works very well.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Doesn't work on myself, but works on some people I know well.
Doesn't work on myself, but works on people I know well.
Doesn't work on myself, but works well on most people I meet (I don't have to know them that well).
Works on myself, but only works on some people I know well.
Works on myself and works on people I know well.
Works on myself and works well on most people I meet (I don't have to know them that well).
Makes sense of pretty much everything.
works very well.
Or we tell ourselves it works. Socionics is rife with the potential for confimation bias, and the forer effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect
That said, I find the ideas within socionics interesting to contemplate. My main interest is the information elements and how they manifest. However, I understand that it is all hypothetical, I don't pretend that I am dealing with anything that can actually be demonstrated.
I think there are people who need to take a step back with this stuff and get some perspective with it's real applicability, of which I am skeptical.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
some people manage to interface with the phenomenon; some people fail.
you can't always win. somebody has to be the weakest link.
Works on myself and works well on most people I meet (I don't have to know them that well).
Yeah, it works. Just one small example: I recently introduced socionics to a LII friend. He is now studying it (very systematically and at great speed). I told him that he is LII and I showed him some videos of women I type ESE and he was like "wow, I could just watch them talking forever, so adorable".
It is rife with that potential, and I do see people taking it too far, but I still think there's something to it. There's that potential as well.Originally Posted by Neotropic
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
If I believed socionics had no merit whatsoever, I would put it in the same pile as astrology and be done with it. The fact that I am still here shows that is not the case.It is rife with that potential, and I do see people taking it too far, but I still think there's something to it. There's that potential as well.
All I am saying, is keep this stuff in perspective.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
works on me, and people I know well.
Might've selected one of the last two options, if I thought I knew enough people's types outside of my immediate circle. But I don't. Not yet.
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
so-so.
no it's not. Socionics doesn't use the phrases that are typical for forer effect. Also the 8 functions have been proven by neurology scans to exist in different brain regions. Socionics is hardcore science nowadays. Everyone who disputes it just hasn't been paying attention to their relationships or people well enough. If you've met some duals and dated, you will know that socionics works very well. If you haven't experienced it, just means you're a noob. that's oke, but just don't think you can have an opinion if you haven't observed the phenomena well enough.
Very interesting. Have any link?
yes I have two. The video starts uninteresting but gets better. You might want to skip a bit.
http://blip.tv/file/557221
http://www.benziger.org/articlesIng/?p=34
Also the 16 types have different brainwaves measured on EEG, I can look up the source for that if you need it.
thank you!
please!Also the 16 types have different brainwaves measured on EEG, I can look up the source for that if you need it.
It has only been useful to me as an introspective device and little more.
Attempts to flexibly expand from that have been met with limited success in describing others to themselves, but not in their relation to those around them, i.e. it works for individuals IME, not groups.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"it was also found that brain wave activity as measured by the EEG differed for each of the psychological types as assesed by the mbti (Gram, Dunn, & Ellis, 2005)"Those EEG measurements sound interesting, if you feel like sharing.
From the book theories of personality, schultz 9th edition.
I was very excited by the video in the beginning, but got disappointed afterwards - not before wasting many hours with it. It's a simplistic array of facts about the brain functioning and bare assertions *somehow* connecting them to the functions. Functions which btw, are used as as MBTI *if anything* (eg the "undisciplined" ESFP - and Exhorter, adding Ne - is Fe dominant, or that INFP is fundamentally into organized religion) - it's all in that PDF.
You talk about "the 8 functions" but you don't even know/care what are you refering at, as usual you take the names of the functions and types as their very essence, disregarding the inherent differences between those in Socionics and other Jungian-based determinations with similar names. That's gross equivocation. I beg you consider it, as it's not the first time...
One thing is certain, the video describes the location of the functions differently than Socionics. In Socionics it was experimentally (allegedly, too) concluded that one hemisphere is dynamic and the other is static. However, this theory claims that one hemisphere hosts both of what we know as dynamic and static functions, aka left = Perceiving and right = Judging.
---
It's a bunch of gibberish but containing very good observations about individuals of certain types, I like that (I also agree that the fundamentals of philosophy can be found in psychology and the other way around). I see no scientific experiment or demonstration of how those simple facts were used to infer so much, too.
How does that prove anything, how is it "scientifically demonstrated" for instance that the functions are actually mapped on those areas of the brain as she claims? Or what proves the big H.M. case here, that Judging = long-term memory and Perceiving is short-term, or what's the idea? (this was not the case even in Jung, btw, there's no connection between memory type and Rationality, T/F, N/S nor I/E) Apparently scientists don't yet know what are the real functions of the hippocampus. These flat assertions also specify that cognitive functions are precise regions of the brain, while the full MBTI types are rather what we know as functions (connections in the brain which are used for information flow).
There are also a lot of other amateurish assertions around, like erasing the border between physical bodies and objects, as used in philosophy/psychology, or between the perception and physical sensations - pretty much the same mistakes that anndelise has done at one point with a *very* similar video (they may even be related). Is that lady actually taken seriously in academia?
---
Those EEG measurements sound interesting, if you feel like sharing.
And how were the two neuro super-duper scientific articles supposed to demonstrate the same thing as long as the video explains that all P are on the left and all J are on the right hemisphere, while the written article states that T,S are on the left, and N,F are on the right?
(in case I'm missing something - I'm kinda tired right now)Jung’s four Functions are rooted in four distinct areas of the cortex. Thinking is housed in the Left Frontal Lobe. Intuition is housed in the Right Frontal Lobe. Sensation is housed in the Left Posterior Convexity. Feeling is housed in the Right Posterior Convexity.
Anything which is reliant on subjective qualifcation, is open for the forer effect. Why do you think there is so much decent over people's type. Hell I remember one guy going changing from LII to ESE. How could such a mistake be made? I wonder.Socionics doesn't use the phrases that are typical for forer effect
Not convinced. One website alone is not good enough.Also the 8 functions have been proven by neurology scans to exist in different brain regions
Socionics is hardcore science nowadays
no, no, no, no, no!
Real science is quantitative, testable, repeatable, objectictively verifiable and, most important of all, it lends itself to FALSIFIABILITY. Socionics does none of this.
Anyone who disputes it, just dosen't understand? Anyone who disputes astrology just hasn't been paying attention to their relationships or people well enoughEveryone who disputes it just hasn't been paying attention to their relationships or people well enough
You can "experience" anything you tell yourself. Anecdote is meaningless.If you haven't experienced it
but just don't think you can have an opinion if you haven't observed the phenomena well enough.
Today 09:07 AM
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
Typology is legit—so long as you forget and/or avoid pretty much everything there is to read about it.
That's a good place to start.But with that attitude you'll never get anywhere.However, I understand that it is all hypothetical, I don't pretend that I am dealing with anything that can actually be demonstrated.
How long have you been studying socionics? You should keep an open mind.I think there are people who need to take a step back with this stuff and get some perspective with it's real applicability, of which I am skeptical.
If you do research, it is very common to present the key findings or your main conclusions in your video or powerpoint presentation or main body of the article, and keep the supporting data and details of your reasoning to yourself (probably because scientific communities are full of Ns who can care less for the details). Then if anybody is interested in your findings or conclusions, they can look through supporting information or correspond with you directly. So what you see in such presentations are essentially conclusions. Then if you have questions like how those conclusions were made and what concrete supporting information or experimental evidence was used, you can contact the author or see references to his or her presentation. (That is if you truly care a lot about this.)
It's 17 videos of 12 - 72 minutes and a PDF of 698 pages lacking scientific method and sources, for the record.
I've only known about socionics for about a year, and only seriously studied it for a few months, so perhaps I'm missing out on vital information ascertaining to it's validity. I am being open minded though, I never said socionics is with no merit. But the very nature of socionics is completely qualitative. As such, I have trouble swallowing it as "vailidified reality", as others seem to claim. Perhaps one of my biggest problems with socionics, is it's reliance on anecdote.How long have you been studying socionics? You should keep an open mind.
Nevertheless.
It's a fascinating idea, thats for sure. However, untill I see socionics making verifiable claims that repeatedly check out, that is not justified only by subjective qualification; then I'll never consider it,
On a side note. By skepticism I do not mean, automatic outright dismissal. What I am really refering to, is agnosticism untill the evidence convincingly points one way or another.hardcore science nowadays
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
every month I see a new member come along with the same arguments. After a while it goes away when you've witnessed socionics work out nicely in reality. Socionics hasn't made claims, it has just made observations. It's empirical, just as nearly everything in psychology is based on empirical observartions.
Just because you can neatly frame a past experience after the fact in neat terms within a system of thought, does not make it science.
That said you can make useful predictions using Socionics. I've definitely used it as a wonderful little tool for predicting how people will react to different things based on what I know about types and quadras.
Yeah and also, the way I see it, the expectation to find the functions mapped onto the brain is baseless altogether. To consider the functions of being "something" that can be found somewhere is a reification that we regularily do, IMO, when we forget the premises.
---
Maybe my metaphor will not be the best, but I see trying to find where the functions are located in the brain like "let's find where the gravity is located in the Earth" as the method to prove that gravity exists. Some easy reasons to understand this:
- Socionics is based on a model we use to understand what's going on, to classify human personality; if someone becomes a thief for different reasons, will we find something in his brain differentiating him from the rest? He's what we know as a thief and his functions are stealing and robbery, or something;
- the functions are themselves concepts to understand how information is used. It's IMO as impossible to separate bodies from the fieds, for example, as trying to separate a group from its members. Imagine how would that be if this community would migrate to socionix.com but all its members would stay here
Last edited by The Ineffable; 03-27-2011 at 06:10 AM.
While I still think an individual can still fall victim to the Forer effect, when attempting to self type; I see where you're comming from. For the sake of avoiding derailing this thread into a argument of pure triviality, I will concede that small point for socionics as a whole concerning the said effect.
Just beacuse once skeptical members become convinced, does not vailidify anything in regards to it's actual applicability. This is nothing but an appeal to popularity.I see a new member come along with the same arguments. After a while it goes away when you've witnessed socionics work out nicely in reality
Last edited by Bluenoir; 03-27-2011 at 01:34 PM. Reason: just noticed a grammatical mistake
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
that's right. but socionics is more scientific than most psychology theories. You agree on that?
To me, socionics is filled with deep insights that seem to gel with my personal experience, but there are certain areas of the theory I'm still intensely skeptical of the validity or usefulness therein. In general outline, I would say socionics works fairly well for me and the people I know well, as individual types, but I vacillate on other's typings enough that it's hard to really say the interrelationships fit together except with some I know.
So B&D touched on usefulness. I haven't found it be useful in big ways, though maybe it will help me to understand my kids and not expect them to think the way I do? I can hope it will give me a broader perspective anyway. The bigger way I find it useful is in small ways here and there - mainly that I've learned to not take some things personally that I at one time would have.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
how accurate I type and use it
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
