My qualm with socionics

[adiaphane]

Or what disgusts me about socionics or repulses me about socionics or the particular aspect I find unsavory about socionics. Whatever it is I want to say. I'm not sure really, and I forgot temporarily how to post threads, so this might not be as lucid and articulate as it should be.

The idea that value is something that can be quantified and categorized into discrete 16 units. I'm sure (well, I hope) everyone realizes that value is subjective and that the idea of "good" and "bad" types is preposterous, but the judgment is still there. Value is ineffably complex and the unconscious content in interpersonal relationships is rich and vast. Ultimately what we feel is good and right and true, that ineffable something that rewards our brains with shots of opiate might be reducible to something like a mathematical formula, but who among us will ever know?

Talking about value in the context of some highly hypothetical construct like socionics strikes me as irresponsible, morally. Which is strange, because I didn't realize that I had any morals.

[crazedrat]

if you're going to post a thought try to make it a bit more original.

[xerx]

I find it highly disturbing that my toaster and fridge are categorized into 2 distinct units. I mean FUCK, it's just morally irresponsible to arbitrarily divide two things that still give you food.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Just cuz there's no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I mean that would be a boring stuffy life to talk in a such an overly precise way like that I mean shit. archetypes are very powerful man.

Also, who cares if value is subjective? Why do you think objectivity is better than subjectivity? it isn't. That's a logical fallacy in itself. I will prove it to you.

Say you have your dream house, you have an idea of it before you build it or search for it, you have a subjective idea you like before you make it an objective reality. It's all interconnected but for humans, subjectiveness is about 150,000,000 times more potent than 'objective.' You can't just scientifically institutionalize the world like that. I'm not saying the cliche u need to 'get a real life' cuz I'd be a hypocrite, but you should try to simple observe the living moving chaotic world or something.

Always demanding PROOF and EVIDENCE is implying that objectivity is this strong naturally more manlier and better force than subjectivity but that isn't true, as you can create your entire reality from meditation and your subjective reality, it all starts there as being your creator. Let your feelings be your guide and stop yammering on about something that doesn't exist to self-renew you. I mean if Abraham Hicks did it so can I! Objective reality and science, are just total lies. I like poetry.

[Creepy-male]

Just cuz there's no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I mean that would be a boring stuffy life to talk in a such an overly precise way like that I mean shit. archetypes are very powerful man.

Also, who cares if value is subjective? Why do you think objectivity is better than subjectivity? it isn't. That's a logical fallacy in itself. I will prove it to you.

Say you have your dream house, you have an idea of it before you build it or search for it, you have a subjective idea you like before you make it an objective reality. It's all interconnected but for humans, subjectiveness is about 150,000,000 times more potent than 'objective.' You can't just scientifically institutionalize the world like that. I'm not saying the cliche u need to 'get a real life' cuz I'd be a hypocrite, but you should try to simple observe the living moving chaotic world or something.

Always demanding PROOF and EVIDENCE is implying that objectivity is this strong naturally more manlier and better force than subjectivity but that isn't true, as you can create your entire reality from meditation and your subjective reality, it all starts there as being your creator. Let your feelings be your guide and stop yammering on about something that doesn't exist to self-renew you. I mean if Abraham Hicks did it so can I! Objective reality and science, are just total lies. I like poetry.

This is what I think;

subjectivity is of higher value than objectivity
but
objectivity is of higher use than subjectivity

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

How is objectivity useful? To be purely objective, you wouldn't get dates at all. Purely subjective you might not either, but we're always kinda playing with the two and its too meshed together.....

Either way I don't worry about this stuff when I"m actually kinda living my life, not that this isn't interesting it's just that ummmmm idk. I kinda just drain out what I don't like, or information that isn't serving me until I get closer to what I want. Haha this also asks a bigger question 'what is honesty, really?'

[Creepy-male]

How is objectivity useful? To be purely objective, you wouldn't get dates at all. Purely subjective you might not either, but we're always kinda playing with the two and its too meshed together.....

Either way I don't worry about this stuff when I"m actually kinda living my life, not that this isn't interesting it's just that ummmmm idk. I kinda just drain out what I don't like, or information that isn't serving me until I get closer to what I want. Haha this also asks a bigger question 'what is honesty, really?'

I am thinking in terms of like science and math, both are highly objective. Both allow people the ability to create new technologies that are useful.

You get a terminal disease, if you objectively analyze the disease, maybe you'll find a cure for it.... If you just sit around subjectively exploring how you feel about the disease, maybe you'll be able to get past the sadness and enjoy your life -- but you'll still die. So its valuable but not useful.

However there is a paradox.... Aren't valuable things useful and useful things valuable.... well yes, but I wouldn't want to dig into that because it just makes this all more confusing for the time being - for the time being lets just consider the idea of value and useful as independant.

[adiaphane]

I like poetry.

Well, I fucking like poetry too. If I wanted to I could analyze why I like (or dislike) a poem. I could point to its metrical structure, its form, the rise and fall of the cadence, the phonosemantic and phonoaesthetic qualities of the language, consonance, assonance, alliteration, diction and rhyme, metaphor, imagery, the particular arrangement of aural and visual elements of a poem, its pathos, its poignancy.

The precise foundation for its aesthetic and emotional appeal I could pinpoint. But then, how do I say why that foundation is aesthetically and emotionally satisfying? Am I really supposed to say that all poetic information is broken up into 8 discrete categories and that I am intrinsically receptive to some of these categories more than others? Doesn't that debase the worth of the poem, my reaction to it, and the person who wrote it?

And that's just a poem. How can something so central to our lives like other human beings and interpersonal relationships be talked of in this way?

[Jarno]

Talking about value in the context of some highly hypothetical construct like socionics strikes me as irresponsible, morally. Which is strange, because I didn't realize that I had any morals.

socionics isn't highly hypothetical.

[xyz]

socionics isn't highly hypothetical.

Then what empirical tests have been done? Any control subjects to determine if what you define to be "ne" or "fe" are correct from person to person?

[mu4]

Then what empirical tests have been done? Any control subjects to determine if what you define to be "ne" or "fe" are correct from person to person?

Empirical is not based in testing or control but rather observation. All it has to do is be based in observables, behavior and personality differences are observable.

Socionics is not scientific and is unlikely to meet scientific requirements of testing and prediction. It does provide a foundation for the design of tests and experiments which can be performed but is unlikely to prove causation. It has some solid philosophical backing which is something that is lacking in modern science.

If you got the funding for say 160 EEG's/MRI's/etc on a sample of the population and then had these same 160 people evaluated by socionists. Then you can attempt to find some pattern of similarity between similar types and measurements. This is of course in relation to typing error and the measurements relationship to type.

[redbaron]

Empirical is not based in testing or control but rather observation. All it has to do is be based in observables, behavior and personality differences are observable.

Socionics is not scientific and is unlikely to meet scientific requirements of testing and prediction. It does provide a foundation for the design of tests and experiments which can be performed but is unlikely to prove causation. It has some solid philosophical backing which is something that is lacking in modern science.

yes, exactly!

[xyz]

Empirical is not based in testing or control but rather observation. All it has to do is be based in observables, behavior and personality differences are observable.

Socionics is not scientific and is unlikely to meet scientific requirements of testing and prediction. It does provide a foundation for the design of tests and experiments which can be performed but is unlikely to prove causation. It has some solid philosophical backing which is something that is lacking in modern science.

If you got the funding for say 160 EEG's/MRI's/etc on a sample of the population and then had these same 160 people evaluated by socionists. Then you can attempt to find some pattern of similarity between similar types and measurements. This is of course in relation to typing error and the measurements relationship to type.

And until you got that funding this socionics stuff should be treated as what it is: A hypothesis.

[mu4]

And until you got that funding this socionics stuff should be treated as what it is: A hypothesis.

Which means you can design experiments, make predictions and uses the hypothesis to your liking!

As long as the hypothesis is interesting and you want to apply it... people can and will to whatever level of success they have as they are doing. Socionics is certainly not at the level of something as deterministic as physics and estimations based on physics, it's also not as magical as something like wiccan practices or astrology. It's methodology is inline with other social sciences, polling systems, political voting, economics amongst other pseudo-scientific practices.

As a whole socionics is a ethical study, based on qualities and compatibility of human relationships with a hypothesis on the underlying cause which is mechanistic and scientific in origin(althrough not proven in any sort of explicit detail).

[MysticSonic]

The thing with Socionics is that to make it of any use you must do a lot of personal experimentation and observation in order to ascertain whether or not the ideas presented within the theory or true or not. No one is going to be able to feed you evidence of the system. Socionics just isn't, and probably never will be, at that point.

[xerx]

Well, I fucking like poetry too. If I wanted to I could analyze why I like (or dislike) a poem. I could point to its metrical structure, its form, the rise and fall of the cadence, the phonosemantic and phonoaesthetic qualities of the language, consonance, assonance, alliteration, diction and rhyme, metaphor, imagery, the particular arrangement of aural and visual elements of a poem, its pathos, its poignancy.

The precise foundation for its aesthetic and emotional appeal I could pinpoint. But then, how do I say why that foundation is aesthetically and emotionally satisfying? Am I really supposed to say that all poetic information is broken up into 8 discrete categories and that I am intrinsically receptive to some of these categories more than others? Doesn't that debase the worth of the poem, my reaction to it, and the person who wrote it?

And that's just a poem. How can something so central to our lives like other human beings and interpersonal relationships be talked of in this way?

A stethoscope is a medical tool. In the hands of a layperson all it can measure is the rate of heartbeat. You can say that it inhumanely reduces a person to the beating of some ambiguous sounds. But in the hands of a professional, the beating reveals all sorts of hidden characteristics about the person's health and well-being. Unlike the layman, the professional transcends the use of the tool to understand the real medical problem of his subjects.

Socionics is no different. It's a tool we can use to understand the thoughts and motivations of people: their strengths, their fears, their dislikes. These in turn help paint a rudimentary picture of the individual, which can be used to springboard onto a higher understanding. A tool is only as keen as the intentions and expertise of the person using it. It is never dull in the hands of a true professional.

I'm afraid it is a little more complicated, because the age we live in is quite dehumanizing in and of itself, by virtue of popular scientific adherence to positivism. Any invention will no doubt be twisted to fit this reigning paradigm. But that is not the fault of Socionics, merely a symptom of the age we mutually inhabit.


ps. I'm sorry if my earlier post was dickish. I was a little drunk. I apologize for that.

[UDP]

The idea that value is something that can be quantified and categorized into discrete 16 units. I'm sure (well, I hope) everyone realizes that value is subjective and that the idea of "good" and "bad" types is preposterous, but the judgment is still there.

Good call.

Part of understanding socionics, just like understanding most fields of study, is realizing the bullshit that other people have brought into it, and separating that from what the theory itself is really talking about.