Skeptical

[Light_Keeper]

I'm new to this forum and I have just joined it recently more for personal reasons rather than actually find this theory to have any credibility. When I first heard about this theory, I put it down as merely hogwash. The idea that people can be put into categories seemed rather absurd. However, when I read the ESTJ descriptions it struck me like a sharp left hook. However, my opinion on this matter never wavered after I read the other descriptions out of curiosity and found that a lot of people I knew fit them quite well. Overall, I find that the descriptions were suited to universal behavior patterns and don't really adhere to the categorical assessment of people. The idea that our brains work in an ordered way relying on the basis of imaginary functions is sickening.

[Phaedrus]

Rather typical ESTj attitude ... What would (hypothetically) make you change your mind?

[Light_Keeper]

Rather typical ESTj attitude ... What would (hypothetically) make you change your mind?

A detailed study that is accepted in the scientific community.

[Joy]

OMG! An ESTj! Welcome to the forum. I believe you're the first of your type here... ESTjs generally don't find this type of theory interesting or useful (at least not enough to spend time online talking about it). Have you read the INFj description?

[CuriousSoul]

We have been missing ESTJs for some time, so please stay for a while even if you are skeptical - so are most of us. Socionics has not been scientifically validated and as long as there is no reliable method of determining the socionics types this seems just wishful thinking, but maybe one day... In practise many of us have some faith in the system because at least the intertype relations do often seem to match real life observations - and of course this Forum has become quite a community on its own right, so if you stay too long you risk getting addicted. :wink:

[FDG]

The idea that our brains work in an ordered way relying on the basis of imaginary functions is sickening.

How are they imaginary? They are defintions of informational pathaways that are translated into certain kind of behaviours. Since those definitions have been obtained through observation of real cases and not via deductive proof from arbitrarly set axioms, you can't really call them imaginary.

[Joy]

FDG makes a point. It's not like these laws of human bevahior were written and then people began acting that way. Socionics, functions, and inter type relationships are merely a few ways to drescribe human behavior, and are certainly not all encompassing.

[Rocky]

Rather typical ESTj attitude ... What would (hypothetically) make you change your mind?

A detailed study that is accepted in the scientific community.

Interesting comment. Especially since Carl Jung wrote that people who are dominanted by Extraverted Thinking generally only accept what can be proven and tested. Heh.

Anyway, they are processes of behavior at least. Whether or not you believe these are inborn differences are up to debate, but their observable qualities are certainly apparent.

[FDG]

Rather typical ESTj attitude ... What would (hypothetically) make you change your mind?

A detailed study that is accepted in the scientific community.

Interesting comment. Especially since Carl Jung wrote that people who are dominanted by Extraverted Thinking generally only accept what can be proven and tested. Heh.

Lol! Nice trick.

[XoX]

The idea that our brains work in an ordered way relying on the basis of imaginary functions is sickening.

Hi again And you could have picked a worse hobby than socionics If nothing else you will probably learn new things about yourself and from other people too.

About the "imaginary" functions. In the end socionics is only a model. Every model is "imaginary" in a way because well it is "just" a model of reality. In this case very high level model.

E.g. Newtonian physics is just a model (which have been replaced by a better model btw). It is not an accurate description of reality but only a tool that helps predicting some phenomena (but it has limitations because reality only follows it in some circumstances). But it is useful model in many ways. Socionics is a model and can be good or bad model. The fact it is hard to test objectively is a bad thing of course. So you have to be the scientist yourself (in a way).

[Light_Keeper]

The idea that our brains work in an ordered way relying on the basis of imaginary functions is sickening.

How are they imaginary? They are defintions of informational pathaways that are translated into certain kind of behaviours. Since those definitions have been obtained through observation of real cases and not via deductive proof from arbitrarly set axioms, you can't really call them imaginary.

The functions aren't necessarily imaginary, but what they portray is unrealistic due to the fact of consistency. Therefore they become imaginary, since they represent idealistic views of behaviour. The problem with this is that the majority of the population does not adhere specifically to these ideals. Realistically speaking, each person is an individual and his or her attributes can be a combination of every single type. Individuals are suspectible to certain behaviour patterns, but not consistent patterns that can be compared to individuals with the supposed same personality type.

[XoX]

In my opinion the patterns are there. The difficult part is to identify the patterns, model them and measure if the individual differences are so big that the patterns aren't too useful in practice. So far my subjective experience is that the patterns are useful but how useful? I can't tell.

In the end the whole typing thing exists because people saw these patterns and thought they are relevant enough to be modelled. I'm not sure if you have read original works of Jung e.g. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm it is useful because it gives the idea how and why Jung discovered and modelled the patterns. Socionics adds stuff to Jung theories and so far I haven't found good english articles about that.

[Expat]

The problem with this is that the majority of the population does not adhere specifically to these ideals.

This observation is based on as little data as you say that socionics has provided. Where do you get your "the majority of the population" information?

From your earlier posts, you seem to be basing this statement on your personal observations of "the majority of the population" and on the profiles you've read.

On the contrary, I say that a person experienced in socionics can recognize those consistent patterns in most people. But something must be clear: it's about predominance, not exclusivity.

[FDG]

The functions aren't necessarily imaginary, but what they portray is unrealistic due to the fact of consistency. Therefore they become imaginary, since they represent idealistic views of behaviour.

I haven't seen in the definitions of the functions that in order for a person to have let's say function A as dominant, he has to act 100% of the time following the behaviour described as the function A. That's precisely why types are composed of 8 functions, not only 1. Since we are speaking about social sciences, no one wants them to adhere to a rigid scientific framework that renders a whole theory useless only due to a result that contradicts the predictions made by a given theory since:

1 - This fact is not true even in real standard procedures, except for epistemology's books.

2 - Socionics's predictive power is not its main core, socionics is more of an explanation. (Very few psychological theories have predictive power btw).

The problem with this is that the majority of the population does not adhere specifically to these ideals. Realistically speaking, each person is an individual and his or her attributes can be a combination of every single type. Individuals are suspectible to certain behaviour patterns, but not consistent patterns that can be compared to individuals with the supposed same personality type.

You should back up what you are saying now, because I could say the opposite and it would be my word against yours.

I'd say that I have noticed consistent patterns that can be compared to the ones described by the same personality type. And no one of us would be "right".

[Eidos]

Overall, I find that the descriptions were suited to universal behavior patterns and don't really adhere to the categorical assessment of people. The idea that our brains work in an ordered way relying on the basis of imaginary functions is sickening.

What categorical assessment of people are you talking about?

And why would an idea or theory about the way our brains work be sickening? It provides ideas to test for Science.

[Light_Keeper]

The problem with this is that the majority of the population does not adhere specifically to these ideals.

This observation is based on as little data as you say that socionics has provided. Where do you get your "the majority of the population" information?

From your earlier posts, you seem to be basing this statement on your personal observations of "the majority of the population" and on the profiles you've read.

On the contrary, I say that a person experienced in socionics can recognize those consistent patterns in most people. But something must be clear: it's about predominance, not exclusivity.

Socionics is based on a grandeuse amount of data, however the problem is that only a minute amount is actually relevant. I am basing this on limited information, but that is because I don't find this theory useful enough to delve upon. Consistency is where the problem lies because I've learned from experience that the more concentrated the consistency, the more likely I am reading a lie. I am not denying the predominance of being more suspectible to a type than another, however that only brings justice to the descriptions. They are based on generalizations, which anyone can relate to. This leads to the possibility that they can be fabricated based on people's behaviour. If the above leads true then this theory is about behaviour patterns, but not a person's personality.

In my opinion the patterns are there. The difficult part is to identify the patterns, model them and measure if the individual differences are so big that the patterns aren't too useful in practice. So far my subjective experience is that the patterns are useful but how useful? I can't tell.

You can recognize patterns in almost anything come to think of it. With them you can create a grandeuse amount of theories with only a few of them being correct. MBTI and socionics are one of those theories, but that doesn't justify the means of them being correct. In my opinion, MBTI and socionics are simply derivatives of the end result of patterns. Thousands of derivatives could of been created from the product, but you ended up with two idealistic theories of bollocks.

[Eidos]

You can recognize patterns in almost anything come to think of it. With them you can create a grandeuse amount of theories with only a few of them being correct.

Generating ideas or theories is necessary for scientific progress. Exactly, you can recognize patterns in almost anything - this is the basis for human creativity. If they are correct or incorrect depends on their empirical verification. But science is an eternal process between ideas and facts, going from one to the other. You need to recognize the value of such unproven theories at least in generating new hypotheses to test, or coming up with a new paradigm.

MBTI and socionics are one of those theories, but that doesn't justify the means of them being correct. In my opinion, MBTI and socionics are simply derivatives of the end result of patterns. Thousands of derivatives could of been created from the product, but you ended up with two idealistic theories of bollocks.

The 4 scales used in the MBTI have already been validated by researchers in personality psychology. For example, they correlate well with four of the five dimensions of the Big Five, "THE" scientific theory of personality.

The MBTI merely categorizes people depending on their score tendencies. It is not merely a "derivative" of patterns. If it was, it would not relate to existing scientific theories of personality.

[Light_Keeper]

You can recognize patterns in almost anything come to think of it. With them you can create a grandeuse amount of theories with only a few of them being correct.

Generating ideas or theories is necessary for scientific progress. Exactly, you can recognize patterns in almost anything - this is the basis for human creativity. If they are correct or incorrect depends on their empirical verification. But science is an eternal process between ideas and facts, going from one to the other. You need to recognize the value of such unproven theories at least in generating new hypotheses to test, or coming up with a new paradigm.

Practical justification can only be satisfied from a theory that is proven to display adequate amounts of reliability. The theories that are merely based solely on patterns should be ignored merely for the fact that if they were tested empirically, they would display severe amounts of errors that cannot be tolerated with a topic such as this.

MBTI and socionics are one of those theories, but that doesn't justify the means of them being correct. In my opinion, MBTI and socionics are simply derivatives of the end result of patterns. Thousands of derivatives could of been created from the product, but you ended up with two idealistic theories of bollocks.

The 4 scales used in the MBTI have already been validated by researchers in personality psychology. For example, they correlate well with four of the five dimensions of the Big Five, "THE" scientific theory of personality.

The MBTI merely categorizes people depending on their score tendencies. It is not merely a "derivative" of patterns. If it was, it would not relate to existing scientific theories of personality.

Extraversion - E
Agreeableness - F
Conscientiousness - J
Neuroticism - ?
Openness to New Experiences - N

Is this how the big five correlate with this theory? I'm assuming this is displayed in a scale or else it would be demonstrating only 4/10 symbols if it weren't scaled. Just because it is linked to the big five doesn't necessarily give it justification. Using the most credible basis for a theory can result in a theory of fabrication and a fallacious nature as a result of misguided patterns.

[FDG]

The question is quite simple: you should understand that there are patterns that are not misguided, otherwise reality wouldn't even exist.

[XoX]

Hey Light_Keeper, could you elaborate more on your motives for joining and for having this discussion? I mean it seems like you have already decided that you will never take these theories seriously -> end of discussion. Is that it?

So are you here just to tell us that you will never believe this stuff and you are not open to the idea anymore and thus we should abandon socionics? Or are you testing if anyone here can convince you otherwise? Or what exactly is the point?

I mean I'm doubtful that your bashing has too much effect on people's opinions here if that is the point. There isn't anything new in it. Your opinions are good criticism which is always needed to keep people from falling into dream world. There is a lot of criticism in many threads which you will see if you read them. But you can't kill socionics or change another person's subjective experiences with your own subjective opinion (usually).

The point is...if you have decided you won't seriously consider socionics or even Jung's original idea of functions (and you don't have a better theory to replace it with) then going on with this conversation is rather pointless. It doesn't create any new understanding.

Personally I'm starting to like the concept of functions more and more. The functions identified by Jung seem a good set. Maybe there is a better way to describe them but still he has done good job. I do have some problems with the concept of type (which logically follows from functions but still assumes a lot more). And even if I believe the 16 types are a good way to represent the "idealistic" functional orders I'm not sure how could the type abstraction be used effectively. Is it better just to stick to using functions and assume individual differences are too big to effectively use the concept of types? (hello crosstype theory ).

I hope I didn't contradict too badly with my other writings on this forum I have been giving some thought to this after receiving similar criticism from a friend who always keeps me well grounded when I get too carried away Of course the fact that I haven't been able to find myself a type I can stick with affects things. Maybe some people fit to the "ideal" of type better than others. Many people seem to find their type instantly when for some it takes years and even then they are not sure.

[Expat]

One must not forget what sets socionics apart from those scale-based models such as MBTI and Big Five - - socionics is primarily an intertype relationship model; the functions and type descriptions derive from, and explain, primarily intertype relationships.

If, as I believe has happened, a team of socionists concludes that, in one city, 40% of all couples are duals - duality being only one in 16 possibilities - then I think this is evidence that there is more to it than self-dellusion or coincidence.

Perhaps one way to apply the methods of MBTI etc to socionics would be to create standard scales for "working of relationships" rather than personality traits of individuals, based on something like, "sincerity", "peace", "stress", "understanding" or whatever.

And then, from such tests, create a matrix of results of the relationships between pairs of people within a large group wherere everyone knows everyone.

The matrix would, by definition, determine how good the relationships are - from conflict to duality - and then it could be seen how the relationships correlate to the individuals' types according to MBTI, Big Five, etc.

[Eidos]

Practical justification can only be satisfied from a theory that is proven to display adequate amounts of reliability. The theories that are merely based solely on patterns should be ignored merely for the fact that if they were tested empirically, they would display severe amounts of errors that cannot be tolerated with a topic such as this.

I disagree, we wouldn't know until they were tested. To take a very extreme example, remember how Einstein's theory was shunned (for lack of provided evidence) until someone who tried to disprove it actually showed he was right. I prefer to remain agnostic about the correctness/incorrectness of a theory until tested. You cannot judge the veracity or validity without a test.

Extraversion - E
Agreeableness - F
Conscientiousness - J
Neuroticism - ?
Openness to New Experiences - N

Is this how the big five correlate with this theory? I'm assuming this is displayed in a scale or else it would be demonstrating only 4/10 symbols if it weren't scaled. Just because it is linked to the big five doesn't necessarily give it justification. Using the most credible basis for a theory can result in a theory of fabrication and a fallacious nature as a result of misguided patterns.

Yes, it's displayed as a scale.

Forget about the MBTI for a second. I suppose and hope you acknowledge fully the validity of the Big Five. Well, take the 5 dimensions and split each into 3 categories, starting from the average (= 50) and cutting off at +- 15. You'll get for example, somebody scoring 45 as an ambivert, scoring 32 as an Introvert and scoring 78 as an Extravert.

Now how is this really different from the MBTI?

The fact that the MBTI correlates with the Big Five is fundamental in showing its construct validity. It shows that they measure similar things. The correlation scores between the MBTI dimensions and Big Five dimensions are good. I will invite you to read this article summarizing different studies about it:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...01/ai_n9213480

(please note that this is not the full version because the full is restricted. All the tables are missing from this one)

You may also want to read the following:

Furnham, A. (1996). The Big Five versus the Big Four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the ???-PI five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 303-307.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40.

McDonald, D. A., Anderson, P. E., Tsagarakis, C. I., & Holland, J. H. (1994). Examination of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the NEO Personality Inventory, Psychological Reports, 74, 339-344.

Saggino, A., Cooper, C., & Kline, P. (2001 ). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 3-9.

[tcaudilllg]

I disagree, we wouldn't know until they were tested. To take a very extreme example, remember how Einstein's theory was shunned (for lack of provided evidence) until someone who tried to disprove it actually showed he was right. I prefer to remain agnostic about the correctness/incorrectness of a theory until tested. You cannot judge the veracity or validity without a test.

Einstein's theory wasn't shunned at all, at least by the people who mattered. Einstein was very respected before becoming famous, and the reason he fared so poorly in the beginning was because he tended to offend the instructors who could have helped him along. (nothing wrong with that)

Socionics is easy to test, provided you can get the purely differentiated types with which to conduct the tests. There are undifferentiated types out there too, who socionics doesn't account for.

But for most of the population, socionics works every time.

[Eidos]

Einstein's theory wasn't shunned at all, at least by the people who mattered. Einstein was very respected before becoming famous, and the reason he fared so poorly in the beginning was because he tended to offend the instructors who could have helped him along. (nothing wrong with that)

Sorry, but it was. Until 1919 when british eclipse expeditions confirmed his 1915 prediction, many scientists remained very skeptical of his theory.

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

Even after this, some people continued until the 30's to disbelieve Einstein or take antagonist positions.

Anyway, the point is that a theory needs to be tested.

But for most of the population, socionics works every time

There exists no evidence to back this claim up.

[Light_Keeper]

Hey Light_Keeper, could you elaborate more on your motives for joining and for having this discussion? I mean it seems like you have already decided that you will never take these theories seriously -> end of discussion. Is that it?

All your questions will be answered in the future when I create a thread that explains what motivated me to enter this forum and how I came to my conclusions. I have already answered when I will take the theory seriously previously. Just look at yourself, the accurate explanation of why your befuddled over your personality type is because the theory is filled with flaws.

The question is quite simple: you should understand that there are patterns that are not misguided, otherwise reality wouldn't even exist.

Patterns are only misguided as a result of the theory's poor implementation of them. Of course, naturally speaking the patterns are not misguided or scrambled or they won't even be patterns.

[Rocky]

Just look at yourself, the accurate explanation of why your befuddled over your personality type is because the theory is filled with flaws.

This is what I would agree with.

I have often thought that the definitions are not specific enough, and they are filled with a bunch of subjective hogwash that needs to be ironed out in order to keep some sort of consistancy. I don't think it should be confusing to know your type at all (if we are describing the right things then it shouldn't be).

So I do believe that the 16 classifications do exsit, but only our definitions of them are shaky.

[tcaudilllg]

Einstein's theory wasn't shunned at all, at least by the people who mattered. Einstein was very respected before becoming famous, and the reason he fared so poorly in the beginning was because he tended to offend the instructors who could have helped him along. (nothing wrong with that)

Sorry, but it was. Until 1919 when british eclipse expeditions confirmed his 1915 prediction, many scientists remained very skeptical of his theory.

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

Even after this, some people continued until the 30's to disbelieve Einstein or take antagonist positions.

Anyway, the point is that a theory needs to be tested.

But for most of the population, socionics works every time

There exists no evidence to back this claim up.

No it wasn't. Look a little closer. People like Maxwell Planck were believing Einstein long before 1919. Yes, many scientists were skeptical. Hell, some are still skeptical today. Because hey, they desired to disagree with him and yet he described the truth. Disagreement is the last resort of the damned.

Second, there were several unexplained phenomenon that had already been observed to be consistent with his theory. (the perihilion of Mercury, for example) The experiment of 1919 was the first successful calculation of a new phenomenon that had never before been observed. That's why it created such a stir.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Light_Keeper]

Light-Keeper,

I'm not in a great mood, so forgive my bluntness. I don't like the pretentious manner in which you write. You are using words without really understanding the meaning, and it's really grating on my nerves.

Gradeuse is not a word. Also, you do not "delve upon" something, that makes no sense; instead you delve INTO something. Okay, and this phrase "I am not denying the predominance of being more suspectible to a type than another," really irks me.

Yeah anyway, I'll put aside my irritation, and ignore the rest of those kinds of things for now. I too have been skeptical of socionics, but I haven't closed the door on the possibility that there might be something to it. I'd like to spend a little more time figuring it out before I jump to any conclusions. I can see how you could dismiss it as something not to be taken seriously, and look forward to your upcoming thread where you discuss the reasons that led you here. I think there might be something I can learn by being here, and the people are interesting. (Watch out, the forum and chat are addicting, even for skeptics :wink: )

I'm usually in a rush when I'm writing in this forum, so proofreading my posts was a low priority to me. I somewhat realized I did these grammatical errors while I was writing them. However, I didn't really give a shit because I wasn't aware that I was in a grammer school. I mixed up the word grandeuse with grandiose and I admit to doing some grammatical errors. I may have felt bitter at you when you denounced my grammer and language skills. However, I appreciate it when someone speaks their mind and I will work on it and be more careful in the future.

This is what I would agree with.

I have often thought that the definitions are not specific enough, and they are filled with a bunch of subjective hogwash that needs to be ironed out in order to keep some sort of consistancy. I don't think it should be confusing to know your type at all (if we are describing the right things then it shouldn't be).

So I do believe that the 16 classifications do exsit, but only our definitions of them are shaky.

The fact that the descriptions are subjective is something I couldn't care less about, since they rely on personal observations of people. Consistency is actually something I'm trying to avoid because then I know I'm reading some fabricated trash. The real problem lies with the functions themselves, which make sense when connected to specific personality types. However, there are many flaws and they aren't understood well enough in my opinion.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[XoX]

I'm not usually a member of the grammar-police, I only join for special occasions. Anyway, I don't think I've officially welcomed you. So welcome to the site, and I hope you stick around! (New blood would be good for us all I think, diversify the population and all that)

Light_Keeper, you can read this as: INFjs are in a real need for an ESTj to push them around so they can feel the mAgIc of duality I guess INFjs (and maybe INTjs) are only types that don't have any duals around here.

[Light_Keeper]

I find duality to be an over idealistic flawed attempt to find your mate. There are so many other forms of attraction involved that can tear this theory apart. Most people choose their spouse for biological reasons such as how they smell and their ability to be a good supporter. The smell indicates whether this person has a D.N.A. structure that can protect you from diseases that the other is not immune to. I forgot to say this before, but I'd like to thank everyone for welcoming me to this forum.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[XoX]

I'm not usually a member of the grammar-police, I only join for special occasions. Anyway, I don't think I've officially welcomed you. So welcome to the site, and I hope you stick around! (New blood would be good for us all I think, diversify the population and all that)

Light_Keeper, you can read this as: INFjs are in a real need for an ESTj to push them around so they can feel the mAgIc of duality I guess INFjs (and maybe INTjs) are only types that don't have any duals around here.

ha. that's not what I was saying.

Aww...of course not. You are not that sneaky When INFjs get sneaky the aRmAgEdDoN is near.

[Eidos]

I find duality to be an over idealistic flawed attempt to find your mate. There are so many other forms of attraction involved that can tear this theory apart. Most people choose their spouse for biological reasons such as how they smell and their ability to be a good supporter. The smell indicates whether this person has a D.N.A. structure that can protect you from diseases that the other is not immune to. I forgot to say this before, but I'd like to thank everyone for welcoming me to this forum.

I would be interested to hear your response to my previous post.

You seemed well versed in these things. Who exactly are you? Why are you here? What do you do for a living?

I think there are two different things:

1) The observable behavior and traits (4 scales). This makes perfect sense.

2) The functions theory and intertype relations does not make as much sense. However, you need to treat it with a grain of salt, purely holistically. A fun theory to play around.