Getting Back to Basics

[Eldanen]

One month, 40 replies and 1000 views before someone answers a simple question about how to science.

But it was answered.

I think the title of the thread was a bit deceptive. I expected something about basic Model A stuff when I opened the thread, and I was surprised that cpig would post something like beginner's information. Instead, it was a cleverly crafted stereotypical cpig post that said PROVE SOCIONICS. Sigh. Maybe next time something interesting.

[Ron Mexican]

Amidst all of the models and theories of Socionics, and our own evaluations of these models and their merit, there can be a lot of confusion and discord. The one universal constant about Socionics that we can glean from typing threads, for members and celebrities alike, is there is rarely any consensus about a person's type. The inconsistency of the theory results from a lack of empirical evidence for the concepts that are inherent to the foundation of Socionics, and no rigidly defined criteria for determining important typology markers. This, in a nutshell, is why Socionics will probably never be considered for scientific investigation and inquiry. This is not up for debate, it's simply fact.

So I have a challenge I'd like to put to the forum: Define the very idea that is at the core of Socionics. If you had to answer in a single sentence, without making any assumptions or taking anything for granted, what is the basic observation about the natural world that necessitates a theory like Socionics to explain it's underpinnings? Furthermore, how would you conceive an experiment to empirically test that hypothesis? How would you falsify it?

Whew this turned out long Hopefully there's good stuff in what I said here lol

For one thing, I want to say I appreciate your role as the critic (which is ironically the stereotype/nickname of ILI - the type you said you relate to the most), because I'd like to know that something I invest so much energy into could be proven too, and that it's not just a waste of time. It's your kind of thinking that makes or breaks a theory.

So, as far as member and celebrity typings go...
Celebrity typings are always tough to determine and are very subjective, because they're only based on observation.
We don't get to sit down with them and interview them with socionics based questions like:
"Do you think about the concrete realities of every day, or do you find yourself paying attention to abstract concepts, removed from your present environment?"
We also don't get to know them over a long period of time, and have conversation with them during their best and their bad days alike.
As far as member typings go...
There's a differing level of experience of the members here, which is one point to why disagreement on other members occurs,
another point is that a lot of members only communicate by text, not by audible conversation,
and even though some members video chat in TinyChat, it's still not the same as hanging out in person,
doing different things together, and observing how they react to different enviroments.
The only way I truly feel confident about someone's type, is if I've gotten to know them in person
over a long period of time. That's not possible neither with celebrities nor members of the forum.

Which brings me to your question of how socionics could be empirically tested.
You could have several socionics experts determine a handful of individuals' type independently,
via socionics-related interviews, observation of daily activities, and regular conversations/check-ins with the individuals throughout a prolonged period of time.
Those conversations should pertain to what the individual has been doing with their day, thinking about during their day, and how they've been reacting to people and situations in their daily life.
The several socionics experts, like I said, would perform the experiment independently, without discussion among themselves and arrive at a type before comparing results.
Then you would see if they agree on the individuals' types more than chance alone would show.

The very idea that is socionics: There is a pattern of why some people do or do not get along with others, because of their innate personality.

The basic observation of the necessity of socionics:
The short answer you asked for: If person A is considered a "good person" and is liked by person B, why does person C not agree, and dislikes person A? What causes this difference in values?

The longer version, and my personal observation that necessitates me to study things like this:
I have very strong reactions to people, right off the bat.
They're very instinctive, and I can't explain them, nor do I know where they come from.
I like some people right away, and it's smooth sailing from then on, while others I don't, and can never find common ground with.
If it was solely up to my intentions, I'd get along with everyone, so if it's not by my choice that I don't like or get along with some people, why is it?
That's the question that drives me to study personality,
both my own, so I could understand where these unintentional reactions come from,
and others' so I would know what kind of people I should surround myself with so I could enjoy their company,
and not have to fight my instincts just to be nice to them.
(makes me sound like a bitch but whatever lol)
Socionics answers those questions for me.

I rambled, sorry lol

[ClownsandEntropy]

Does anyone know how they decided the Rorschach wasn't valid? Maybe we could do something similar to that. Or something something psychoanalysis. If not prove that it's not valid, maybe we could at least not find evidence that it's invalid.

Also we need to break things about people into "this is type related" and "this is not type related". Or at least some kind of testable thing which we theoretically most types of type X should show. (Which is what CPig said, right? Dammit.).

[chemical]

The issue with socionics does not to me arise from whether the theory is empirically testable and such. It arises from the fact that things like information elements are inherently theoretical constructs, useful as a framework, but when you try too hard to pin them down to some empirically verifiable standard in a rigid way, you end up with a testable theory that may or may not respect its theoretical underpinnings.

What necessitates socionics? Well, the much more basic theory is Jungian typology. Socionics takes the 8 modes of Jungian consciousness, as well as the idea that ego-consciousness has an orientation given by one of the information elements, colored by a second frequently, and applies this idea to a total of four blocks, one which may be seen analogous to the ego, the others arising from (semi)Freudian terminology.

Even if the precise orders in each of the blocks can be broken, I think the existence of the blocks can be quite apparent if one sees the inter-relations among the IE.

If you take things back to the man who first wrote the 8 types of consciousness down, he believed types are nothing static, and there never appeared to be a satisfactory resolution of his own typology that I see in the public. Some accept certain explanations and are happy moving on convinced, while others continue to doubt the foundations. I try to be somewhere in between these, attempting to frame what causes the doubts and the most likely set of assumptions, along with the most likely doubts arising regarding those.

Nowadays I am convinced that part of the issue is your life experiences can and do affect not just where your interests lie, but how you fundamentally think, and the point is "who you are" isn't always a stable entity. There is a stability inherent, yes, but if we get utterly philosophical, that stability is not necessarily captured best by type, maybe something more esoteric. We tend to morph into who we are, in a successive competition between what is unnatural/natural and rewarding/not rewarding, and eventually a certain pattern establishes itself, which we readily identify with, not fully fixed but quite hard to dislodge because it is in place for a reason.

This is the closest to necessitating Jung's typology, and of course this is ways away from necessitating socionics, due to different IE definitions and different philosophies on how they block together, not to mention that in a majority of Jung's original text, it was unclear how things block together (much of the fuss has been essentially confined to his last few words on auxiliary functions, which I view as largely misinterpreted and misused).

What is socionics? It is a theory merging Jung, Freud, sociological relations and much more to study the roles of information elements in the psyche.

My preference going forward is more categorization and more digging at the foundations.

I also should say that socionics appears to do exactly what Jung discouraged with his typology, namely the intellectually detached classifying point of view is to be discouraged, yet it seems encouraged in socionics. Note that I personally do not have a problem (in fact the opposite!) with the intellectually detached classification point of view. But it seems to Jung, the point of discovering your type might be more along the lines of recognizing really fundamental apparent limitations in how you approach information, not classfying and categorizing every last transaction between the subject and a content so as to classify people's roles in different situations and such. As such, I think is the reason he didn't develop a consistent way of classification, rather gave the general ideas at work and would resort to classification more likely only in content of some kind of psychiatric context for the most part, to augment his other methods of understanding the conscious/unconscious dialogue, etc.

[ashlesha]

Bump

[strangeling]

Fyi,
I've changed my mind about a lot of stuff and take back everything I ever said in this thread and don't care about what I said.

[Exodus]

Amidst all of the models and theories of Socionics, and our own evaluations of these models and their merit, there can be a lot of confusion and discord. The one universal constant about Socionics that we can glean from typing threads, for members and celebrities alike, is there is rarely any consensus about a person's type. The inconsistency of the theory results from a lack of empirical evidence for the concepts that are inherent to the foundation of Socionics, and no rigidly defined criteria for determining important typology markers. This, in a nutshell, is why Socionics will probably never be considered for scientific investigation and inquiry. This is not up for debate, it's simply fact.

So I have a challenge I'd like to put to the forum: Define the very idea that is at the core of Socionics. If you had to answer in a single sentence, without making any assumptions or taking anything for granted, what is the basic observation about the natural world that necessitates a theory like Socionics to explain it's underpinnings? Furthermore, how would you conceive an experiment to empirically test that hypothesis? How would you falsify it?

The idea that is at the core of socionics is fairly clear in my opinion:

People are motivated by what kind of information they try to optimize, and there are eight (or sixteen, conjecturally) different kinds of information that are intrinsically valuable, dividing people into types by what information they optimize.

This answer probably won't satisfy OP because it's not "empirically testable." Personally I don't have as much a problem as some do with the fact that socionics isn't objectively testable by controlled experiment (due to the fact that typing is a partly subjective process). It is definitely subjectively verifiable which although not ideal is good enough to get a grasp on it.

You can try to make socionics empirical but this seems like a far-off goal. Maybe in 50 years when we understand neuroscience a lot better. In any case it doesn't detract from the importance of socionics in the slightest.

[Exodus]

Cpig: the anti-Ti. Lol. I don't think that socionics will ever become a scientific theory. I'm not going to answer your challenge because I really couldn't care less about whether or not it's scientific or empirical. If you want an observation about the world that triggered the search for the idea of Socionics, here's one: some human relationships work well while others fail miserably. "Why is that?" would be the question that then became the impetus for its development.

This is how Augusta herself explained the impetus for socionics. However it's not clear that this is really how she developed it, more likely she was playing around with Jung's typology and only later discovered the relationship patterns.

[Capitalist Pig]

This thread again.

Also, I apologize for all of the improper "it's" in some of my previous posts. I wasn't proofreading as closely then or something.

[Bertrand]

focusing on the real sin, I see

[strangeling]

Back to basics.
Why are we here. What does any of this even mean.
What is Socionics. Why it's not science. And why no one actually cares, but a few people.
Let's talk about this.

please.

[Singu]

Well, "psychological types" are literally a creation of Jung... for all we know, this whole thing may only be a creation of his mind.

I think Jung was particularly interested in the mystical, the occult, the spiritual and the religious, the things that can not necessarily be proven by "science". I think that the people who are interested in Jung also tend to be equally interested in the mystical and spiritual side of things. A lot of things said by Jung were so vague and mystical that they're not something that can necessarily be proven nor unproven. And it also seems like the people who follow Jung are also not particularly interested in "proving" anything. They're just something that's kind of interesting to talk and ponder about, and that's it. That's why this whole thing is becoming kind of quasi-religious. It's more becoming "interpretation of Jung" "what Jung said or meant" than "Let's try to prove this right or wrong". It's like as if we're reading a holy scripture and trying to "interpret" what is meant by it. I mean that's purely religion and not science.

So while a lot of Freud's theories have been wrong, some of his theories were proven to be correct. But that's only because some people have managed to try and test them out in the real world. They're not endlessly trying to debate what Freud meant by this or that. They're not endless trying to create some new models in their minds. Freud also saw himself as some kind of an objective scientist, so perhaps it was easier to test out his theories and hypothesis.

A lot of psychology and psychoanalysis is "art", meaning that there's a lot of room for error, and nothing is absolute. For example, this person could have both Borderline Personality Disorder as well as Histrionic Personality Disorder. Or the person could be "more like" Borderline than "less than". There is no single way to "cure" Borderline, because everybody is different, and each psychologists and therapists approach it in a different way. I'm sure that even medical doctors make "educated guesses", and they're aware that everybody's bodies are different and react in different ways.

But what's interesting about Jung and Socionics is that it leaves no room for error, it's as if everything is "absolute", the mind is rigidly structured in a certain way, and the relations are fixed. There is no possibility for change or fluidity. It's like as if they're trying to merge the mystical spirituality with the exactness of science. And since it's not "actual" science, that's probably why the whole theory doesn't really work as well.

[Myst]

Amidst all of the models and theories of Socionics, and our own evaluations of these models and their merit, there can be a lot of confusion and discord. The one universal constant about Socionics that we can glean from typing threads, for members and celebrities alike, is there is rarely any consensus about a person's type. The inconsistency of the theory results from a lack of empirical evidence for the concepts that are inherent to the foundation of Socionics, and no rigidly defined criteria for determining important typology markers. This, in a nutshell, is why Socionics will probably never be considered for scientific investigation and inquiry. This is not up for debate, it's simply fact.

So I have a challenge I'd like to put to the forum: Define the very idea that is at the core of Socionics. If you had to answer in a single sentence, without making any assumptions or taking anything for granted, what is the basic observation about the natural world that necessitates a theory like Socionics to explain it's underpinnings? Furthermore, how would you conceive an experiment to empirically test that hypothesis? How would you falsify it?

The basic idea where I see a point in testing it is the following. The organizational principle of information processing in the mind/brain, of having a main mental process dealing with one of several possible and defined general types of information that works along with its complementary opposite mental process.

How to test/falsify this empirically: check for measurable differences between test subjects for processing well-defined information types under controlled conditions.

I for sure wonder why socionists have never tried doing this. You don't need very expensive brain imaging equipment for this at all.

This could show something in some cases. Then further experiments could be designed about finding what conditions affect the observations. Then also finding neural correlates to such measured differences in information processing.

I highly doubt this would verify the function model of 8 broad categories of information elements though as it is put now. It would most likely result in a different model.

Then one day with a much better understanding of the brain/mind we could get to see how it happens in the brain that processing of certain information gets prioritized over processing other information.

You originally asked about a basic observation, I would say there is no such single observation. There are many manifestations linked to the function model. (Which is actually one of its problems.)

I guess I agree with whoever posted how the fact some relationships work well and some don't is a good general observation though.

[Myst]

We have plenty of data from neurosciences and in a broader sense, Biology, the fundational concepts should be consistent with them. For example, considering historical evolution of the human brain. I give some points to the basic definitions as External/Internal Static/Dynamics of Objects/Fields in the sense they condensate some expected attributes of functions, but I do not like that these definitions are completely symmetrical, like all of them are "equal peers", and they are static definitions so to speak. Functions are ways of processing information (dynamic), and this processing is not evident in them. Also I do not think they're "equal", not in the sense of important/better/whatever subjetive qualification, but biologically speaking. It does not makes sense that sensing and intuition are independent. Taking in consideration observed results of what we call intuition, it does not make sense that it can evolve independently of sensing, like appearing before for example. Intuition is, from my point of view, a non conscious way of post-processing sensing information. It should be newer evolutionary speaking. The simpler the organism, the closer to a sensor it will be. It correlates with abstract thinking. I'm not speaking about intelligence or being more right/wrong, only abstract thinking as it is, so nobody should get offended. When I think in a person in terms of sensor/intuitor, I do it in comparison with the average person, relatively, not in absolute way (like if you're a sensor you're uncapable of abstract thinking). The difference is in the "last, tiny" segment of the whole thinking process. All humans are intuitors from the point of view of simpler animals, and inside humans, intuition has also his problems, (you miss data which could be determinant).

I don't think Intuition has to be newer evolutionary speaking. There are very basic ancient brain structures that for example do perform abstract predictions for concrete actions. I can see higher level Intuition develop from that or from similar ancient and primitive processes. And, Sensing information can be quite abstractly processed, that is, processed on a high level with nuances that more primitive life forms don't do.

Could concepts like these be measured? Well, weighting how much X a person is could be quite difficult, but objectively observing if a person is more X or more 1/X compared with the average person, could be done. By definition, ego functions are valued (and conscious). Users will have a liking preference for the concepts they manage compared with their opposites. But asking directly to a subject will not necessarily produce this result (ego functions). The subject could offer what it's expected, or have learned about how the correct his/her own thinking flaws, and offer the correct answer to the concept/problem, valuing being right more than anything. The test should be something Rorschach-like in the sense that it should not have a right/wrong answer. Maybe offering simple pictures that in some way represent the "basic forms", archetypes of functions, or their products. The answer should be measured in an involuntary way for overpassing conscious corrections. Again, ego functions are valued, using them should trigger the reward brainpaths (dopamine) which could be detected with a PET scanner. the process could be "calibrated" doing sufficient tests with a big sample of population.

A few issues: the issue with the idea of examining the reward pathways is that we first have to figure out neural correlates for the types of information processing specifically organized as high level conscious processing.

As for Ego functions, Base function is supposedly always running so it won't trigger reward pathways like that.

Then I would not want to test Ego processing using simple pictures with "basic forms" like that, that I don't think would activate high level conscious processing enough.

Etc.

I would not even start here really with all the testing, I'd first just demonstrate measurable differences in information processing in cognitive tasks designed for this. Then test those differences under many different conditions. Then maybe we can start thinking about these things in terms of the neural correlates.