Is Socionics a Belief or a Theory?

[golden]

What patterns are we talking about? The patterns that emerge in people that Jung originally observed through study of multiple time periods and cultures? The patterns Augusta settled on through Jung based on her own individual study (whatever that implies)? Or the patterns you see every day in people around you (meaning present, one culture)? Don't you think that if you were to construct a personality theory based on the people around you, the 'patterns' you observe are going to be fairly different from the patterns someone in another culture identified due to differences in 'upbringing, stage of development, class/income, color, creed, and culture'? Don't you think that both of your structures would differ from a structure that takes both of your perspectives into account?

That means you are taking the patterns socionics proposes for granted and on faith because you don't have the tools Jung had when he conducted his studies and structured his ideas. The only tools you have are what you see around you, and when you practice socionics (and not your personally constructed personality theory), you're saying 'I trust this man's thorough investigation of mankind so much so that I would take his structure that applies to all human beings over my own structure *or* I have studied his structure so much and convinced myself of its accuracy that his structure and mine are one and the same'.

Is this observation of patterns faith based or knowledge based? I would say 'faith' because you are putting faith in Jung that he was smart enough to define a set of principles that apply even to your personal section of people in the world.

Well, I don't think I'm taking it on faith that any one particular set of patterns is more true than another. I'm interested in any typology system I can get my hands on, from any culture, and I find they all have some usefulness to me, as long as I don't let them get in the way of perceiving people as they are. Rather, typology helps me to deepen my sense that one person's reality differs from another's, and the better systems (like Socionics) give some possible reasons for why those differences exist.

Nor do I take it on faith that people fall neatly into types--in my experience, they roughly DO, which is why I find typology interesting to begin with.

But are we all just wasting our time here? lol, probably. I'd rather waste my time on this right now than on watching old episodes of Top Chef, but maybe next month I'll change my mind and settle in for Season 4. And that's about the level of seriousness I'm indulging in here. I love Top Chef, and Socionics is cool, too.

[Skeptic]

Well, I don't think I'm taking it on faith that any one particular set of patterns is more true than another. I'm interested in any typology system I can get my hands on, from any culture, and I find they all have some usefulness to me, as long as I don't let them get in the way of perceiving people as they are. Rather, typology helps me to deepen my sense that one person's reality differs from another's, and the better systems (like Socionics) give some possible reasons for why those differences exist.

Nor do I take it on faith that people fall neatly into types--in my experience, they roughly DO, which is why I find typology interesting to begin with.

But are we all just wasting our time here? lol, probably. I'd rather waste my time on this right now than on watching old episodes of Top Chef, but maybe next month I'll change my mind and settle in for Season 4. And that's about the level of seriousness I'm indulging in here. I love Top Chef, and Socionics is cool, too.

Well I wouldn't want to study a personality system like socionics or MBTI with little factual basis to base people's personalities on just as I wouldn't want to study a spiritual system like Islam or Christianity to base everyone's spirituality on, you know what I mean? I couldn't justify my belief in your personality type through socionics or MBTI and the idea that it has held true in my personal experience just as I couldn't justify my belief in your spirituality based on Christianity/Islam just because in my experience Christian/Islamic spiritual principles have held true. I need some knowledge, i.e. truth or evidence before I put stock in these systems or I feel I might be wasting my time and hurting my mind.

For those of us who desire a sense of internal consistency with our beliefs, this topic isn't a waste of time, but a rescuer of time. For everyone else, it's something of a word game; if you support, you win by providing a knowledge basis or a good enough reason for belief, if you are against you win by providing counter examples or reason not to believe. I've always found these types of word games fun . Top chef is good too, guess it depends on your inclination towards word games.

Socionics is something that's naturally intertwined in reality is what I'm getting at. It's one of those things where it always existed and always will exist, there's nothing 'to do with it', it just describes what is already going on. The reason you're 'skeptical' about it, is because there is no real practical application or business commerce use for socionics, other than in the self-help area.

Er, do you have any proof that socionics is 'actually going on' any more than MBTI is? What proves socionics to you?

[Park]

Well I wouldn't want to study a personality system like socionics or MBTI with little factual basis to base people's personalities on just as I wouldn't want to study a spiritual system like Islam or Christianity to base everyone's spirituality on, you know what I mean? I couldn't justify my belief in your personality type through socionics or MBTI and the idea that it has held true in my personal experience just as I couldn't justify my belief in your spirituality based on Christianity/Islam just because in my experience Christian/Islamic spiritual principles have held true. I need some knowledge, i.e. truth or evidence before I put stock in these systems or I feel I might be wasting my time and hurting my mind.

For those of us who desire a sense of internal consistency with our beliefs, this topic isn't a waste of time, but a rescuer of time. For everyone else, it's something of a word game; if you support, you win by providing a knowledge basis or a good enough reason for belief, if you are against you win by providing counter examples or reason not to believe. I've always found these types of word games fun . Top chef is good too, guess it depends on your inclination towards word games.



Er, do you have any proof that socionics is 'actually going on' any more than MBTI is? What proves socionics to you?

Spoken like a true Alpha NT.

[DividedsGhost]

While it's true we are destined to subjectively define our existence, it is not true that the physical world cannot be quantified on a personality level and cannot be called upon to aid in our understanding of ourselves. For example, we can identify parts of our physical brain that control and regulate different patterns of thought, like one region regulating certain emotions. We can further identify the circumstances in which increased activity is had in these parts of the brain (ex. I'm listening to music, certain emotions get stimulated). That means we really do have a phsyical measuring stick for subjective responses to situations, and this is just the tip of the iceberg; I have a feeling that over the next few decades increased study on the brain and on genetics will reveal far more about ourselves than we could imagine.

This is true, but just because we can visualize certain regions of a brain activating more on average over a period of time doesn't mean that person doesn't have some inherent choice of which regions they decide to use, develop, or activate depending on the situation of their surroundings in regards to personality. By forming a judgement of that person's personality and enforcing it you also influence how their personality will be represented, no matter the evidence that is used. I then submit that you are correct that we can at least see that these regions exist in a human brain and we can accurately make associations with the functioning of the parts. That is what I would call concrete science because it just states the facts and doesn't influence the future with predictions that arguing a personality would or that making and acting on any predictions would.

Also, for reference, to assume no inherent choice (or that all action can be explained through cause-and-effect relationships of the physics that make up a living being) is to believe everything is pre-destined. Then one's reliance on complete science also becomes a form of belief.

Also, it can be shown that it is true that in the highest of objective order that the physical world cannot be quantified on a personality level and cannot be called upon to aid in any 'ultimate truth' understanding of ourselves. Then the truth is completely up to a subject to form for them-self. I explain this below.

That is to say that the mind's subjective responses to situations can be objectively gauged through phsyical study of the brain (theoretically and based on our current understanding; this isn't verified with our future understanding of the situation). My question to socionics is how physically accurate does it claim to be and how far do we believe it to be? Most importantly, is our belief justified?

I read the following idea from someone that posted on an MBTI website, but it makes complete sense to me. So here it is.

Yes and no, are genetics are the blueprints of our functioning, but time defines us and are thoughts follow from and are defined from the past. The pattern that we then leave through time is of a nuanced difference for each of us because we each occupy a different pattern of stimuli on our blueprints, proven by the fact that since we never occupy the same space we will have different frames of reference from which to view and interpret the surrounding stimuli, no matter how similar the conclusions might seem or be. Then if the pattern we each leave is different and any conclusions we make about the past influences or predicts the future when we act on it (which is the nature of consciousness) this changes the overall flow of our pattern through time (making its presentation random to us in the moment). Then is it really possible, from the patterns left behind and our dilemma of being required to make conscious decisions to exist, to ever completely define ourselves? No, it is not. Life is a subjective experience. There's no scientific way around that.

Then Socionics and psychology can only provide an overall template to view these past patterns from and help us try to form some basic conclusions and predictions. But these conclusions and predictions also influence the future, so it is not concrete science, since just because the same results occurred 9 trillion times for someone doesn't mean that person can be any more certain than if the results occurred only once. It could of taken a chain of events of 9 trillion equal results to finally change the result. Our perception of our world is random, constantly changing as we react, change, and act on it. And nothing regarding consciousness will have complete certainty given the nature of it. So consciousness is not a concrete thing. Then it's your choice to have truth in it and use it. And you get to decide how truthful it is.

Science however, in terms of facts, does exist, but it is separate from theory. This is why physics is more precisely referred to as a theory because it takes the facts and attempts to predict.

But then is theory and belief really all that different? I don't know how to answer that. And I don't think I want to try.

Unless you believe the mind leads its own mystical, esoteric existence to which physical laws don't apply, to which I and the scientific community centered around brain study would probably disagree.

No, I don't believe such a thing.

[Jarno]

Can falsification be used as a criteria when it comes to social sciences?

[DividedsGhost]

Yes, as a reminder that the knowledge and conclusions noted are always justifiably up for debate.