How accurate do you feel is Socionics in your life?

[DividedsGhost]

I'm just curious what everyone thinks since there are a lot of people that post that seem to give the impression that it hasn't been at all useful for them in understanding other people.

[Beautiful sky]

It's been great for understanding the people i already know and even making new connections; it's been terrible with connecting with my duals on a love interest aspect of it. It's extremely useful. Introverts often keep so much of themselves to themselves that it's hard to "read" them unless you're observing them, for me, observation isn't all that great, so I like knowing what motivates them using the tools I have in my Socionics tool kit.

[Marie84]

Works on myself and works well on most people I meet (I don't have to know them that well).
that's pretty much where I stand on applying it. It's played a more obvious role with the closer, long term, relations than anything else

[Simon Ssmall]

It works well enough, it is just not that important.

[krieger]

works better than a randomizer algorithm.

[Slacker]

It seems pretty accurate from what I've seen wtih people I know.

[Jarno]

works very well.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's 100% accurate, I understand the theory really well, I can see how other people's relationships work out well, the problem is- is that it doesn't really help me actually 'do anything', it only explains what has already existed. So it has the equivalency of the 'absent-minded professor' who studies well and knows interesting things, but isn't practical enough to take care of their every day living responsibilities....

Socionics isn't really helpful is what I'm saying. It's just incredibly interesting. It isn't practically purposeful, and isn't really helpful at all. It's just more like narcissistic knowledge-seeking. It just accurately explains what you already deep down what was true- the functions are so ingrained into reality that way.

So it's intelligent but that's really all it is. It just sorta has the tendency to make everybody psychologically shout over one another and ego attack. Idk. I sorta have this urge to be all 'come back down to reality.'

What is really good for you in life usually isn't all that 'interesting' at first, but once you lose it, you're like 'Oh fuck.'

I tried to apply socioincs in my real life but it doesn't work because it's just too ingrained in reality like that. It's too deeply embedded. It's like trying to apply algebra in your real life you know? It's just too intellectual-ish. Like Gilly says 'the functions are already in everything, anyway.'

[Jarno]

There's much less research on it, and no empirical evidence that it's based on.

how do you know this for a fact?

I've seen a lot of russian sites that have done research on the subject.

[Jarno]

From a purely scientific point of view, it really isn't much better than astrology.

from a philosophical point of view, astrology hasn't got the same kind of scientific followers in their crowd that socionics has. This is one criteria of solving the demarcation problem.

[Bluenoir]

from a philosophical point of view, astrology hasn't got the same kind of scientific followers in their crowd that socionics has. This is one criteria of solving the demarcation problem.

OMG, you cain't be serious. Philosophical? Do you even know what the word means? Philosophical in what way! This is something that needs to be defined.

Appealing to some vague "scientific" followers is meaningless. Socionics must stand on it's own merits. Relativity isn't true, beacuse Einstein said so. It's true beacuse so far it has been able to stand on it's own merits.

Socionics has nothing but anecdote

I'm sorry, but it's pointless to continue with you. You are a cultist.

[Jarno]

Philosophical in what way! This is something that needs to be defined.

this is what I was referring to:

Thagard's method
There has been some decrease in interest in the demarcation problem in recent years. Part of the problem is that many suspect that it is an intractable problem, since so many previous attempts have come up short. For example, many obvious examples of pseudoscience have been shown to be falsifiable, or verifiable, or revisable. Therefore many of the previously proposed demarcation criteria have not been judged as particularly reliable.
Paul R. Thagard has proposed another set of principles to try to overcome these difficulties, and believes it is important for society to find a way of doing so. According to Thagard's method, a theory is not scientific if it satisfies two conditions:
It is unpromising: The theory has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; and...
The Scientific Method is not being adhered to: The community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations.[10][11]
Thagard specifies that sometimes theories will spend some time as merely "unpromising" before they truly deserve the title of pseudoscience. He cites astrology as an example: it was stagnant compared to advances in physics during the 17th century, and only later became "pseudoscience" in the advent of alternative explanations provided by psychology during the 19th century.
Thagard also rejects that his criteria should be interpreted so narrowly as to allow ostrichism (willful ignorance of alternative explanations) or so broadly as to discount our modern science compared to science of the future. His definition is a practical one, which generally seeks to distinguish pseudoscience as theories that are stagnant and are not actively being scientifically investigated.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem


edit: I'm curious why socionics cannot stand on it's own merits according to you.

[yeves]

doesn't work on myself as well as first described by a friend who got me into it

still, works 100% as a method of procrastination

[The Exception]

Works on myself, not sure about how well it works on others.

[ghost of forum past]

It would send up warning flags in my mind if Socionics worked perfectly on someone else I knew, for this would be convicting evidence that the person in question was a figment of my own imagination.

[Shiver]

Do you suppose any votes changed in over five years?

[Slimpack]

So far I think socionics is kind of accurate, it's explanation and predictions do seem to work. It seems more accurate than something that was created at random anyway , although I wouldn't say I'm great at typing people right now. There are two things that throw me off about socionics. one is the intertype relations I read online seem to be ridiculously negative for relationships outside of your own quadra, and the other is that there are certain experiences I have that would seem to contradict socionics. For example there are some IEE's I really like and feel like I'd have a good relationship with despite it being a supervision relation. but since I'm not really great at building close long term relationships with people it's possible that I just haven't been close enough to these people to see the theory go into effect.

[silke]

@Singu