What makes you NOT a socionist!!!

[Absurd]

Rest assured, no monkey is going to bother you...

I find the tings you say, I don't know, interesting. Same with stuff Bolest says, especially "if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" - I think Ayn Rand used the same descriptor (more than) once on one of her speeches for individuality and against collectivism.

[FDG]

In fact I didn't want to say that socionics won't be talking about real people or observing real people as well. I meant to define subject and approach of socionics. That's all. You can talk about real John Doe as much as you wish but once you say that John Doe is ILE (for instance) then you have to consider the above.

And, is there anything new? A theory is a theory is a theory, obviously it will only describe a stylized version of reality.

By no means I meant to accuse Jung of being non socionist He never claimed to use socionics.

You're just escaping my point. Socionics is derived from a theory which observed the behavior of real people. You can't realistically claim that it's just an abstract construct - unless you simply want to shield yourself from the consequences of the opposite assertion.

[Tropski Bolest]

Rest assured, no monkey is going to bother you...

I find the tings you say, I don't know, interesting. Same with stuff Bolest says, especially "if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" - I think Ayn Rand used the same descriptor (more than) once on one of her speeches for individuality and against collectivism.

A friend of mine, after listening to me talk to him about economics, told me that I should take up Ayn Rand, that I'd really like it.

I find you hard to understand. You don't seem to structure your posts very much. It's very free flow and subsequent edits. Something I have to say I've never seen before, that much subsequent editing. It's like an attempt at poem via a forum post. I'm caught a little off guard.

What is your stance on empiricism vs. theory in socionics?

[thePirate]

Good post. Socionics, as far as I understand it, is a theory that emphasizes cognitive interplay within and among individuals. It's based on observations of real people so it isn't completely abstract in nature, yet it is measuring very specific aspects of interactions and for that reason the emphasis on typing should be placed in a more theoretical context to filter out aspects the theory doesn't encompass. This site is an interesting case study, in that the complete opposite has been done here - the main emphasis has been on typing people based off vibes, feelings of commonality, type descriptors, or using a noticeably standalone IE as a factor to type someone and propel rationalizations, as well as other factors that make no reference to how a person's psyche works wholistically via Model A. The subsequent fallout has been fascinating in that there is a rejection of the theory as a whole as a result of the theory being applied incorrectly. While it is obviously a theory that is hard to substantiate with empirical testing, the connections socionics makes are more or less obvious in the way perceptions work regardless if it actually works systematically. The problem is that this theory sells a dream to people who seem to be less than advantageous life situations, and these people are more interested in making that dream work for them than actually understanding what the theory is actually saying. You can see this with the countless threads about intertype disappointments, about people giving up on socionics, and other emotionally charged threads that espouse claims that were never really stated. Duality being an obvious example of this. If the criteria stated in the OP were actually applied towards typing, there would be alot more consistent and even perhaps practical observations between members here. Sadly, this is too much work for the average user to incorporate.

[GuavaDrunk]

I think claiming that making everyone study the theory intensively will sort out the non-convergence of opinions underestimates how widely yet subtly people's perceptions and mental organisation of data can differ. The hardest thing when teaching someone is to work out which part they misunderstood which caused them to 'do it wrong' as you are not given their starting point (initial mental landscape) but have to deduce it.

[InvisibleJim]

This mean ass Ukranian is going to make Maritsa cry. Ban him.

Sinister and mean Ukranians.

[rat1]

You forgot the number 1 reason... socionist isnt an actual profession. If it is considered a profession somewhere, it could only be in some remote region of former russia where quackery abounds. And for all the OPs idealistic babble about preserving the structural integrity of Model A, his head is too far up his ass to acknowledge the pointlessness of a model that does not connect with reality. This is the reason MBTI has prevailed over socionics in the west. Not that I give a shit.

[Capitalist Pig]

@psevdonim, the only way the Western world is going to ever take Socionics seriously is if you can establish an empirical basis for it's existence. Jungian psychology, which Socionics is partly derived from, has had very limited success in this regard. Unless you can extrapolate some predictions from your model and verify them experimentally, you might as well be talking about Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Here's some recommended reading in your native tongue: Научный метод.

[Enters Laughing]

The OP makes very good points.

[Capitalist Pig]

The OP makes very good points.

I agree. He's absolutely correct about models and how they (don't) work. However, the "scientificity" of Socionics (as @Tropski Bolest put it) remains to be seen. And the OP's credibility has also been shown, in time, to be as flimsy as the foundations of Model A. Three years later his own "[S]ocionics school" doesn't seem to exist anymore as far as the Internet is concerned.

Yes, we are attempting to do that. And there is a number of articles which try to demonstrate that connection of socionics with reality. If you are interested, there is an attempt to translate in English the site of the socionics school to which I belong to: http://en.socionicasys.ru (or if you can read in Russian: http://socionicasys.ru)

I guess the degree mill business wasn't good enough, seems they went into real estate.

So much for all of that work trying to "demonstrate the connection of socionics [sic] with reality."

[Beautiful sky]

My own relationship is a testament of the theory and my business model is too

[Capitalist Pig]

My own relationship is a testament of the theory and my business model is too

No it's not.

Your success in your present relationship up to this point you may attribute to Socionics as you understand it, but it is not a predictor of success. Moreover, your commercial success only proves there are people willing to buy what you're selling; not the viability of Socionics as a tool for describing "information elements." (Whatever those are.)