system and demonstrating that science implies theoretical constructs (if I understand him correctly). wym123 is emphasizing the importance of empiricism.

This sounds like a vs. debate to me: theory-driven science vs. algorithm-driven science (inductive vs. deductive).

More specifically I would actually sat this is possibly more of an "EGO vs ID" block type deal in general, though Rick is right I believe. I hate people who apply too much and it makes me want to argue and tear them a new one, especially if they expect me to just go along with whatever it is they are thinking [which I mind usually does not happen very often].

Though, I am in no position to disagree with Rick, I believe that I have been applying . No, I am not specially interested in applying Socionics but rather, I am interested in knowing what justification is there for this area of Socionics. You guys are making very powerful claims about human nature, and I'd like to see you back them up, or at least explain why you can't. Refusing to, especially with your reasons, is idiotic. I'd wager from your extreme sensitivity to my questioning that you have severe issues with fanaticism and blind faith.

[wym123]

I think Rick is an ENFj, and wym123 I would agree is some obnoxious logical type.

As for me, there is a big possibility I am ENFj I have always thought, along with ENTp.

Praytell, what I have done that is so obnoxious.

[Angel von Himmel]

On the other hand, I hate to see the system become convulted in its perfection when the imperfections of nature are shown in its application; though, I am not sure if that can be helped taking the very nature of its application.

LOL??? From what I can gather, the whole point of socionics is to make predictions about the relationships between the types. The fact that it can predict that Duals make good relationships, Conflicts make terrible relationships implies that it an applicable area of research. You can either stick to your "perfect world" where Socionics is only a mere intellectual curiosity of a strange set of geeks or you can think about how you can improve socionics into a full-fledge area of study in higher education. In a world where almost all new knowledge is the result of scientific inquiry or mathematical inquiry, applying the scientific method to socionics more rigoriously is the way to go. Philosophical inquiry will get it nowhere, especially not past the theoretical realm.

I see a problem with some of the assumptions here, socionics does not necessaily have to do with the power of prediction [which I mind is a very shallow way to look at socionics], but the power of the perception of self and the perception of others as opposed to what is valued, cherished, despised, seen as powerful, childish, or as something to be protected at all cost. The reason why I [and others] have considered most of the theory purely philosophical has to do with the fact that in the very roots of socionics it is essentially in tune with platonian philosophy and in most cases it almost mirrors in concept Plato's systems of government [as found in his book "The Republic"], except that its application is located within a person's psyche and does not represent people as units or groups of people as Plato's theory does.

Another reason for socionics is that it is for the application of general health purposes, whereas hanging out with the right people will naturally strengthen your psyche,hanging out with the wrong ones will weaken your psyche. This is actually mirroring Jungian theory very heavily in this context.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicability of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

What we have here is two diffrent ways of applying data, and that alright even though I think you are a total asshole. I wish you luck with whatever you plan to do with socionics.

I have no plans for socionics. I am not a researcher. I am just interesting in knowing its actual empirical evidence before I contemplate even zealously assuming that it is some fundamental truth of the universe. And if you think that socionics truly lies in the study of Philosophy, I would prove the assertion of socionics using deductive reasoning. I wish you luck on it because it is impossible.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicabiilty of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

I understand what you're saying, and I think I would agree with you. I just responded to your way of saying things, which struck me as being overly categorical. I tend to sympathize more with rmcnew's more 'rounded' and conceptual way of saying things, so there's some subjectiveness in my response. But I am sure you are justified in criticizing his statements.

I think wym123 and rmcnew are clearly overemphasizing their differences. rmcnew isn't calling for non-empirical socionics. He's just defending socionics as a good theoretical system and demonstrating that science implies theoretical constructs (if I understand him correctly). wym123 is emphasizing the importance of empiricism.

This sounds like a vs. debate to me: theory-driven science vs. algorithm-driven science (inductive vs. deductive).

More specifically I would actually sat this is possibly more of an "EGO vs ID" block type deal in general, though Rick is right I believe. I hate people who apply too much and it makes me want to argue and tear them a new one, especially if they expect me to just go along with whatever it is they are thinking [which I mind usually does not happen very often].

Though, I am in no position to disagree with Rick, I believe that I have been applying . No, I am not specially interested in applying Socionics but rather, I am interested in knowing what justification is there for this area of Socionics. You guys are making very powerful claims about human nature, and I'd like to see you back them up, or at least explain why you can't. Refusing to, especially with your reasons, is idiotic. I'd wager from your extreme sensitivity to my questioning that you have severe issues with fanaticism and blind faith.

Or maybe you are throwing shit out of your ass just to stir everyone into a thinking frenzy [hence, the devil's advocate], and I have already stated that I do not believe that the whole of socionics can be proven from a scientific standpoint, except that something else very important may come from it that will be signifigant. I'd wager from your extreme sensitivity to my answering that you have severe issues with socionics and maybe a few misconceptions that need to be cleared up, and hopefully before first resorting to badmouthing and bigotry.

[Angel von Himmel]

Though, I am in no position to disagree with Rick, I believe that I have been applying.

That depends ... maybe I might appear to be unorganized in thought, and you see that and your main focus of energy is to try to make me think more logical. On the other hand, maybe your prime focus is your own logic and you would rather spend more time pointing everyone to your own analysis and think it is better than mine. If the former, I would agree with Rick, though I have seen some of the latter as well.

[wym123]

On the other hand, I hate to see the system become convulted in its perfection when the imperfections of nature are shown in its application; though, I am not sure if that can be helped taking the very nature of its application.

LOL??? From what I can gather, the whole point of socionics is to make predictions about the relationships between the types. The fact that it can predict that Duals make good relationships, Conflicts make terrible relationships implies that it an applicable area of research. You can either stick to your "perfect world" where Socionics is only a mere intellectual curiosity of a strange set of geeks or you can think about how you can improve socionics into a full-fledge area of study in higher education. In a world where almost all new knowledge is the result of scientific inquiry or mathematical inquiry, applying the scientific method to socionics more rigoriously is the way to go. Philosophical inquiry will get it nowhere, especially not past the theoretical realm.

I see a problem with some of the assumptions here, socionics does not necessaily have to do with the power of prediction [which I mind is a very shallow way to look at socionics], but the power of the perception of self and the perception of others as opposed to what is valued, cherished, despised, seen as powerful, childish, or as something to be protected at all cost. The reason why I [and others] have considered most of the theory purely philosophical has to do with the fact that in the very roots of socionics it is essentially in tune with platonian philosophy and in most cases it almost mirrors in concept Plato's systems of government [as found in his book "The Republic"], except that its application is located within a person's psyche and does not represent people as units or groups of people as Plato's theory does.

Another reason for socionics is that it is for the application of general health purposes, whereas hanging out with the right people will naturally strengthen your psyche,hanging out with the wrong ones will weaken your psyche. This is actually mirroring Jungian theory very heavily in this context.

I think I am going to stop at this point. I am really in no authority to tell you how you should be studying socionics (maybe Rick can). If you want to consider it to be a revival of Platonian Philosophy, fine.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicability of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

What we have here is two diffrent ways of applying data, and that alright even though I think you are a total asshole. I wish you luck with whatever you plan to do with socionics.

I have no plans for socionics. I am not a researcher. I am just interesting in knowing its actual empirical evidence before I contemplate even zealously assuming that it is some fundamental truth of the universe. And if you think that socionics truly lies in the study of Philosophy, I would prove the assertion of socionics using deductive reasoning. I wish you luck on it because it is impossible.

Theoretical formulation naturally drives science but science mandates that experimentation finishes it. It is unacceptable any other way. Hence it is not unreasonable for people to raise questions about the empirical applicabiilty of the framework and being sensitive about this area only makes the whole framework look like pseudoscience. Rick, compare the way you dealt with my questions, with rmcnew. You addressed them quite well.

I understand what you're saying, and I think I would agree with you. I just responded to your way of saying things, which struck me as being overly categorical. I tend to sympathize more with rmcnew's more 'rounded' and conceptual way of saying things, so there's some subjectiveness in my response. But I am sure you are justified in criticizing his statements.

I think wym123 and rmcnew are clearly overemphasizing their differences. rmcnew isn't calling for non-empirical socionics. He's just defending socionics as a good theoretical system and demonstrating that science implies theoretical constructs (if I understand him correctly). wym123 is emphasizing the importance of empiricism.

This sounds like a vs. debate to me: theory-driven science vs. algorithm-driven science (inductive vs. deductive).

More specifically I would actually sat this is possibly more of an "EGO vs ID" block type deal in general, though Rick is right I believe. I hate people who apply too much and it makes me want to argue and tear them a new one, especially if they expect me to just go along with whatever it is they are thinking [which I mind usually does not happen very often].

Though, I am in no position to disagree with Rick, I believe that I have been applying . No, I am not specially interested in applying Socionics but rather, I am interested in knowing what justification is there for this area of Socionics. You guys are making very powerful claims about human nature, and I'd like to see you back them up, or at least explain why you can't. Refusing to, especially with your reasons, is idiotic. I'd wager from your extreme sensitivity to my questioning that you have severe issues with fanaticism and blind faith.

Or maybe you are throwing shit out of your ass just to stir everyone into a thinking frenzy [hence, the devil's advocate], and I have already stated that I do not believe that the whole of socionics can be proven from a scientific standpoint, except that something else very important may come from it that will be signifigant. I'd wager from your extreme sensitivity to my answering that you have severe issues with socionics and maybe a few misconceptions that need to be cleared up, and hopefully before first resorting to badmouthing and bigotry.

Justify this belief for me please. I have little doubt that all of it can be proven (more correctly, verified/falsified) from a scientific standpoint.

[Angel von Himmel]

I think I am going to stop at this point. I am really in no authority to tell you how you should be studying socionics (maybe Rick can). If you want to consider it to be a revival of Platonian Philosophy, fine.

Rick should agree with me assuming that he knows his history. It is well known that Augusta and others had done specific analysis on specific works of old classic philosophers in order to form socionics theory. In fact, the socionics model of the psyche would probably be considered plagerism against Plato in context if he were alive today, the concepts are actually very similar if you find the time to do a comparison.

Justify this belief for me please. I have little doubt that all of it can be proven (more correctly, verified/falsified) from a scientific standpoint.

Read my article again as socionics as an ideal form ... I explained it there for the most part.

[wym123]

Though, I am in no position to disagree with Rick, I believe that I have been applying.

That depends ... maybe I might appear to be unorganized in thought, and you see that and your main focus of energy is to try to make me think more logical. On the other hand, maybe your prime focus is your own logic and you would rather spend more time pointing everyone to your own analysis and think it is better than mine. If the former, I would agree with Rick, though I have seen some of the latter as well.

My original intent is to seek empirical data on the Intertype Theory. I like to see my beliefs justified ( ) and if I am to accept Socionics is a valid school of thought, I need to see the empirical data. Though, you may disagree, Socionics is not a philosophical framework and I do not know understand how you can even see it as such. If you want to be hostile towards people who want to regard it as a scientific framework (and believe me, you have been hostile, (it is as if Rocky and I hit some sore spot)), and if you are going to show teeth, I will be more than happy to show mine.

[Angel von Himmel]

My original intent is to seek empirical data on the Intertype Theory. I like to see my beliefs justified ( ) and if I am to accept Socionics is a valid school of thought, I need to see the empirical data. If you want to be hostile towards people who want to regard it as a scientific framework (and believe me, you have been hostile, (it is as if Rocky and I hit some sore spot)), and if you are going to show teeth, I will be more than happy to show mine.

That's fine, but this statement ...

Though, you may disagree, Socionics is not a philosophical framework and I do not know understand how you can even see it as such.

I would agree that personally to you it is not specifically, otherwise we would not be having these heated debates about it. But, I really do not see how it can be anything other than theory in its whole nature, and if science ever truly takes hold of socionics it will no longer be socionics. I mean, look at what Tchaullldig, Rocky, and what some other are trying to do socionics; it is not socionics whatever it is and I am not the only one saying that, I know that for sure. Its like they are defacing or defiling my mother or something.

[Angel von Himmel]

I think the way I have acted in this thread might show that I am an ethical type, even though I am male and have developed my logic and thinking abilities to a certain degree.

[Rick]

I think the way I have acted in this thread might show that I am an ethical type, even though I am male and have developed my logic and thinking abilities to a certain degree.

I can't see you as being ethical. You are too concerned with the subject of the argument and display no ethical embellishments (a few swear words here and there or taking things personally doesn't count). Often it seems that logical types can argue till they're blue in the face (or they've destroyed each other) because of their lack of willingness to consider other people's feelings or step down from any of their arguments. I think this thread simply hit a sore point because people seemed to be attacking your own personal reasons for wanting to be part of socionics (which you don't say outright, but imply). That's why your views come across here as being extreme. In your other posts you don't sound this extreme.

On the other hand, I think wym123 has exaggerated things as well -- perhaps in response to rmcnew, as if all he is interested in is making predictions using socionics or in "killing" socionics if he can't predict things with it. In actuality much of science is not very predictive; take, for example, the theory of evolution. Yes, it explains everything and satisfies people's curiosity about how things may have happened (though not all agree with it). But what experiments can be built based on evolution? I also doubt that wym123's interest in socionics is based solely on making accurate predictions; like everyone else, he is probably interested in understanding himself and others better, etc.

So I think this is more a debate about perceptual differences. Really, if wym123 is interested in empirical experience, that is not too hard to provide. It's not like we are all here just trying to believe in some ideal model. Plenty of us have had plenty of real-life experience involving type interaction.

[Olga]

I would say thank you to all people (types) for showing their faces and provididng very interesting material I can work with. I would like to mention a few posts and to ask your expert opinion. I am sure that together we shall be able to clear things out and ,please, bare in mind that I am not here to throw stone in any particular type/person/idea. I am simply digging for the truth.

Wym123 said:

Though, I am in no position to disagree with Rick, I believe that I have been applying . No, I am not specially interested in applying Socionics but rather, I am interested in knowing what justification is there for this area of Socionics. You guys are making very powerful claims about human nature, and I'd like to see you back them up, or at least explain why you can't. Refusing to, especially with your reasons, is idiotic. I'd wager from your extreme sensitivity to my questioning that you have severe issues with fanaticism and blind faith.

I wuold say point to Wym123. It is exactly what I am fighting against because I paid for my faith in socionics with my own personal disasters. Please, don't say that I should not have taken socionics literaly. I know I was silly but I am a believer and I am not alone. Do you remember the song of John Lennon "Imagine"? By the way, in that video where he is with his wife all in white, his face is unemotional. He is very similar to Jesus Christ on the icons and in reality, his eyes are serious but his emotions all deep down and his feelings are expressed in words. What type was John Lennon and what type was Jesus Christ?

rmcnew said:

Another reason for socionics is that it is for the application of general health purposes, whereas hanging out with the right people will naturally strengthen your psyche,hanging out with the wrong ones will weaken your psyche. This is actually mirroring Jungian theory very heavily in this context.

I would say: yes and no at the same time. Support is good for not to fall deeply down and not to break but it will not necessarily make you stronger. You need opposition to improve your weak qualities and to perfect your strength. You need dynamics.

rmcnew said:

Or maybe you are throwing shit out of your ass just to stir everyone into a thinking frenzy [hence, the devil's advocate], and I have already stated that I do not believe that the whole of socionics can be proven from a scientific standpoint, except that something else very important may come from it that will be signifigant. I'd wager from your extreme sensitivity to my answering that you have severe issues with socionics and maybe a few misconceptions that need to be cleared up, and hopefully before first resorting to badmouthing and bigotry.

And this:

I would agree that personally to you it is not specifically, otherwise we would not be having these heated debates about it. But, I really do not see how it can be anything other than theory in its whole nature, and if science ever truly takes hold of socionics it will no longer be socionics. I mean, look at what Tchaullldig, Rocky, and what some other are trying to do socionics; it is not socionics whatever it is and I am not the only one saying that, I know that for sure. Its like they are defacing or defiling my mother or something.

I did not have chance to know personaly any ENFJ type (suggested by rmcnew as his type, if I am correct?) But I know that some of the people on the site have got their unic perceptions/experiences and I would like to ask them: how far rmcnew fits to ENFJ, for example? I would be especially interested to hear what Implied would suggest rmcnew's type to be?

Rick said:

I can't see you as being ethical. You are too concerned with the subject of the argument and display no ethical embellishments (a few swear words here and there or taking things personally doesn't count). Often it seems that logical types can argue till they're blue in the face (or they've destroyed each other) because of their lack of willingness to consider other people's feelings or step down from any of their arguments. I think this thread simply hit a sore point because people seemed to be attacking your own personal reasons for wanting to be part of socionics (which you don't say outright, but imply). That's why your views come across here as being extreme. In your other posts you don't sound this extreme.

Again the question to Implied, how ethical is rmcnew and why on earth he takes things so personal compared, for example to Wym123, who stays pretty cool all the time?

Rick said:

On the other hand, I think wym123 has exaggerated things as well -- perhaps in response to rmcnew, as if all he is interested in is making predictions using socionics or in "killing" socionics if he can't predict things with it. In actuality much of science is not very predictive; take, for example, the theory of evolution. Yes, it explains everything and satisfies people's curiosity about how things may have happened (though not all agree with it). But what experiments can be built based on evolution? I also doubt that wym123's interest in socionics is based solely on making accurate predictions; like everyone else, he is probably interested in understanding himself and others better, etc.

I am not sure actually who is doing a bigger favour to socionics:
Rick or Wym123? Shall we preserve socionics and will pray to it as it is already in ideal form or ...would rather attempt to kill it with the research?

What the experts on this highly intellectual site think about this suggestion?
And this more practical suggestion of Rick:

So I think this is more a debate about perceptual differences. Really, if wym123 is interested in empirical experience, that is not too hard to provide. It's not like we are all here just trying to believe in some ideal model. Plenty of us have had plenty of real-life experience involving type interaction.

[wym123]

On the other hand, I think wym123 has exaggerated things as well -- perhaps in response to rmcnew, as if all he is interested in is making predictions using socionics or in "killing" socionics if he can't predict things with it. In actuality much of science is not very predictive; take, for example, the theory of evolution. Yes, it explains everything and satisfies people's curiosity about how things may have happened (though not all agree with it). But what experiments can be built based on evolution? I also doubt that wym123's interest in socionics is based solely on making accurate predictions; like everyone else, he is probably interested in understanding himself and others better, etc.

So I think this is more a debate about perceptual differences. Really, if wym123 is interested in empirical experience, that is not too hard to provide. It's not like we are all here just trying to believe in some ideal model. Plenty of us have had plenty of real-life experience involving type interaction.

Rick, you have misunderstood the meaning of "prediction." A scientific prediction is not a statement that predicts the outcome of the experiment. A scientific prediction is a falsifiable statement that fits with the known facts, including facts that become known due to experimentation. The Theory of Evolution is very predictive. Though, the Theory of Evolution have made very few predictions in the English sense of the word it has made a lot of retrodictions, which are still predictions in the scientific sense of the word.

Consider this hypothetical scenario of research in the human psyche. Let's say that socionics does not exist and someone decided to use the works of CG Jung to map out the interactions of the relationships. He acquires a ton of data but is unable to find any correlations hence produce any models. Later someone looks at the data and notices patterns. From it he develops socionics. This is similar to the development of the Theory of Evolution: we have massive amounts of data and just needed to find a way to explain the data. By formulating socionics and by testing the the statements that the framework produces against the data that is already known, socionics is making "predictions." This is akin to the way that the Theory of Evolution was formulated.

If human interactions were actually very complicated and any "simple" and elegant model is simply insufficient to acknowledge all the variables of the interaction, and given such data about human interactions, by testing "predictions" socionics against such data, we will note that the predictions will consistently be falsified. Nothing like that has ever happened to evolution yet - none of the predictions of evolution has been falsified. Evolution is a not a law of the universe; it is just a human conceived framework that attempts to model an aspect of biology accurate. It is not a framework that mandates what fossils lie beneath the soil. We can have the fossil of one of those mythological Chimera lying somewhere and there is nothing that says we can't. If we do discover one, we might be shocked at first because we have taken Evolution for granted for so long but Evolution will have to contend with that fact and face possible falsification. In a hypothetical world in which we have discovered a Chimera, the creators of the Theory of Evolution would have to contend with the fact and must explain it. If they proceed with the Theory of Evolution not taking existence of the Chimera into consideration, then the Theory of Evolution is automatically falsified by a "retrodiction" of the theory (it's still a prediction). (It is true that a discovery of a Chimera will refute the central idea of the Theory of Evolution, and hence the framework itself because a Chimera is an impossibility in terms of evolution.)

Socionics does not follow that area of research. It is a framework that is constructed in the absense of any such empirical data. Because of that reason, it is imperative to establish its empirical justification in an objectively controlled experiment. You should have already figure out why empirical justification is very important to science. Science only deals itself with the real world, not some imaginative fantasy land where everything is ideal. If the real world happens to be too tough for the Theory of Evolution, that's too bad.

I just want to add that a framework like the Theory of Evolution which have made immense predictions in the form of retrodiction can't be "incorrect" hence, in all likelyhood, it can make accurate predictions (English sense of the word). Indeed, its prediction that the fact that bateria will evolve in the presense of anti-bacteria soap and become resistent to it, is true. This phenomenon in particular was discovered much after the the formulation of Theory of Evolution.

[wym123]

So I think this is more a debate about perceptual differences. Really, if wym123 is interested in empirical experience, that is not too hard to provide. It's not like we are all here just trying to believe in some ideal model. Plenty of us have had plenty of real-life experience involving type interaction.

Like you, I am having a lot of difficulty objectivizing my experience and understanding precisely the predictions the framework makes. As someone with good experience in academic science and math, and with the strong Introverted Thinking to back it up, it is something very noticeable to me.

[Rick]

Rick, you have misunderstood the meaning of "prediction."

I understand this, actually. Each biological discovery is essentially a potential experiment. I was thinking more in terms of experiments such as "given evolution, what would we expect to find here ... ?" And then you go and happen to find it. Dunno... it wasn't a very rigorous thought, actually.

Socionics does not follow that area of research. It is a framework that is constructed in the absense of any such empirical data. Because of that reason, it is imperative to establish its empirical justification in an objectively controlled experiment. You should have already figure out why empirical justification is very important to science. Science only deals itself with the real world, not some imaginative fantasy land where everything is ideal.

I'm well aware of these issues. In fact, I wrote an article on exactly this topic in Russian at my site (you can read a heinous Internet translation at http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel.../imagine.shtml)
This article is about a 'thought experiment' where scientific research reveals mental structures somewhat similar to what socionics proposes, but with a number of differences. What now? -- I basically ask in the article. It's just food for thought and to show the difference between empirical science versus inductive theories.

Let me explain why these realizations don't particularly faze my socionics activities.

1. Empirical science can give you data, but it can't tell you what to do! Take, for example, the Big 5 personality traits. You read about it, test yourself ... and then what? So??? Now take something like dream analysis. Now there's something interesting to discover in yourself and try to understand and, to a degree, apply to life. Socionics has great potential to help one understand what to do.

Imagine that you have a friend who is having some real-life problems with work or relationships. Try to help him using empirical data ... ... ...

2. There is no doubt that differentiation of the human psyche exists, and that this differentiation affects relationships. Socionics is the best theory so far about the nature of this differentiation. Even if socionics can not be proven empirically at the moment, something like socionics undoubtedly exists. This is obvious to me, even from an evolutionary standpoint.

3. Empirical science lags far behind what is obvious to people themselves -- that people are different. In the entire field of culture and social phenomena, circulation of ideas, values, etc., empirical science has made only the most minimal progress, due to the hard-to-measure nature of the subject. And yet life goes on, things happen, relationships form and break up, and people base their decisions and perception on anything but empirical scientific data.

4. Different cultures have different attitudes towards science. Here in Russia/Ukraine, scientific thinking is less tied to empiricism. The result is that there have been a lot of very creative, ingenious discoveries. By comparison, American science seems plodding and heavy-weight, as if researchers go out of their way not to make any generalizations. They just keep on gathering and gathering data... So I see a bit of perceptual lopsidedness in the "deduction only" approach.

5. Subjective personal experience that seems to confirm socionics.

[Rick]

Like you, I am having a lot of difficulty objectivizing my experience and understanding precisely the predictions the framework makes. As someone with good experience in academic science and math, and with the strong Introverted Thinking to back it up, it is something very noticeable to me.

See, you're just as willing as the rest of us to make subjective, non-provable statements.

[wym123]

Rick, you have misunderstood the meaning of "prediction."

I understand this, actually. Each biological discovery is essentially a potential experiment. I was thinking more in terms of experiments such as "given evolution, what would we expect to find here ... ?" And then you go and happen to find it. Dunno... it wasn't a very rigorous thought, actually.

I am not a biologist and this is the only thing that I can come up with off the top of my head but I have seen many in my study of Evolution. The experiment is rigorous because the premise of the experiment are very well-defined: there exist a finite number of usages of the soap (not large at all in practice but it is difficult to place a hard bound because it is dependent on conditions) such that the bacterial strains that soap is supposed to kill will evolve to become resistent. Taking reproduction into consideration, they ALL become resistent. The fact the conclusion of the experiment is counter-intuitive (that's a ++ for any scientific theory) puts the theory in very favorable light because without the theory of evolution, there is absolutely no reason why a specific bateria strain will all become resistent to anti-bacterial soap. Without evolution to explain. anti-bacterial soap is supposed to be useful forever.

Socionics does not follow that area of research. It is a framework that is constructed in the absense of any such empirical data. Because of that reason, it is imperative to establish its empirical justification in an objectively controlled experiment. You should have already figure out why empirical justification is very important to science. Science only deals itself with the real world, not some imaginative fantasy land where everything is ideal.

I'm well aware of these issues. In fact, I wrote an article on exactly this topic in Russian at my site (you can read a heinous Internet translation at http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel.../imagine.shtml)
This article is about a 'thought experiment' where scientific research reveals mental structures somewhat similar to what socionics proposes, but with a number of differences. What now? -- I basically ask in the article. It's just food for thought and to show the difference between empirical science versus inductive theories.

Let me explain why these realizations don't particularly faze my socionics activities.

1. Empirical science can give you data, but it can't tell you what to do! Take, for example, the Big 5 personality traits. You read about it, test yourself ... and then what? So??? Now take something like dream analysis. Now there's something interesting to discover in yourself and try to understand and, to a degree, apply to life. Socionics has great potential to help one understand what to do.

Imagine that you have a friend who is having some real-life problems with work or relationships. Try to help him using empirical data ... ... ...

2. There is no doubt that differentiation of the human psyche exists, and that this differentiation affects relationships. Socionics is the best theory so far about the nature of this differentiation. Even if socionics can not be proven empirically at the moment, something like socionics undoubtedly exists. This is obvious to me, even from an evolutionary standpoint.

3. Empirical science lags far behind what is obvious to people themselves -- that people are different. In the entire field of culture and social phenomena, circulation of ideas, values, etc., empirical science has made only the most minimal progress, due to the hard-to-measure nature of the subject. And yet life goes on, things happen, relationships form and break up, and people base their decisions and perception on anything but empirical scientific data.

4. Different cultures have different attitudes towards science. Here in Russia/Ukraine, scientific thinking is less tied to empiricism. The result is that there have been a lot of very creative, ingenious discoveries. By comparison, American science seems plodding and heavy-weight, as if researchers go out of their way not to make any hypotheses. They just keep on gathering and gathering data... So I see a bit of perceptual lopsidedness in the "deduction only" approach.

5. Subjective personal experience that seems to confirm socionics.

I don't think you are using the term "empirical science" correctly. If you are then, I have been using it incorrectly. I haven't been trying to emphasize what you think I have been emphasizing. I am not exactly all for "empirical science" (in your definition). As a mathematician, and having studied a good amount of Physics, I understand how almost all major advances in Physics were the result of formulation, then experimentation. Throughout my posts, I just wanted to emphasize the importance of experimentation. That step is not to be taken lightly and it should be considered even more important than the formulation step, despite some of the opinion of others in this thread. If experimentation might result in the destruction of the theory, then that's really where the theory belongs. I do not offer sympathy for a framework that is supposed to model human interactions but doesn't actually model them.

Just to be clear, my definition of "empirical science" is induction combined with empirical justification (in no specific order), which is what modern science is. Though I am not exactly sure, I believe that is the standard definition of "empirical science." The word empirical is just used to emphasize the empirical nature of science as opposed to other methods of inquiry.

[Rick]

I don't think you are using the term "empirical science" correctly. If you are then, I have been using it incorrectly. I haven't been trying to emphasizing what you think I have been emphasizing. I am not exactly all for "empirical science" (in your definition). As a mathematician, and having studied a good amount of Physics, I understand how almost all major advances in Physics were the result of formulation, then experimentation. Throughout my posts, I just wanted to emphasizing the importance of experimentation. That step is not to be taken lightly and it should be considered even more important than the formulation step, despite some of the opinion of others in this thread. If experimentation might result in the destruction of the theory, then that's really where the theory belongs. I do not offer sympathy for a framework that is supposed to model human interactions but doesn't actually model them.

Okay, sure, I have no problem with this and would agree with you. I'm not sure we at this forum are in much of a position to perform rigorous socionics experiments, though. Why don't you describe some of the possible ways various socionics phenomena might be empirically tested? That would be a constructive topic.

[wym123]

Like you, I am having a lot of difficulty objectivizing my experience and understanding precisely the predictions the framework makes. As someone with good experience in academic science and math, and with the strong Introverted Thinking to back it up, it is something very noticeable to me.

See, you're just as willing as the rest of us to make subjective, non-provable statements.

The difference between Intertype Theory and just mere catagorization of the functions is that Intertype Theory is very complex and very "elegant" (there's a lot of one-size fits all), and elegant theories are usually of great skepticism for scientists, especially if there is no justification (empirical or mathematical).

On the other hand, the functional aspect of the theory is far simplier. To be honest, I don't fully accept the theory but I do recognize that there we all have two functions (the so-called ego block) that we seem to be very comfortable using and there are other functions that we are extremely sensitive about such as the POLR. As for the others, I really do not know enough about them and hence, do not even accept them.

I have noticed that the manifestation of these functions in a very precise and apparent way hence, I am not really questioning this aspect of the framework. I honestly think that this aspect has great potential in scientific research. Perhaps maybe we can directly correlate the functions to brain chemistry or brain structure and acquire precise physical evidence for these metaphysical concepts. There are already many studies under way in the study of the brain and one of the most shocking things they have uncovered is that there are fundamental differences between chemistry of the male brain and that of the female brain. Some of it is related to F vs T in that the female brain is wired for F, and the male brain is wired for T, if I understand correctly.

[wym123]

Okay, sure, I have no problem with this and would agree with you. I'm not sure we at this forum are in much of a position to perform rigorous socionics experiments, though. Why don't you describe some of the possible ways various socionics phenomena might be empirically tested? That would be a constructive topic.

I am not actually attempting to perform rigorous socionics experiments. I will be honest with you, I have never been in a relationship, nor have I witness any relationship in good detail, so I do not have any personal experiences to back up any of the Intertype Theory. I was hoping that people here can provide some personal anecdotes so I can get a general idea where the theory truly stands. The fact that it is of such elegance really makes me feel very skeptical.

As for the second part of your post. I would be more than happy to do that actually. Just give me a second.

[Rick]

The difference between Intertype Theory and just mere catagorization of the functions is that Intertype Theory is very complex and very "elegant" (there's a lot of one-size fits all), and elegant theories are usually of great skepticism for scientists, especially if there is no justification (empirical or mathematical).

On the other hand, the functional aspect of the theory is far less simplier.

Don't get what you're saying here. I don't see a difference in complexity or elegance.

By the way, have you read Dmitri Lytov's account of the history of socionics, including how intertype relations were discovered? (http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.begin/index-begin.html)

[Rick]

I will be honest with you, I have never been in a relationship, nor have I witness any relationship in good detail, so I do not have any personal experiences to back up any of the Intertype Theory.

What you probably are looking for then are flesh-and-blood accounts to overcome your skepticism. I have them, but much is very personal. I will say that before socionics I had pursued relationships based on stereotypes from my upbringing and was in a state of denial that my actual psychological needs were not being met. I came across a socionist over here who told me about myself and my actual needs and was able to identify a dual that I was drawn to irresistably that met my actual psychological expectations. I adjusted my values accordingly and have not looked back. Later I realized that I had been lucky; not all duals would have affected me as powerfully. While the underlying "information interchange" is of the same nature, individual differences determine interest level to a large degree.

[wym123]

The difference between Intertype Theory and just mere catagorization of the functions is that Intertype Theory is very complex and very "elegant" (there's a lot of one-size fits all), and elegant theories are usually of great skepticism for scientists, especially if there is no justification (empirical or mathematical).

On the other hand, the functional aspect of the theory is far less simplier.

Don't get what you're saying here. I don't see a difference in complexity or elegance.

By the way, have you read Dmitri Lytov's account of the history of socionics, including how intertype relations were discovered? (http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.begin/index-begin.html)

Let me try to explain my ideas more precisely. I disclaim that these are not standard definitions but these are standards by which I absorb data.

You can define complexity as the obscurity or counter-intuitiveness of the generalizations. You can define elegance as the breadth of the generalizations.

In general, the falsifiability of a framework can be approximated as size of the resulting topology of the complexity space (smash product) elegance space. In other words, if we consider complexity and elegance to be the dimensions of a pair of perpendicular axes, then we can approximate the falsifiability of a framework by the size of the resulting "rectangle." Just to be clear, a metric is defined on those spaces and it is from which we can acquire its size (norm).

The theory of Evolution is not a very complex theory but a very elegant theory. General Theory of Relativity, at its inception, was very complex and very elegant. Intertype Relationship is very complex and very elegant. It is predicting reality using metaphysical concepts (complex), and it is making very sweeping generalizations about people (elegant). Usually, such theories are too ambitious, and unless they have been back up by preliminary data or mathematical formalism, they risk collapsing under their own weight.

But if the socionics manages to survival the skeptical onslaught, it will be herald as a revolutionary way to understand the human mind.

[Rick]

Intertype Relationship is very complex and very elegant. It is predicting reality using metaphysical concepts (complex), and it is making very sweeping generalizations about people (elegant).

It would probably be possible to summarize the basic principles behind intertype relations into relatively few words, leaving most of the complexity with the model of the psyche. (does this make sense?)

Would this change things at all, in your opinion?

[Rick]

Most aspects of intertype relations are very simple (to me ). For example, take two LIE's and put them together. What do you get? Together they produce an overabundance of logical and intuitive information products in their immediate surroundings and very little ethical and sensing information products. Why this would be tiring to each partner would be derived from our understanding of the psyche and its needs. Maybe this sort of thing is too abstract to be of much good, but I think with some work, this could be concreticized further.

[wym123]

Intertype Relationship is very complex and very elegant. It is predicting reality using metaphysical concepts (complex), and it is making very sweeping generalizations about people (elegant).

It would probably be possible to summarize the basic principles behind intertype relations into relatively few words, leaving most of the complexity with the model of the psyche. (does this make sense?)

Would this change things at all, in your opinion?

I don't know how that is possible given the nature of the theory. As you said in your next post. Much of this is still too abstract to be of much good. Unless there is a way to make these concepts more concrete (have the kind of physical evidence I hinted in my previous post), they is still very complex.

As for whether it would change my mind. In theory it would actually. There is nothing that will turn me to Socionics faster than a scientific paper confirming existence of the predicted feedback of the result of the informational exchanges through MRI scan of the brains of interacting individuals. This will immediate give credence to the model and significantly reduce its "complexity" (it now makes sense). Of course in order for this experiment to work, we need to isolate the areas of the brain that are responsible for the functions and understand how the functions physically manifest themselves.

Perhaps there is existing research that correlate certain brain activity with the release of endorphins. If we can identify those areas of the brain has being related to the ego-functions, and if the interactions with a dual stimulates those areas, subsequently leading the brain to release these endorphins, we have physical evidence how duals actually make relationships work out.

I am not a biologists and my understanding of biology is very introductory. My experiments might not even work.

[Rick]

Of course in order for this experiment to work, we need to isolate the areas of the brain that are responsible for the functions and understand how the functions physically manifest themselves.

I wish I had a neurologist friend with a bunch of money and spare time

There is nothing that will turn me to Socionics faster than a scientific paper confirming existence of the predicted feedback of the result of the informational exchanges through MRI scan of the brains of interacting individuals.

I actually believe this is feasable and believe this is the kind of thing socionics should be able to predict fairly well. How could we get at the same thing without having to rely on MRI scans and expensive equipment we don't have access to?

[wym123]

Of course in order for this experiment to work, we need to isolate the areas of the brain that are responsible for the functions and understand how the functions physically manifest themselves.

I wish I had a neurologist friend with a bunch of money and spare time

There is nothing that will turn me to Socionics faster than a scientific paper confirming existence of the predicted feedback of the result of the informational exchanges through MRI scan of the brains of interacting individuals.

I actually believe this is feasable and believe this is the kind of thing socionics should be able to predict fairly well. How could we get at the same thing without having to rely on MRI scans and expensive equipment we don't have access to?

LOL. I fully understand what you mean and when you once said there is no money for this kind of research, I fully accepted that explanation. I think as long as there is interest to push socionics in that direction, I think socionics is moving along fine, and perhaps, one day such research can happen.

[tcaudilllg]

The difference between Intertype Theory and just mere catagorization of the functions is that Intertype Theory is very complex and very "elegant" (there's a lot of one-size fits all), and elegant theories are usually of great skepticism for scientists, especially if there is no justification (empirical or mathematical).

On the other hand, the functional aspect of the theory is far less simplier.

Don't get what you're saying here. I don't see a difference in complexity or elegance.

By the way, have you read Dmitri Lytov's account of the history of socionics, including how intertype relations were discovered? (http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.begin/index-begin.html)

Let me try to explain my ideas more precisely. I disclaim that these are not standard definitions but these are standards by which I absorb data.

You can define complexity as the obscurity or counter-intuitiveness of the generalizations. You can define elegance as the breadth of the generalizations.

In general, the falsifiability of a framework can be approximated as size of the resulting topology of the complexity space (smash product) elegance space. In other words, if we consider complexity and elegance to be the dimensions of a pair of perpendicular axes, then we can approximate the falsifiability of a framework by the size of the resulting "rectangle." Just to be clear, a metric is defined on those spaces and it is from which we can acquire its size (norm).

The theory of Evolution is not a very complex theory but a very elegant theory. General Theory of Relativity, at its inception, was very complex and very elegant. Intertype Relationship is very complex and very elegant. It is predicting reality using metaphysical concepts (complex), and it is making very sweeping generalizations about people (elegant). Usually, such theories are too ambitious, and unless they have been back up by preliminary data or mathematical formalism, they risk collapsing under their own weight.

But if the socionics manages to survival the skeptical onslaught, it will be herald as a revolutionary way to understand the human mind.

Alright, I'll see your falsifiability ratio for Socionics and raise you the crosstype/undifferentiated extension. What's the fasifiability for that?