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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
It works well enough, it is just not that important.
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
works better than a randomizer algorithm.
It seems pretty accurate from what I've seen wtih people I know.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
^ aha, that means socio-/mbti-types are measurable?
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
brain wave activity differs between all individuals. the result is still useless if there is not also a convergence in activity between people of the same type.
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.)
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 . Makes no sense as it makes no sense for someone to be Ti-Creative but loose the ability to be Fi-PoLR after a brain injury, as long as they're the same thing.
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
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.'
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.