What socionics is and what it is not

[mu4]

yeah, I think actually that's my issue, heh. like, I would be interested in this theory only if I could conduct research directly on the low level aspect of it. but even before that, I would want to see how the conceptualization is, and I'm not satisfied with that either.

that is because even here what is called low level aspect of socionics it is not quite low level at all from the viewpoint of cogpsy/cogsci/neuroscience/whatever. it is pretty high level viewed from down here.

so overall I guess we are viewing it from different places.

If you want to get low level into socionics, which I do try and do so, you need to go outside of socionics and that's into either information theory, AI programming and things like that. The fundamental thing about socionics I find interesting is that its model is compatible with multiple AI models. This is no surprise imo because cybernetics(russian AI/Computer science was known to the formulators of socionics and imo if you have a good back ground in philosophy, there's only so many places you can take the deductions). Take something SOAR which coincides directly with Static + Dynamic functions in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soar_(c..._architecture)

When a solution is found by one of these methods, Soar uses a learning technique called chunking to transform the course of action taken into a new rule. The new rule can then be applied whenever Soar encounters the situation again (that is, there will no longer be an impasse).

Take something like chunking, which is imo a good idea of how static function work, and in this example rational static functions, and , these functions make rules and categorizations which allow for definitive action, /. I advocate anyone with a serious interest in understanding the world to learn philosophy/computer science and if you want to understand socionics, the areas where the most relative work at the micro(but still symbolic) level is being done is AI and philosophy of the mind.

However most AI models describe a even smaller piece of the puzzle as far as human understanding. There are some that get closer to a more holistic model like CLARION but practically unimplementable at the moment.

[Saberstorm]

To the OP: What exactly are you in favor of? What are you wanting to create? A different theory? What is your production?

[Absurd]

differences between socionics and astrology:

1. with socionics you get to pick your own type and it can be challenged by others.
2. astrology has more well-defined and consistent characteristics for each type.
3. astrology is older, more researched, and more popular.
4. socionics has a basis in jung, astrology has a basis in human attemps at understanding going back thousands of years.

El oh el.

[Trevor]

El oh el.

Hear o hear, what the man that came from the astrology forum is speaking.

[redbaron]

Without bothering to read any of it, I can give you a fair supply of wise sentences that might breach this topic:

1. The map is not the territory.
2. Psychology is not science, unless we want to exclude the necessity of empirism in the definition of science.
3. You use paragraphs nicely.
4. It's all just writ (=strictly defined) on water (=the abstract and relative reality we have).

I cannot read walls of text. I don't know what my problem is but I cannot express to you the absolute joy I feel when I see something like this, *whether I agree with it or not* because it's so concise and to the point and I can actually take it all in. ahhhhh.... A+

[redbaron]

differences between socionics and astrology:

1. with socionics you get to pick your own type and it can be challenged by others.
2. astrology has more well-defined and consistent characteristics for each type.
3. astrology is older, more researched, and more popular.
4. socionics has a basis in jung, astrology has a basis in human attemps at understanding going back thousands of years.

this is good too. thank you for numbering your points.

[Absurd]

I think I'm the only Te facking bastard on here.

[ambivalent existence]

If you want to get low level into socionics, which I do try and do so, you need to go outside of socionics and that's into either information theory, AI programming and things like that. The fundamental thing about socionics I find interesting is that its model is compatible with multiple AI models. This is no surprise imo because cybernetics(russian AI/Computer science was known to the formulators of socionics and imo if you have a good back ground in philosophy, there's only so many places you can take the deductions). Take something SOAR which coincides directly with Static + Dynamic functions in operation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soar_(c..._architecture)


Take something like chunking, which is imo a good idea of how static function work, and in this example rational static functions, and , these functions make rules and categorizations which allow for definitive action, /. I advocate anyone with a serious interest in understanding the world to learn philosophy/computer science and if you want to understand socionics, the areas where the most relative work at the micro(but still symbolic) level is being done is AI and philosophy of the mind.

However most AI models describe a even smaller piece of the puzzle as far as human understanding. There are some that get closer to a more holistic model like CLARION but practically unimplementable at the moment.

you do know that's actually my area of interest and I'm studying towards it at university.

I don't mind if it is a smaller piece of the puzzle, though, than socionics. I kind of like building up a holistic model of a smaller piece, heh.

and yes socionics is compatible with these - on a very generic level.

[mu4]

and yes socionics is compatible with these - on a very generic level.

Which is what matters, at a specific level you can make almost anything compatible.

[ambivalent existence]

To the OP: What exactly are you in favor of? What are you wanting to create? A different theory? What is your production?

you mean related to socionics? nothing

or do you mean in general? let me know

[ambivalent existence]

Which is what matters, at a specific level you can make almost anything compatible.

humm, can you give me some context to see what you mean exactly?

[ambivalent existence]

I cannot read walls of text. I don't know what my problem is but I cannot express to you the absolute joy I feel when I see something like this, *whether I agree with it or not* because it's so concise and to the point and I can actually take it all in. ahhhhh.... A+

was my other post, post #4 too long for you already? I was hoping to make it concise enough, a short list of stuff.

[mu4]

humm, can you give me some context to see what you mean exactly?

This


vs

This


There is still complexity, but it's important to to generalize for the sake of comprehension. However it seems there is a great deal of order and simplicity in the world as well, beyond the mess which it can be arranged into by the rolling and shifting of all that exist.

Natural phenomenons outside of rational control tend to be a bit more like this...

[tcaudilllg]

Te type can work with this.




Ti type demands this.



Ni type thinks in terms of this.

[ambivalent existence]

This (...)

ow, nice pics. yup I see what you mean

[Absurd]

Hear o hear, what the man that came from the astrology forum is speaking.

Oh crap, I posted here before. Anyway, it wasn't astrology forum so get your facts straight you not very factual person.

[Suz]

Socionics is just like racism - it makes it easier to decide if it is worth dealing with certain people or it is better to hate them

I mean it depends on how you decide to apply socionics... you could choose to proceed the way you mentioned, or alternatively, you can choose to apply socionics to bridge differences and be more tolerant of them.. I agree, though, that socionics can be misused in the wrong hands and turn into a dangerous thing.

[Aquagraph]

I cannot read walls of text. I don't know what my problem is but I cannot express to you the absolute joy I feel when I see something like this, *whether I agree with it or not* because it's so concise and to the point and I can actually take it all in. ahhhhh.... A+

This is something I try to do. I want to be effective and accurate when conveying information. It's really nice to hear that you liked it.

[Absurd]

My first post on this forum was me comparing socionics to horoscopes not even knowing beforehand Aushra was into it, hell so was Jung. Point is I roamed a horoscope forum prior registering on this site and if my memory serves me well that is how I found MBTI and Socionics.

I recall making a thread "what zodiac sign I am" and an avalanche of replies initiated - I ended up all 12 zodiac signs. It's wasn't that bad for someone guessed right after all, so there's always a bright side to any typology system. Haha.

And no, those people actually have had of a fair amount of time to assign a zodiac sign to me, that means, I pillaged that forum for three months before making a thread. They were familiar with me. Besides I have had a fan club, some person started it, like a cult of personality or something, and more people joined. My username on there was 56 and it is not random, it has a meaning to me, and of course lots and lots of people speculated on it but it was in vain. Most common question was "are you 56 years old?"

All in all, I've found MBTI through that site and after totally immersing myself in it I left after a month or two dissatisfied with it or people blabbing and through MBTI I ended up on this site. It's my longest stay so far out of two forums prior to this one.

This is just some facts or "update."

I remember my first or second day in chatbox on here. After reading some stuff on socionics through threads and so on, I decided to chat a bit. This is how I met hitta and crazie rat for first time, they were talking horoscopes/astrology and handing out horoscopes to people present in chatbox. One of those people was Subterranean and I remember he wasn't very satisfied with the result.

Anyhow, it hit me immediately, I've never left that horoscope forum in the first place. The end.

I don't know, looks I'm going to check it out from the source. Hitta revisited...

[Trevor]

Oh crap, I posted here before. Anyway, it wasn't astrology forum so get your facts straight you not very factual person.

Oh. It was a horoscope forum. I stand corrected.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post635010
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post697004
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post703299
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post704865
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post767568
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post795917
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post860919

[Absurd]

Oh. It was a horoscope forum. I stand corrected.

EVERYONE TRUST MY TYPINGS THEY ARE STEPWISE REFINEMENT

[The Ineffable]

I think it depends on what are you calling "Socionics":
- your understanding?
- the understanding certain users on this forum?
- the understanding of Aushra's?
- etc?

My understanding is somewhat sensible and certainly reflects some parts of reality. These "common assumptions" you are talking about can be not necessarily my case, or they I interpret differently than you do. Regarding the former case, all I can say is that I don't agree to define "Socionics" in an absolute sense based on predominant beliefs of random people; in the latter, there are subtle differences in interpretation that make a big difference... for example I notice a logical error that people often make when they replace an implication with an equivalence. A good and real example doesn't come to my mind right now, but I will take the proposition "Alpha NTs categorize people into abstract types" as one. Such propositions are often interpreted as "Alpha NTs and only Alpha NTs categorize people into abstract types" - which is not something that Socionics (the way I understood it) asserts.

There are old issues that you are probably not aware of, when you put it this way (example). Socionics is not concrete, like MBTI for example, behavior and articulate thoughts do not directly translate into the type, and there is IMO a good reason why it was claimed by the Socionists that it is not currently possible to make a test to determine the type with certanity (excluding the subject's bias or dishonesty, of course). According to it, humans can process all the IEs and one may often use the Super-Ego constantly, this is not the point. The Socionics psyche models the inner structure of cognition, it is unrelated to it the idea that a certain simple thing more people do is done based on the same reason. This structure is only hinted and can be understood only in the big picture of one's personality.

I stop here, I hope you get my point. And then I say that what you are looking for, to be able to constantly find confirmation that your understanding is correct, requires correct typing, which IMO is not even your case (I consider that you mistype yourself as SLE instead of ILE). You have to take this possibility into consideration, that if one's understanding a model is incorrect, it is impossible for him/her to find empirical confirmation, when arguing against its validity.

[Absurd]

I think it depends on what are you calling "Socionics":
- your understanding?
- the understanding certain users on this forum?
- the understanding of Aushra's?
- etc?

Exactly, it's pretty subjective to begin with.

[ambivalent existence]

I think it depends on what are you calling "Socionics":
- your understanding?
- the understanding certain users on this forum?
- the understanding of Aushra's?
- etc?

Whatever is officially called as socionics. I know there are different socionics "schools", but that doesn't matter, my reasoning applies to all of them.

My understanding is somewhat sensible and certainly reflects some parts of reality.

The only thing we can say for sure is your understanding reflects some patterns that are not verified to be NOT imaginary. There is this big assumption too that functions exist, without even attempting to reify them. And I don't even see a way to do so but the real point is that it has not been done anyway, and as long as it hasn't been done, it does not matter for me whether there is a remote possibility for it or not.

These "common assumptions" you are talking about can be not necessarily my case, or they I interpret differently than you do. Regarding the former case, all I can say is that I don't agree to define "Socionics" in an absolute sense based on predominant beliefs of random people; in the latter, there are subtle differences in interpretation that make a big difference... for example I notice a logical error that people often make when they replace an implication with an equivalence. A good and real example doesn't come to my mind right now, but I will take the proposition "Alpha NTs categorize people into abstract types" as one. Such propositions are often interpreted as "Alpha NTs and only Alpha NTs categorize people into abstract types" - which is not something that Socionics (the way I understood it) asserts.

Sure, those two are not logically equivalent. Not sure however what your point was there?

I only mentioned two main assumptions in my first post in this thread but it is pretty obvious that anyone who believes in socionics needs to accept these assumptions. If it is not the case for you, can you tell me which one(s) do you not use as an assumption?

There are old issues that you are probably not aware of, when you put it this way (example). Socionics is not concrete, like MBTI for example, behavior and articulate thoughts do not directly translate into the type, and there is IMO a good reason why it was claimed by the Socionists that it is not currently possible to make a test to determine the type with certanity (excluding the subject's bias or dishonesty, of course).

One of the big issues is exactly this; that socionics is not concrete. It should be. If type can't be determined via concrete means then the theory is not going to be falsifiable... instead anyone can see anything they wish to see and anyone can conjure up any explanation they wish to use to explain whatever phenomena they observed. That's just useless chaos. And that is exactly what is going on with socionics.

I also don't understand why socionists are against tests. Do you know the official reason for that?

They instead seem to prefer VI, which is a lot worse idea than even using a half-assed test would be. I hope I do not need to explain how the assumption that IE's are by god knows what kind of mechanism visible about the face is completely unverified and thus superfluous. I cannot even begin to imagine a way to reason about a biological mechanism that can make IE's visible in the face of a person. Especially if we go as deep in completely unfounded speculation as certain socionists including Aushra have done, about how elements of physical facial structure reflect subtleties like one of the vital functions is strengthened or something (I'm too lazy to look up these specific examples but you probably already read about these speculations anyway).

Seriously when I read about that part, it almost made me abandon the whole socionics thing right there and then. Instead I chose to ignore those parts though. OK, sorry about ranting here, I got really emotional for a second.

According to it, humans can process all the IEs and one may often use the Super-Ego constantly, this is not the point. The Socionics psyche models the inner structure of cognition, it is unrelated to it the idea that a certain simple thing more people do is done based on the same reason. This structure is only hinted and can be understood only in the big picture of one's personality.

Eh, one person may use the superego a lot, then another person doesn't? A good example of non-falsifiable explanation.

That inner structure of cognition is just some imaginary idea. Based on some cool-sounding analogy with physics or whatever stuff. Analogies however are not proof for anything, no analogy should ever be taken seriously for that reason. For some reason that I cannot fathom, socionists don't seem to mind that... all I see is that they are willing to just stick to the chaos instead of changing the model to make it concrete and falsifiable. Of course I'm not attacking any socionist personally here, this is my general impersonal evaluation.

I stop here, I hope you get my point. And then I say that what you are looking for, to be able to constantly find confirmation that your understanding is correct, requires correct typing, which IMO is not even your case (I consider that you mistype yourself as SLE instead of ILE). You have to take this possibility into consideration, that if one's understanding a model is incorrect, it is impossible for him/her to find empirical confirmation, when arguing against its validity.

If your point was that it is OK for socionics not to be concrete, I respectfully disagree. I only like to take seriously theories that are concrete, so that also does not help, for sure. I never really understood people who took imaginary stuff seriously. I mean it's cool as a pastime to read fiction books, or whatever, but that is not the same. I only spent time with socionics as I had concrete goals with it, but only until I realized that they could not be fulfilled.

If your point was something else, please let me know what it was.

As for my typing being correct or not correct, it's completely irrelevant to what I said in the OP in this thread about socionics. Nothing about my reasoning in it is related to my specific personal experience with the theory. (Though of course it did contribute to my reconsidering what this theory was actually.)

Also, my typing can't really be correct or incorrect as the theory is not falsifiable anyway so everything and its opposite can be supported by arguments.

Anyhow, if I'm determined to be "ILE" according to the theory then I must be a really peculiar "ILE" as my "Ne" is unvalued. I don't take random potentials seriously. Much easier for me to just ignore them if there is no proof. I evaluate stuff to see if it serves my goals or not. My attitude to socionics theory itself is a good example of that.

Okay, everything can be argued for or against within this theory so according to it, yes I can be "ILE" even with seemingly unvalued "Ne". But yeah, nobody could ever point out any example where I actually preferred potential in things for just the potential itself over actually experienced traits or usefulness of something or clarification of things. If these concrete facts do not matter when deciding if "Ne" is valued, then that is one more example for the theory allowing for everything to be possible.

Of course, another thing adding to this chaos is that a few other people typed me as "LIE". They had the same input, and yet, a different output. Completely different valued functions, too (when comparing to "ILE"). And there is no method to determine which opinion is the final one, which authority is the real one. Again, chaos.

Hope I managed to convey some more of my viewpoint to you.

[Ryan]

I only like to take seriously theories that are concrete, so that also does not help, for sure.

How is that anyone's fault but yours? Conceret is a redundant word to use in this context. It implies that you (or anyone else) can readily recognize what a conceret theory is (whatever that is, as theories are not concrete by their own definition - it's like saying a "solid theory"*, it doesn't mean you can actually touch it. It just means that there is enough evidence for you to believe it, and it would still be a theory, no matter how strong or weak people say it is or whatever fancy word they want to use to validate/invalidate it).

While I'm at it I'll explain something else. Theories supposedly turn into practices when they are accepted. They turn into practices for god's sake. Let that sink in. You know, just by saying that I understood why Ashton says Te and Se are almost the same thing (which may be true), or something like that - I don't remember what he was on about, but I think I know what he was saying. Argh! I will try to find it.

Here is something I've just been reading after I wrote this.

http://hioa.academia.edu/OlavEikelan...s_it_important

*or in socionics terms, Te (solid) Ni (theory) - yes you have just attempted to fuse to different categories into one.

**Okay, that was merely a joke, but you get the idea.. I'm just trying to explain how it looks like, in simple terms.

/here is for another useless rant. I fucking like you ambivalent existence, you make me get off my ass and do some research when I'm not even in the mood for it. Keep up the good work. Your posts are actually interesting enough for me to want to engage in a discussion with you. And I didn't even read or quote everything (yet), just what caught my interest - two fucking words.

[Absurd]

(whatever that is, as theories are not concrete by their own definition.

Of course they're not. People self-typing ILE and SLE are on crack posting here. Socionics, that is Model A is an abstract model, it's a theory, those are concepts that don't exist in reality, at least to me.

[Ryan]

Of course they're not. People self-typing ILE and SLE are on crack posting here. Socionics, that is Model A is an abstract model, it's a theory, those are concepts that don't exist in reality, at least to me.

You mean xLE? Or just self-typing in general?

[Absurd]

You mean xLE? Or just self-typing in general?

XLE or whatever it is called. To me, it's just fail at intuitive versus sensory level.

[ambivalent existence]

How is that anyone's fault but yours? Conceret is a redundant word to use in this context. It implies that you (or anyone else) can readily recognize what a conceret theory is (whatever that is, as theories are not concrete by their own definition - it's like saying a "solid theory"*, it doesn't mean you can actually touch it. It just means that there is enough evidence for you to believe it, and it would still be a theory, no matter how strong or weak people say it is or whatever fancy word they want to use to validate/invalidate it).

While I'm at it I'll explain something else. Theories supposedly turn into practices when they are accepted. They turn into practices for god's sake. Let that sink in. You know, just by saying that I understood why Ashton says Te and Se are almost the same thing (which may be true), or something like that - I don't remember what he was on about, but I think I know what he was saying. Argh! I will try to find it.

Here is something I've just been reading after I wrote this.

http://hioa.academia.edu/OlavEikelan...s_it_important

*or in socionics terms, Te (solid) Ni (theory) - yes you have just attempted to fuse to different categories into one.

**Okay, that was merely a joke, but you get the idea.. I'm just trying to explain how it looks like, in simple terms.

/here is for another useless rant. I fucking like you ambivalent existence, you make me get off my ass and do some research when I'm not even in the mood for it. Keep up the good work. Your posts are actually interesting enough for me to want to engage in a discussion with you. And I didn't even read or quote everything (yet), just what caught my interest - two fucking words.

Yeah, it means there is enough evidence that is considered objective. And then it can be put into practice no problem. I'm not a native speaker of English, so if it sounded like "a theory that can be touched", then I'm sorry, I obviously didn't mean it like that. (Actually, I went with Ineffable's word usage, but maybe out of context it sounds different?)

Oh, um, what was that about Te vs Se? Not sure what you wanted to express there.

OK, I'm going to check that link in a few mins.

[Ryan]

XLE or whatever it is called. To me, it's just fail at intuitive versus sensory level.

That is a nice way to put it lol. I agree.

[Ryan]

Oh, um, what was that about Te vs Se? Not sure what you wanted to express there.

I don't know. Maybe Ashton can chime in. I won't be able to explain it.

[Absurd]

I also don't understand why socionists are against tests. Do you know the official reason for that?

Can you read with comprehension?

It's simple. People can easily fabricate the result of a given test just to appear I don't know more accepted or something, seen as better than some other socio-someone, change in a pretty butterfly to name a few.

Going through some of those Sociotypograph results what I'm talking about is there and I'm not making this up for how the heck can a bimbo that spent seven years in Tibet and is proficient at typing having acquainted himself with nuances of socionics theory, and more, fail a test?

[ambivalent existence]

Can you read with comprehension?

It's simple. People can easily fabricate the result of a given test just to appear I don't know more accepted or something, seen as better than some other socio-someone, change in a pretty butterfly to name a few.

Going through some of those Sociotypograph results what I'm talking about is there and I'm not making this up for how the heck can a bimbo that spent seven years in Tibet and is proficient at typing having acquainted himself with nuances of socionics theory, and more, fail a test?

I will skip the first line where you attempted to insult me.

It is not that simple. Why are tests accepted in other areas? How about MBTI? Tests are accepted there.

[Absurd]

I will skip the first line where you attempted to insult me.

That's because I ran into a gap in fence today wanting to get on the other side fast, like a chicken crossing the road but there was a wire sticking out I forgot about and it greeted me in the forehead. That's the reason I have impure thoughts now.

It is not that simple. Why are tests accepted in other areas? How about MBTI? Tests are accepted there.

Test are accepted "here" as well. Check forum test section or something. What I'm talking about is those socio-people actually took into account human error.

[tcaudilllg]

I'd like to see a model on a stage with a white ribbon wrapped around her saying "theory", and the silhouette of a nerd guy in the front, backside, after hearing about this "theory touching" thing.

[ambivalent existence]

Test are accepted "here" as well. Check forum test section or something. What I'm talking about is those socio-people actually took into account human error.

So how do you know exactly which part is human error...

[ambivalent existence]

I'd like to see a model on a stage with a white ribbon wrapped around her saying "theory", and the silhouette of a nerd guy in the front, backside, after hearing about this "theory touching" thing.

You certainly seem to prefer trolling to reading.

[Absurd]

So how do you know exactly which part is human error...

Easy. I can take a single one the same test and get all 16 types. That's personal bias and it happens when you're want to be something else, find characteristics something or someone has desirable but you lack, etc.

[ambivalent existence]

Easy. I can take a single one the same test and get all 16 types. That's personal bias and it happens when you're want to be something else, find characteristics something or someone has desirable but you lack, etc.

How can it happen if the person hasn't yet been introduced to the theory?

[Saberstorm]

Why do you think you are an ILE? You do not remotely seem to be one...

Anyway, in socionics, the closest thing to falsification is intertype relations. That still has some fuzzy parts, but if you do not "fit in" with Alpha, you are something else. Socionics (and the MBTI and Jung) are not that far from philosophy.