Rick's Socionics Videos

[JohnDo]

but we're still left with the fact that a person rejects one dual and accepts another

I think this is simply because there are different subtypes. Most people on this forum use 16 or 32 types but the 64 DCNH types are getting more and more popular. Tcaudillg and others (including myself) already work with 256 types...

The model of 8 functions interchanging information with the functions of other individuals is not complex enough to explain what actually goes on between people.

Agreed. That's why we need Model B, then Model C, then Model D,..., Model Z. But currently there is not even an English article about Model B on wikisocion. Don't you like Model B?

Leave socionics out of the picture for a moment, and it becomes easy. One is rational because he has well-developed mental abilities and rational thought, and probably a higher IQ. Another one may be less mental, with less academic training, etc. Often explanations for things lie on the surface, not hidden deep within Model A...

No, that is not a satisfying conclusion. The first might be an SLE with an LII subtype whereas the second SLE might have an SLE subtype. Isn't that a better explanation?

[mu4]

I think this is simply because there are different subtypes. Most people on this forum use 16 or 32 types but the 64 DCNH types are getting more and more popular. Tcaudillg and others (including myself) already work with 256 types...

I work with 256 types(16 subtype model), but also I don't have a need to type everyone with a subtype. I don't even type anyone more then 4 subtypes because simply there isn't enough information to make the assessment.

No, that is not a satisfying conclusion. The first might be an SLE with an LII subtype whereas the second SLE might have an SLE subtype. Isn't that a better explanation?

Not necessarily, it depends on if subtype is intrinsic and relatively immutable like type is. Even Gulenko says subtype might be changeable, I think he even go as far as saying that it changes. If subtype is changeable it becomes much less useful analysis in some ways, but still useful in other ways.

I like subtype theory, but I think things like Reinin which are actually deductions from Model A are better avenues to investigate from a explanatory standpoint.

Real-life observations of types: there's always a "kernel of a type" within a person that becomes obvious over time, but one SLE may be highly rational in thought and another one irrational. If you are obligated to relate everything to a socionics function, it's hard to explain. Leave socionics out of the picture for a moment, and it becomes easy. One is rational because he has well-developed mental abilities and rational thought, and probably a higher IQ. Another one may be less mental, with less academic training, etc. Often explanations for things lie on the surface, not hidden deep within Model A...

Although it's easy to explain with the surface rationalizations, by account for the differences in people merely in a unsystematic, "Oh it's the environment" manner, it's a bit lacking in curiosity. It's more curious to say that it's possible to investigate the manner by which type develop and the effect of different environmental pressures has on type. You can look at the issues of class, gender, education, indoctrination and other environmental pressures on different types and their expression of type. I think there is some fairly static personality element that exists in people, which can be described in 4-bit by socionics, but I also believe there is the possibility of describing in much higher resolution. However, at a certain point we will need to instrument the method of analysis. Actually it's fairly necessary that a means of detecting personality outside of questionnaires and observation be researched. A computerized VI mechanism, EEG, MRI choice analysis algorithms, many other systems are viable for this.

When I was working on the Netflix Prize recommendation system, I learned quite about about methods of data analysis. One of the most important aspect of all the algorithms, including the winning ones, had to do with single value decomposition.

Singular value decomposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Within single value decompositions there were groups of movies which were statistically high quality predictors of future choices. It's pretty curious how the movie groups are laid out, because when analyzed the SVD values often indicated a level of information preference.

svd8movielists - pragmatictheory

This is a SVD 8(3-bit) movie list from one of the members of the winning team.

Pragmatic Theory: October 2008 This is the blog post about it.

The left column is high ranking values, the right column is low ranking values.

I'm basically 100% sure that data analysis can reveal varying levels of information preference far more accurately then human typing. Also at much higher granularity.

The data that generated this analysis included 3 elements of information.

1. Movie
2. User
3. Rank (1-5)

The key to this data is that it has a information object(a movie), a person, and a choice. So any data that has a information object(book/movie/etc), a person, and their choice can be put thru the same system.

However, a typing mechanism isn't there to get a recommendation list for whatever content is being sold, but rather for acquiring a SVD value for a user, which is a indication of information preference.

[Krig the Viking]

In socionics "dualization" is basically a synonym for "falling in love." It can happen with types other than your dual, and you won't fall in love with all duals. Early socionists, and some today still talk of dualization as if it were some special socionics-specific phenomenon, when in fact what they're describing is simply the state of being in love. You might say, "well yes, but with a dual you get what you're expecting, and with other types you don't." But looking at couples who have been married for 20 years or more, I have to say that some non-duals still have a spark of true love.

I don't know about that. What about heterosexual same-gender duality? I wouldn't consider that "falling in love", but it does result in dualization.

My current theory on Romantic Love (as opposed to the other three types of love defined by C. S. Lewis: Affection, Friendship, and Charity) is that Romantic Love occurs when we find a person who resembles, to a greater or lesser degree, our own internal "ideal mate" archetype (which will tend to resemble our Dual). The real person and the archetype become blended in our minds, and we begin feeling for this real person those romantic feelings which we had previously reserved for the archetype of "the person I hope to meet someday". In non-Duality, we later slowly begin to notice all the ways in which this real person does not resemble our "ideal mate" archetype, causing us to begin separating the person and the archetype again, and our feelings of romantic love dwindle accordingly. In Duality, however, we continually discover new ways in which this person resembles our ideal archetype even more than we'd initially thought, and the love grows stronger.

We don't fall in love with same-gender duals, because our "ideal mate" archetype is by definition (in most people) the opposite gender.

I do agree that socionics type comprises only one level of the psyche, but that should only encourage us to learn how the other levels work in conjunction with the sociotype, not cause us to give up on the whole endeavour.

But then again, as I say, I'm speaking from a Base-Ti perspective, so my response to these sorts of problems will naturally be different from a Vulnerable-Ti's.

[Words]

Well, you have to understand I'm starting from Augusta's understanding of socionics. She herself wrote something to the effect of, "it's unclear how, given our model, people are able to survive without duals at all." She wrote a monograph on how ILE is the best type for the leader of a research institute. Her descriptions of Ne in particular or not strictly Ne per se, but the Ne of an academically minded person.

In socionics "dualization" is basically a synonym for "falling in love." It can happen with types other than your dual, and you won't fall in love with all duals. Early socionists, and some today still talk of dualization as if it were some special socionics-specific phenomenon, when in fact what they're describing is simply the state of being in love. You might say, "well yes, but with a dual you get what you're expecting, and with other types you don't." But looking at couples who have been married for 20 years or more, I have to say that some non-duals still have a spark of true love.

Of course, these and numerous other minor misconceptions can be corrected, but we're still left with the fact that a person rejects one dual and accepts another, or even prefers someone of another type who is easier to deal with than a dual that for some reason is not. The model of 8 functions interchanging information with the functions of other individuals is not complex enough to explain what actually goes on between people. So many, "ifs, ands, and buts" have to be added. It's also clear that the socionics model is not a model of the psyche, but just a layer of the psyche. I disagree that you can relate any stimulus-response relationship to one of the 8 functions. If you start doing that, things just get too complicated. Why, then, does one IEE have heightened sensitivity to a class of phenomena when another one doesn't?

Real-life observations of types: there's always a "kernel of a type" within a person that becomes obvious over time, but one SLE may be highly rational in thought and another one irrational. If you are obligated to relate everything to a socionics function, it's hard to explain. Leave socionics out of the picture for a moment, and it becomes easy. One is rational because he has well-developed mental abilities and rational thought, and probably a higher IQ. Another one may be less mental, with less academic training, etc. Often explanations for things lie on the surface, not hidden deep within Model A...

Of course, all these points are debatable!

I thought about posting an article that i'd wrote before (not on this site) in regards to this, but i'll sumarise it in a nutshell.

I'm assuming you've heard of chaos theory and therefore the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect, seems to me this explains RL socionics pretty well.

However i'll elaborate somewhat: what it is explaining is that in the natural world, it is impossible for any formula to predict with 100% accuracy how something will turn out. A real time example that we can see every day is the weather forcasting, another example would be holding a lit match between two mirrors, over the multiples and multiples of reflections, the image becomes more and more blurred from it's original source and we cannot predict how it will turn out. Simply, there are simply too many factors that can be subject to random chance variation for any formula to stay 100% true over time, just like people and the formula of socionics.

However, as you mention, there is some kernal of truth to socionics, again using chaos theory, from something i've wrote previously, as mentioned above, although not here (when I was more interested in socionics, and deliberating over it some more):

A mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot, produced an equation which works as "feedback loop" - similar to how real things actually function like the weather, people, actual chemical reactions in that they interact with their environment.

Here's the equation: zn+1 = zn2 + c

When he filtered this equation into a computer to see what it produced, it resulted in producing the following random shapes, which go on forever, but can't be entirely predicted:

YouTube - Mandelbrot Set Zoom

You can see as it zooms in it is growing infinitely, yet at the same time the same shape appears over and over.

So as you can see, there are random fluctuations in the image, however there is also the same basic shape popping up. I akin this to people being far too complicated to predict entirely, yet the 'kernal' of type you mention - the same sort of image still appears.

So, even for instance, building sub type upon sub type to 'improve' the formula, it is still simply impossible to predict how people will work, be formed, and therefore their relationships with 100% accuracy. As such, we can have people who reject duals, people who are happily married to their conflictor, and also examples of duality and socionics in general at times working.

My approach, is therefore to consider socionics as one of many things as a tool in life. It has practical application, sometimes it works, but like all things in the natural world, chaos theory reminds us that it we simply cannot expect things to be predicted with 100% accuracy, such as people, the types and relationships.

I personally feel this is a good way to marry the concept of socionics with the application of it in the natural world, as a side note, if one wishes it, it could even be said that the formula (socionics) is Ti, and the dynamic application of it - it's dynamic changes, is Te, so from a philosophical POV, there's no conflict between two such attitudes (even if they exist) .... at least for now as we go through life with something which to my knowledge hasn't even been empirically tested, but is a somewhat philosophical approach to us.

IE: it's common sense and scientific to not expect 100% classification from any personality theory.

[mu4]

So, even for instance, building sub type upon sub type to 'improve' the formula, it is still simply impossible to predict how people will work, be formed, and therefore their relationships with 100% accuracy. As such, we can have people who reject duals, people who are happily married to their conflictor, and also examples of duality and socionics in general at times working.

I don't think that's necessarily the point. Being able to accurately and as objectively as possibly explain something is a process, being able to utilize it or make predictions about it sometimes come later. I can take high resolution shots of the world and put it on a program like Google Earth, but what I can do with these pictures may not necessarily be known or explored for a while. There is definitely merit to simply improving the resolution of type analysis, via extensions for human typing and also mechanically with instrumentation of typing.

IE: it's common sense and scientific to not expect 100% classification from any personality theory.

100% might not be possible, but you can get pretty damn close.

[Rick]

Wow, I didn't foresee my post generating so much intelligent response My views on socionics aren't a methodological statement, but just my personal attitude having to do with how much of the available theoretical apparatus is relevant to my needs and to my thinking.

On one hand, there is intrinsic value in having a single system that is able to account for as many phenomena as possible rather than a hodgepodge of mostly unrelated explanations accounting for the same phenomena.

On the other hand, if each of these unrelated explanations is simple and straitforward, then they may be easier to apply in practice than using a single explanatory system whose complexity tends to increase exponentially.

So, for instance, if I use a 7-factor typology where each factor is basically unrelated to the others (see The Socionist: My Personal Typology for an example) and the complexity of each typology is equal to "4", then the sum of my efforts in applying the typology is 7 x 4 = 28 units of complexity. If, on the other hand, I develop only one of these explanatory approaches and introduce more and more sophistication into it (the equivalent of building subtypes upon subtypes), I may end up with a system whose complexity of application is 4 to the 7th power, or 16384 units of complexity.

A clumsy demonstration, but it gets the idea across. I have the impression that getting "too much" into socionics can make a person blind to the obvious. Rather than a person being "hotheaded," which presumably has a simple physiological explanation, they become an "SEE subtype," for instance -- a statement that not only has no plausible physiological explanation (that we know of), but also requires a great deal of effort to theoretically substantiate what exactly the nature of this subtype is relative to the base type and how this additional subtype modifies the nature of the person's interaction with all other subtypes of all types.

I have known enough people of at least a subset of the 16 types to know that, besides socionic type, there are many other inborn and unchangeable traits that affect a person's personality. It is a common mistake among socionists to assume that anything other than type (or subtype, or subsubtype) is the result of culture or the environment rather than genes. The fact is, the range of temperamental traits within each type is substantial and cannot be explained by differences in upbringing and culture alone.

On the whole, socionists seem to be hostile (usually subtly rather than overtly) to the use of simple, non-discrete trait measures such as IQ or others such as those in my blog post, cited above. However, personality psychology in its current empirical form is much friendlier towards non-discrete measures than discrete (i.e. all manner of typologies claiming neat divisions between types).

>> "No, that is not a satisfying conclusion. The first might be an SLE with an LII subtype whereas the second SLE might have an SLE subtype. Isn't that a better explanation?"

But is it a satisfying explanation to say that higher IQ is related to LII subtypes and lower IQ to an SLE subtype? Then we get into the problem of relating intelligence to certain functions, which doesn't make sense in my experience because IQ really doesn't correlate that well with type. Furthermore, IQ is different from the 8 functions in that similarity rather than complementarity determines compatibility… in other words, two duals with similar IQs tend to be more compatible than two with opposite IQs. So trying to relate IQ to one or more socionic categories leads to intractable theoretical difficulties that I'd just assume avoid.

>> "Agreed. That's why we need Model B, then Model C, then Model D,..., Model Z. But currently there is not even an English article about Model B on wikisocion. Don't you like Model B?"

That's the "4 to the 7th power" situation I described above. To use such a complex theoretical apparatus well one would need to devote one's entire life to the comprehension and elucidation of socionics theory. I'm not sure such a person would actually understand what makes people tick any better than people who employ a simpler and more intuitive approach.

To be honest, I don't know Model B. I took a cursory look at an article on the subject once, but it did not catch my interest. I doubt Bukalov began typing better after inventing Model B.

>> "Although it's easy to explain with the surface rationalizations, by account for the differences in people merely in a unsystematic, "Oh it's the environment" manner, it's a bit lacking in curiosity."

Indeed, but I am primarily interested in unchanging aspects of personality, as are most other people here. Socionics' 16-type system cannot account for all important inborn personality/temperamental variation between people, where "important" means "having a significant effect on one's interactions with others."

>> "I'm basically 100% sure that data analysis can reveal varying levels of information preference far more accurately then human typing. Also at much higher granularity."

You may be onto something. But I'm convinced that any new breakthroughs will come through instruments and experiments (in this case in the area of data analysis), or from breakthroughs in related sciences, and not from simply thinking about socionics theory in a vacuum. People have been doing that for 30 years and seem to have gotten nowhere.

>> "I don't know about that. What about heterosexual same-gender duality? I wouldn't consider that "falling in love", but it does result in dualization."

I think true, "deep" dualization requires complete emotional and physical intimacy, whereas a platonic same-sex friendship would serve to improve (presumably) many attitudes and life skills, but wouldn't touch certain layers of the self that are laid bare only in intimacy.

[Rick]

Aixelsyd, I basically agree with you, but you're also describing duality in lofty terms -- a "perfect blend," "two puzzle pieces," etc. But what about dull duality? What about the duals you're not attracted to, who have nothing interesting to say to you, who make you feel at ease but nothing more than that goes on?

I've met a lot of duals like this. For me, the duality you describe is the exception, not the rule. One of the subtle deceptions in Augusta's socionics is that duality is described in its best-case scenario, conflict in its worst-case scenario, and everything else as "so-so, but not as good as duality (in its best-case scenario)."

[mu4]

Indeed, but I am primarily interested in unchanging aspects of personality, as are most other people here. Socionics' 16-type system cannot account for all important inborn personality/temperamental variation between people, where "important" means "having a significant effect on one's interactions with others."

I differ on the important part, I just like to look at areas that have the highest amount of exploratory advancement. Because that's more important to me, I'm not sure if you can systematically improve your interactions with other people or at least I don't value improve my interactions with others with socionic theory. I rather just you know, become a "better person" in a more intrinsic fashion. I guess this probably has to do with different approaches based on different valued functions. I think just being able to reliably instrumentally type, you will get a dramatic benefit in the quality of the theory. Because then you will have a good way of determining inter-type relationships quality. I think that would be a major breakthough in socionics, but there might be others.

You may be onto something. But I'm convinced that any new breakthroughs will come through instruments and experiments (in this case in the area of data analysis), or from breakthroughs in related sciences, and not from simply thinking about socionics theory in a vacuum. People have been doing that for 30 years and seem to have gotten nowhere.

I've been saying this ever since I started taking socionics seriously, all my meetings with other people, I always try to introduce something from outside of socionics, whether it be AI or philosophy of the mind or operant conditioning and other directly and indirectly related studies. Socionics is already sound in my opinion theoretically, but it's a platform that seriously needs applications.

[Creepy-male]

I'm assuming you've heard of chaos theory and therefore the Butterfly effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, seems to me this explains RL socionics pretty well.

I agree, essentially chaos is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. In classical science, people considered that simply knowing the initial position and velocity of every particle in the universe could be used to predict the future for all time. In classical science, this made sense, as their was a large emphasis on using mathematical models of physics to predict the outcome of a system deterministically. You input initial conditions and extract a final outcome. However in reality it was discovered some systems exhibit chaos. If you were to alter the initial conditions even an infintesmal amount this small amount would eventually over time build to produce a strong marked effect. If you go in a lab and chart the progress of a chaotic system in two different trials trying as hard as possible to control the initial conditions, then compare the data... at first they match up rather well, but over time they diverge greatly and look disimilar as a result of the inability to absolutely control the initial conditions perfectly. This is where the butterfly affect comes into play. If you consider say the whether a system... something inconsequential like a butterfly flapping its wings and causing a gust of air, could put in motion a chain of events which drastically alters whether patterns culiminating in a tsunami in japan that was not possible if the butterfly did not flap its wings.

Chaos theory really isn't "Chaotic" in the strictest sense, but it does mean something very important.... it means if you want to be absolutely deterministic about predicting something in a chaotic system, you must be absolutely precise in your understanding of the initial conditions of something, because even the slightest difference can produce drastic results.

Socionics is much like this.... Model A isn't a perfect predictor, or else a perfect understanding of the human psyche is required. Otherwise the smallest perturbations or differences in a real human psyche from a simplistic model like Model A is likely to produce a chain of psychological events that the predictions of Model A can't account for. This doesn't make Model A useless, it only places a practical bound on the usefulness of Model A. One could refer to certain psychological events that are attempting to be predicted with Model A as "chaotic in nature" and thus cannot be predicted by Model A.

[Jimbean]

>> "I don't know about that. What about heterosexual same-gender duality? I wouldn't consider that "falling in love", but it does result in dualization."

I think true, "deep" dualization requires complete emotional and physical intimacy, whereas a platonic same-sex friendship would serve to improve (presumably) many attitudes and life skills, but wouldn't touch certain layers of the self that are laid bare only in intimacy.

So, in another words, a male/female dichotomy should be considered for a filth dimension. I mean, I would imagine that male/female differences would be a bigger division (sorry Vero) than temperamental or cultural differences in my opinion, but I am no expert either.

[Jarno]

socionics is only about information interaction, it's not about everything that is going on when two people meet. Socionics never claimed the latter. What's new...

[sigma]

Aixelsyd, I basically agree with you, but you're also describing duality in lofty terms -- a "perfect blend," "two puzzle pieces," etc. But what about dull duality? What about the duals you're not attracted to, who have nothing interesting to say to you, who make you feel at ease but nothing more than that goes on?

I'm just a novice but... here are some of my thoughts:

To get a "good" duality in a romantic situation you have to have physical attraction too. And this varies along a continuum. High physical attraction draws more attention and the other person will feel this bonus of attention.

Another thing I view relevant is the dimension of self-actualization. The attitude towards a "low life" dual will be very very different from the attitude towards a "high life" dual.
i.e. I met 2 girls, both duals, one is unemployed, boring and fat, the other one is a thin, energetic business owner . I think it is easy to understand why I find the first one a nuisance and the second one a very interesting person. I want more from life and even if the first one encourages me, I perceive her as a weight keeping me down somehow. I want a journey partner NOT a cheerleader.