Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 153

Thread: What socionics is and what it is not

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default What socionics is and what it is not

    Here's a sum up of my conclusions on socionics.

    First the thing that everyone knows and accepts: socionics is a theory that talks about abstract constructions that are based on arbitrarily discerned patterns. These patterns do not exist in any objectively measured way in reality. (And no, VI is not an objective tool. there is no proven causal link between facial structure and functions.)

    But my issue is bigger than the lack of an objective tool. There are several unfounded assumptions before even getting to the point of considering to develop an objective measurement. Here's just some example issues at the conceptualization level.

    There is an assumption that information elements determine a big part of communication. Nope. Communication between people is based on something more complex than abstract information elements or functions. The framework of evolution theory works better to explain human communication (too long to get into details here about that).

    There is another common assumption, that is, if information elements are a certain way of information processing (which statement is fine on its own, but only until you try to get into details!) then there is very high correlation and in some cases even a direct causal link between the functions and between all the known cognitive elements, personality traits and/or concrete behaviour elements. This is simply not true, either in an absolute or a relative way.

    Basically, the concept of these functions is an attempt to group many observable elements together. But in reality, there is just a brain that processes information in a much more complex way cognitively. To elaborate on this further: for the brain there are many processes to do before it results in something that socionics users attribute to the functions way of information processing. These processes are the building blocks for information processing in the brain. There is no guarantee or proof whatsoever that all these will result in the exact functions as organized on the high level in socionics theory.

    Why no guarantee whatsoever? Well, sure, there are correlations between elements or even personality traits but weak and there is no direct causal link between these correlations. The causes are factors in the background that is not part of the socionics theory. So what this means is that these background factors cause the things that you've observed as being correlated to each other. The things observed are not causing each other, something else is causing them. I am not saying that the correlations are random, obviously they aren't random but that does not constitute a proper explanation. This means you cannot draw real conclusions from this model.

    That's fine, for people-analysing, we do not know that much yet about the brain's complex workings anyway. In practice everyone obviously just uses a few rules for efficient (or not-so-efficient) communication and all the other usual common sense life strategies that are well known outside socionics. As example, here's one generic common sense statement: "people look at the world in a different way". The thing is, socionics itself does not add anything worthwhile to these common sense strategies. It can be a vehicle for some people to hear about strategies and then try to apply these strategies. Basically, people advising other people on psychology issues.

    This is again all fine, just not directly related to the theory. Any kind of applied psychology with very different theories behind does the same job essentially. These theories are very different and yet, still work like socionics does or work even better. Also very important here is that these different workable theories achieve this without adding the extra assumption of the notion of certain detailed concrete types, strictly defined communication styles between types including the duality concept and other things. So how about sticking to occam's razor and discard the superfluous assumptions.

  2. #2
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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 tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    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).
    My writing addresses point 2 just fine. If you'd bother to read it.

    The rest of your list is irrelevant. Unless I misunderstand the first one, what did you mean by it?

  4. #4
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    Unless I misunderstand the first one, what did you mean by it?
    The first and the fourth were overlapping actually.

    Okay, socionics is a model and like all models, it is not capable of simultaneously explaining the bigger picture. It just doesn't apply to everything. You have to take multiple models to make a good representation of the world we observe in our daily lives. Maybe if I want to fuck my mother and kill my father, it might be better explained with Freudianism's Oedipus Complex than Socionics' Fi PoLR.

    The point is, however, not to look at model's inaccuracy but to find the parts that might teach us something. Even if I can't empirically prove anyone's typing, my own typing and the assumed types of people around me have given me a good explanations why, why not and/or how is our relationship functioning. But I can still use the other models/patterns for extra accuracy.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    The first and the fourth were overlapping actually.

    Okay, socionics is a model and like all models, it is not capable of simultaneously explaining the bigger picture. It just doesn't apply to everything. You have to take multiple models to make a good representation of the world we observe in our daily lives. Maybe if I want to fuck my mother and kill my father, it might be better explained with Freudianism's Oedipus Complex than Socionics' Fi PoLR.

    The point is, however, not to look at model's inaccuracy but to find the parts that might teach us something. Even if I can't empirically prove anyone's typing, my own typing and the assumed types of people around me have given me a good explanations why, why not and/or how is our relationship functioning. But I can still use the other models/patterns for extra accuracy.
    Have you read my condensed version for your shorter attention span? (Post #4 in this thread)

    That (and the original long post too) answers these things.

  6. #6
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,315
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    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+
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,961
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    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.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For those with that goddam short attention span:

    Socionics is:

    - A non-scientific theory talking about weak correlations and not even useful at all as it says nothing new about people in practice.
    - A collection of observations of people. You can read about stereotypes of people, behaviour, interactions, communication styles, nothing new at all.
    - A religion.
    - Etc.

    Socionics isn't:

    - A sound theory organizing the data on people.
    - A revolution in society to improve the way people deal with each other blahblahblah.
    - Etc.

  10. #10
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    For those with that goddam short attention span:

    Socionics is:

    - A non-scientific theory talking about weak correlations and not even useful at all as it says nothing new about people in practice.
    - A collection of observations of people. You can read about stereotypes of people, behaviour, interactions, communication styles, nothing new at all.
    - A religion.
    - Etc.

    Socionics isn't:

    - A sound theory organizing the data on people.
    - A revolution in society to improve the way people deal with each other blahblahblah.
    - Etc.
    Socionics is stochastic and not deterministic, it's a social science and it is more like set theory. The functions themselves are divergent expressions from the same root and best viewed as intersecting sets on a Venn diagrams.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

    There are many reasons socionics can't provide a deterministic model but imo, that's ok.

    It's pretty unimportant what socionics is today imo, because ultimately, if people didn't think there was something to investigate, they wouldn't spend so much of their time here.

    Also imo, socionics is not a religion, nobody believes in it until they type someone they want to sex their dual.

  11. #11
    FoxOnStilts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    TN
    TIM
    Fi-SLE 3w9 so/sp
    Posts
    790
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    nobody believes in it until they type someone they want to sex their dual.
    QFT

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Socionics is stochastic and not deterministic, it's a social science and it is more like set theory. The functions themselves are divergent expressions from the same root and best viewed as intersecting sets on a Venn diagrams.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

    There are many reasons socionics can't provide a deterministic model but imo, that's ok.

    It's pretty unimportant what socionics is today imo, because ultimately, if people didn't think there was something to investigate, they wouldn't spend so much of their time here.

    Also imo, socionics is not a religion, nobody believes in it until they type someone they want to sex their dual.
    You put it very well, I think of the functions exactly like this. And that's part of the reason why I don't see it as a great theory either.

    No not a religion but some people do seem to believe in it a bit too much. The duality thing is a good example of that.

    But I've repeated myself enough times already. Nothing new to add to this.

  13. #13
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    You put it very well, I think of the functions exactly like this. And that's part of the reason why I don't see it as a great theory either.

    No not a religion but some people do seem to believe in it a bit too much. The duality thing is a good example of that.

    But I've repeated myself enough times already. Nothing new to add to this.
    On the relative scale of theories, it's in the top .001% percentile. Just pulling a number out of a hat here, and a opinion. I would say you would be hard pressed to improve on Socionic theory without making a major advancement which would likely make a major change in mainstream thought. It could dethrone MBTI, subvert MBTI or change organizational and psychiatric practices. What socionics needs imo is, in no specific order:

    1. Statistical measurement tool with good predictive ability(imperfect but a major improvement still) More like predicting the weather than observing a cell. (empirical work)
    2. Clarification in the inductions within socionics which make sense, but however are unsubstantiated as of right now. (analysis)
    3. Creating the neccessary framework by which socionics can be philosophically assessed and interpreted by other branches of science/philosophy/psychology. (positivism)
    4. Falsify socionics, criticism(skeptical)

    It matters very little which viewpoint people take to this study, but imo it's all worthwhile.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    On the relative scale of theories, it's in the top .001% percentile. Just pulling a number out of a hat here, and a opinion. I would say you would be hard pressed to improve on Socionic theory without making a major advancement which would likely make a major change in mainstream thought. It could dethrone MBTI, subvert MBTI or change organizational and psychiatric practices. What socionics needs imo is, in no specific order:

    1. Statistical measurement tool with good predictive ability(imperfect but a major improvement still) More like predicting the weather than observing a cell. (empirical work)
    2. Clarification in the inductions within socionics which make sense, but however are unsubstantiated as of right now. (analysis)
    3. Creating the neccessary framework by which socionics can be philosophically assessed and interpreted by other branches of science/philosophy/psychology. (positivism)
    4. Falsify socionics, criticism(skeptical)

    It matters very little which viewpoint people take to this study, but imo it's all worthwhile.
    Top 0.001%? I disagree, but I don't have the time to argue this and I see no point either.

    Also, MBTI is not really uh... not really some big thing to be subverted. But yes sure I'm sure there will be a paradigm change in psychology one day. I just don't think it will be coming from a social science. Not excluding the possibility that it can contribute to it though.

    Btw, I get "lost" at this point: "can be philosophically assessed and interpreted by". I'd prefer working on falsifying right away.


    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Astrology is unexaminable and unrefutable and one of the components of science is that it is refutable.

    I would say socionics is more refutable and thus more charming in a scientific and theoretical sense.

    Astrology is more or less a religion and kinda of why it doesn't go away, once you refute a scientific misunderstanding, it's gone generally never to be discussed except by cranks. The world is not the center of the universe, the earth is not flat but people will believe in god and in the magic of stars. Socionics is kinda of inbetween that, people want to fall in love, people want to find their soul mate, people want to have magic in their lives, but also people want to know how others work and understand others despite their disagreements with others and to be able to accept others despite those disagreements. It fulfills both an analytical and erotic desire so many different people will get hooked by it.
    I don't think there is such a thing as "more" refutable. It is either refutable or not. I'm sorry if I sound very black and white now.

    I like your analogy between astrology and socionics btw. However where I am pretty skeptical is that you can understand people via a scientific theory at this point. That understanding you talk about can only be based on our built-in instincts right now. Any other kind of understanding would be used for something else entirely.


    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Mmmm, I think socionics is refutable, it's basis is information processing, information preference and information metabolism. You can absolutely refute those concepts which form the basis of socionic theory. There are areas of socionics which do not have this exposure to being refuted, at least from a scientific point of view but it would be good to make the formulation of those areas in a way that it could be refutable.

    What you call objective/explicit definitions are actually not definitions but a normative prediction. You want people to define type/function objectively and that's actually wrong to even attempt, because there will be variation within those predictions. To even attempt to find objective and immutable definitions from the predictions of socionic model is to basically say, there's only these 16 types of people and no other variety. As we can plainly see this is absolutely not the case. The categorizations and predictions socionics make is in how information processing, metabolism and preference differentiates human being into 16 sets of individuals who interact in a predictable fashion. To think of the definitions as the system is to force every individual into a box which is unhelpful to understanding the variation that exist in humanity. The theory of socionics will always be about the underlying process by which socio-type emerges and not about amorphous normative descriptions of select individuals.
    Sure it's based on information processing theories, but normative predictions... are not refutable. Because they are just normative anyway. I never liked it though I do understand why in many psychology areas they think correlations at 30% are something to do further research into. This means just further research, not warranting some really cool-sounding theory to get stuck at.

    Your last sentence is pretty good, yes it is about an underlying process which is fine. A big point I'm trying to convey is that this isn't really something that should be connected to the motivation of understanding people for real life issues.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    For a subjectivist yourself you sure do know how to confuse yourself.

  16. #16
    Gravolez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    TIM
    Te-ILI; 5w6 sx/sp
    Posts
    219
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah but the thing is ... if you don't know about socionics you'd think there are many different kinds people and in reality they are only 16 with two subtypes each.
    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

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravolez View Post
    Yeah but the thing is ... if you don't know about socionics you'd think there are many different kinds people and in reality they are only 16 with two subtypes each.
    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
    What's wrong with thinking there are many different kinds of people? Why do you think there must be exactly 16 (or 32) of them? See, depending on the assumptions I use, I can see 9, 12, 27, 81, 128, 256, or 1729 types of people.

    What's wrong with listening to your own reactions about whether you want to deal with someone or not.

    See, I don't get the point of racism either. Why waste energy on hating certain people, being indifferent and simply not dealing with them is much easier. But sure, if the feeling of hate feels good for you without any purpose beyond it, keep doing it.

    And no, my intention was not to offend you.

    PS: if you meant it all as a joke, great.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravolez View Post
    Yeah but the thing is ... if you don't know about socionics you'd think there are many different kinds people and in reality they are only 16 with two subtypes each.
    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    What's wrong with thinking there are many different kinds of people?
    Ehh, there are two types of people actually. Those who divide people into two types and those who do not.

    Why do you think there must be exactly 16 (or 32) of them? See, depending on the assumptions I use, I can see 9, 12, 27, 81, 128, 256, or 1729 types of people.
    And that's exactly what I see from Alpha NTs.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    And that's exactly what I see from Alpha NTs.
    And Alpha NT's are the people who actually take that sort of stuff seriously?

    Really, based on that, everyone on this forum excluding me (as I don't believe in 16, 27, etc types) is Alpha NT...

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    And Alpha NT's are the people who actually take that sort of stuff seriously?
    I've seen this kind of breaking it into smaller parts done by mostly Alpha NTs. DarkAngelFireWolf69, John Do, that guy who called me antichrist (although he self-types IEI).

    Really, based on that, everyone on this forum excluding me (as I don't believe in 16, 27, etc types) is Alpha NT...
    That's complete bollocks but coming from you it doesn't surprise me.

    1) If everyone on this forum is Alpha NT, then you're you're not Alpha NT,

    2) Not everyone on this forum is Alpha NT and that's a fact,

    3) If everyone on this forum isn't alpha NT, then you're Alpha NT.

    That's your wannabe absolutist reasoning and not being able to see the antithesis. Besides I don't know what belief has to do with anything here.

  21. #21
    Chronic Procrasturbator Nomenclature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    TIM
    ESFp 3w4 SX/SO??
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravolez View Post
    Yeah but the thing is ... if you don't know about socionics you'd think there are many different kinds people and in reality they are only 16 with two subtypes each.
    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
    People fall into those 16 types because the permutation of IEs was designed to be that way, not because there's anything about the number 16 specifically besides that it's 2^4. "In reality" there are only 16 types? No, it's still in theory.

    I think while every intertype relation is flawed (yes, that includes duality, too!), there's something you could learn from all types of people.

    That might be easier for me to say since my being on the border of ESE and SEE makes the difference between dual and conflictor, but whatever. But at the end of the day, people outside the socionics circle aren't going to give a shit what 3 or 4 letters you list yourself as, because interaction in reality depends on so much more than that.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    What's wrong with thinking there are many different kinds of people? Why do you think there must be exactly 16 (or 32) of them? See, depending on the assumptions I use, I can see 9, 12, 27, 81, 128, 256, or 1729 types of people.

    PS: if you meant it all as a joke, great.
    Hai, get out of my mind.
    Genghis Khunt, drippin' like twater.
    tumblr (nsfw)

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomenclature View Post
    People fall into those 16 types because the permutation of IEs was designed to be that way, not because there's anything about the number 16 specifically besides that it's 2^4. "In reality" there are only 16 types? No, it's still in theory.

    I think while every intertype relation is flawed (yes, that includes duality, too!), there's something you could learn from all types of people.

    That might be easier for me to say since my being on the border of ESE and SEE makes the difference between dual and conflictor, but whatever. But at the end of the day, people outside the socionics circle aren't going to give a shit what 3 or 4 letters you list yourself as, because interaction in reality depends on so much more than that.

    EDIT:

    Hai, get out of my mind.
    Get out of my mind too!

  23. #23
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravolez View Post
    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.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  24. #24
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not all that useless. Not to me anyway.

    I don't know. Like for example, when I look at Ni. I realize how people could have had the same thoughts about god, or why every civilization worshiped him at some point. I'm not gonna explain how, maybe I will write a book on it later in life if I bothered. LOL.

    Usually, I'd have thought "yeah.. fucking humans, they are all stupid. Not surprised." But I would wonder how times haven't changed and so there must some truth to it or some shit. Then I'd read about gods, mythology and other related stuff and would still find it hard to believe. And I end up saying "Fuck it. I don't want to deal with this shit." But then something comes up and makes me wonder again, and etc. Like, we always end up thinking philosophically from time to time.

    Some choose to believe, build their beliefs, others roll with it. The rest do their thing.. and then stuff.

    But I don't know. The concept of Ni as I understand as it, as well as many other information I've gathered all the way, actually do allow me to make some connections and see how humans are built that way and accept it as I have accepted that all humans have bodies, or feelings, or whatever.

    /rant

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    It's not all that useless. Not to me anyway.

    I don't know. Like for example, when I look at Ni. I realize how people could have had the same thoughts about god, or why every civilization worshiped him at some point. I'm not gonna explain how, maybe I will write a book on it later in life if I bothered. LOL.

    Usually, I'd have thought "yeah.. fucking humans, they are all stupid. Not surprised." But I would wonder how times haven't changed and so there must some truth to it or some shit. Then I'd read about gods, mythology and other related stuff and would still find it hard to believe. And I end up saying "Fuck it. I don't want to deal with this shit." But then something comes up and makes me wonder again, and etc. Like, we always end up thinking philosophically from time to time.

    Some choose to believe, build their beliefs, others roll with it. The rest do their thing.. and then stuff.

    But I don't know. The concept of Ni as I understand as it, as well as many other information I've gathered all the way, actually do allow me to make some connections and see how humans are built that way and accept it as I have accepted that all humans have bodies, or feelings, or whatever.

    /rant
    Sorry, I read this only now. I'm glad if you find some use in it... I don't know if you want to hear my opinion about religions, but in short I think they are made-up concrete explanations of something that can't at this point be put into any kind of concrete terms, if ever. Perhaps through science, perhaps not even through that. I'm fine with it that way. Btw, some buddhist stuff does sound cool, because certain things in buddhism are not as much concrete as most religions.

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    Btw, some buddhist stuff does sound cool, because certain things in buddhism are not as much concrete as most religions.
    Actually, it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    If I did not interact with someone, then of course I won't know anything about them. So what?
    What do I like about socionics?

  27. #27
    Gravolez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    TIM
    Te-ILI; 5w6 sx/sp
    Posts
    219
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    What do I like about socionics?
    That it is absurd?

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravolez View Post
    That it is absurd?
    So far I've only found people on here to be absurd with a couple exceptions, though. All in all, ye one can say it is absurd.

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is charming.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Actually, it is.
    Yes some of it is put into a concrete form but I ignore those parts in it. So yeah, I'm not a buddhist at all either.

    What do I like about socionics?
    -.- NO idea. You tell me.

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ambivalent existence View Post
    Yes some of it is put into a concrete form but I ignore those parts in it. So yeah, I'm not a buddhist at all either.
    It is a mix of two religions. The latter forced the former and out at the same time kept some of its practices and teachings.

    -.- NO idea. You tell me.
    Nothing.

  32. #32
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    you are correct. gj.

  33. #33
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,549
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lol Absurd. Or it could mean that not only Alpha NTs do that, whatever it is, I didn't read the previous posts.

  34. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Lol Absurd. Or it could mean that not only Alpha NTs do that, whatever it is, I didn't read the previous posts.
    ?

  35. #35
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    What Socionics is: a great way to make friends.

    What Socionics isn't: a great way to make friends.

  36. #36
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is, and always has been a theory. If you look at it as anything more than that, you'll be disappointed imo. Anecdotal reports suggests it can be used practically, that it works, but that's not evidence. What I've found is that the more material I look at, the more contradictions I find, the more tweaking and adjusting and additions I notice that people have to make to continue to apply it, to where there are actually multiple forms of 'socionics' that may or may not have agreement between them upon models, and type exemplars. There are what, 5 or 6 different models in use besides model A? There are reinin dichotomies which aren't actually dichotomies at all, and when applied change the view of types and how they are defined, and have to be modified to work within any of the models in some cases.

    If you try to take every piece of info available on the topic and put it into a cohesive whole, and say "this is socionics" you can't do it. Things clash and contradict and interpretations can vary widely. You have to throw some things out in order to make it fit. We make guesses and estimates, and sometimes form stereotypes that are extremely unhelpful and retard understanding. Deciding what to keep and what to toss, it's helpful to look at each part individually, and then of those that make sense and work individually, which ones work together. How do they fit, and are they applicable to life? Personally, that's what I'm looking at on my own, answering questions like:

    how do our minds work, how do they filter information, do the IEs exist and how does that work?

    which dichotomies and pseudo-dichotomies are applicable and useful and truly divisible? One thing that I do with reinin dichotomies for example is say, "Can I see a number of people easily and clearly at either end of this division?" If the vast majority of people I can think of are somewhere in the middle, or could be one or the other alternatively where it's muddled and unclear, I toss that dichotomy as useless for typing purposes. It means that you can easily make most people fit whichever category you choose.

    What is type-related and what isn't? What meaningful distinctions can actually be made?

    etc. etc. Obviously the very basics have to be answered first - with the basics being, are there IEs, what are they, are there types, why and how?

    If you determine that okay, IEs exist, or it is very plausible that they do, (btw you never addressed whether IEs exist in your post,) then of course as you pointed out it does not follow that there are direct behavioral correlations, but that's generally understood. Some people don't get that, and sometimes people forget that, but it is already a part of the general understanding of the theory. The assumptions you made are not the assumptions that other people are working from.

    Socionics can be addicting the way gambling is addicting; the payout is random, which drives more intense looking for more answers. I'll elaborate. Gambling is addictive to some people because the reward and subsequent endorphins etc come at unexpected times, meaning at any time there could be a reward, so they don't want to let go of the next try, each one could be the one that pays off. There was this study done on mice that shows they work the same way. They rigged a treat dispenser to either always give a treat, to never give a treat, or to sometimes give one, and sometimes not. The mice with the unpredictable treat dispenser after awhile started compulsively hitting the lever, to the point of abandoning everything else to that pursuit. The ones with the predictable dispensers had no such compulsion. (also applies to why some people stay in bad relationships that have occasional good times, but that's another topic) Socionics is like that unpredictable treat dispenser, or like the slot machine that a person keeps feeding quarters into: sometimes you see something that works, that really seems to apply, that makes sense and you have hope that it's not all a huge waste of time, so you keep looking, keep reading, keep trying to make it work.

    I think that if you're not at that point, and you find it totally useless right now, walking away satisfied in your idea that it has no good purpose whatsoever is the best thing you can do for yourself. You won't find any golden pieces that make you keep looking that way, nor will you do what I do, and sort through all the little pieces here and there, testing ideas out, and trying to find a way to tie it all together into a better package, a package without so many holes and errors, that not only works, but all fits together without the contradictions. So, if you're satisfied that it's worthless, then walking away from it all is a very good idea. Find something interesting but more productive to put your time towards. You're right that there are many other theories, ones with far more backing and evidence that you can explore that may do a better job explaining things.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    It is, and always has been a theory.
    Right, well, it is a theory. But people keep saying it works in practice so they use it. So? Is it a theory or to be taken for more than just theory?

    IMO, a theory, and you are right, my conclusion is exactly what you said at the end.

    Let me go into a few little details anyhow. I did the exact same you are doing with the theory, trying to better the theory in my mind, until at one point I realised it was useless.

    Note, one of my conclusions was/is that the dichotomies are all muddled. This is actually a nice short way to put what I was trying to explain in my first post.

    As for the IE's, these are abstract concepts that need to be anchored to reality and the problem is I do not see a proper connection between them and lower level cognitive workings of the brain. You could say there is a connection, but if so, it is one that does not explain anything NEW.

    Perhaps I see it this way only because I'm studying cogpsy at university. -.-

    You asked about how do our minds work, filter information, etc etc? There are a load of theories on that in cogpsy/cogsci.

    That's actually what I liked about the socionics theory, it seemed some stuff in it could tie in one way or the other, into other theories in cogpsy science. So I set out to explore it and see what it was about to decide what it actually was, heh.

    Suppose, this shows some more of my viewpoint.

    Btw, that experiment about gambling was pretty interesting. Good thing we are not rats.

  38. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Greatest non-socionics guru has spoken, all of yous subjective or something folk heed his warning.

  39. #39
    Gravolez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    TIM
    Te-ILI; 5w6 sx/sp
    Posts
    219
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know there is theory explaining gravity but you don't fly around. Theories are explanations of empyrical data, that doesn't necessarily mean that theories are true or not.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    around the world
    TIM
    Se+Ti+Ti
    Posts
    334
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gravolez View Post
    You know there is theory explaining gravity but you don't fly around. Theories are explanations of empyrical data, that doesn't necessarily mean that theories are true or not.
    Some theories are considered to be better models than others.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •