How do you use socionics in real life situations?

[krieger]

IMO to make socionics practically testable, one would have to create an experiment that puts concrete data (numbers, results) to the notion of compatibility between people.

The next thing would be to propose a method of establishing typings that is does not in any way avail itself of subjective asessments. Ideally you'd want a method that, with a little help, a contemporary computer could employ. Again, this would involve feeding the computer concrete data gathered under experimental conditions.

Put the two together, and you have a scientifically testable claim: does the method of establishing typings predict the results of the experiments or does it not.

[Wynch]

IMO to make socionics practically testable, one would have to create an experiment that puts concrete data (numbers, results) to the notion of compatibility between people.

The next thing would be to propose a method of establishing typings that is does not in any way avail itself of subjective asessments. Ideally you'd want a method that, with a little help, a contemporary computer could employ. Again, this would involve feeding the computer concrete data gathered under experimental conditions.

Put the two together, and you have a scientifically testable claim: does the method of establishing typings predict the results of the experiments or does it not.

I would be willing to change my self-typing to ESE, marry you and have amazing children over this post alone. We should talk more.

Establish logically and empirically consistent system first. Everything else, second.

[JuJu]

I would be willing to change my self-typing to ESE, marry you and have amazing children over this post alone. We should talk more.

Establish logically and empirically consistent system first. Everything else, second.

LOL!!!

You two would be great at helping to iron out the logic. Seriously... I'd love to be in on these experiments.

I'm interested in "second," haha, which is making Socionics practical for people to use ASAP. Teaching ppl how to do it so it can benefit them as quickly and fully as possible.

Its logical soundness (or vice versa) doesn't mean a damn to me if it can't help in a tangible way... But I've found it can.

IMO Socionics needs better teachers, and then lots of people will start to benefit.

[Wynch]

But you see, JuJu, the problem with socionics is that people want to skip ahead to using it before they've established what's being used. So people develop a vague context of the logical framework and then begin a free-for-all of typing. However, if persons A, B and C all have a different understanding and the logical framework is unclear, then you have nothing to argue on. Nothing but vague principles which people will argue about until the end of time.

There needs to be an estbalished norm to which the theory refers to (which is why these forums have been titled "Model A" forums. From there you can flesh out the theory as long as the premise refers back to the original skeleton. Lastly, you can figure out how to apply this practically by making a study that can refer back to your theory and system and produces empirical results.

Unless this is happening (and holds up to peer review, because we can all be geniuses and still have ideas that do not hold up to critical analysis), then we can all come and say "You are full of shit and have no idea what you're talking about." And we can all do this to each other.

Unfortunately I'm too lazy to do anything other than skeleton and theory, and only then if I have someone to work on it with so we can ping ideas. I get tired of solitary confinement i.e. writing papers.

[JuJu]

But you see, JuJu, the problem with socionics is that people want to skip ahead to using it before they've established what's being used. So people develop a vague context of the logical framework and then begin a free-for-all of typing. However, if persons A, B and C all have a different understanding and the logical framework is unclear, then you have nothing to argue on. Nothing but vague principles which people will argue about until the end of time.

There needs to be an estbalished norm to which the theory refers to (which is why these forums have been titled "Model A" forums. From there you can flesh out the theory as long as the premise refers back to the original skeleton. Lastly, you can figure out how to apply this practically by making a study that can refer back to your theory and system and produces empirical results.

Unless this is happening (and holds up to peer review, because we can all be geniuses and still have ideas that do not hold up to critical analysis), then we can all come and say "You are full of shit and have no idea what you're talking about." And we can all do this to each other.

Unfortunately I'm too lazy to do anything other than skeleton and theory, and only then if I have someone to work on it with so we can ping ideas. I get tired of solitary confinement i.e. writing papers.

This is a great post... You are 100% right.

You are right... people are always jumping ahead w/ Socionics--imo, precisely b/c it is not easy and clear...

They learn a little Socionics and then mix and match with other theories... They take babelfished Russian out-of-context... They call themselves, e.g., ISTp when they are ISTj b/c they don't understand the functions, or the intertype relations, and instead are hung up on an idea of themselves as a certain temperament (a Western emphasis inherited from MBTI, probably.)

We've seen how out-of-whack this forum can get with these ideas.

I feel like there are a few people here to ping ideas off of, (you, Vero, for sure, among them...) But considering the number of people on the forum, it is a small percentage...

We are all at the infancy of Socionics in the West... And these are the growing pains.

That said, what you write goes to the heart of the current problems with Socionics.

In particular, I'm interested in how to establish a person's type empirically... I establish a person's type by type comparisons, which is referential and (as re: some intertype relations,) totally anecdotal. E.g. I learned about Kindred relations from Mimosa's post about them and my brief experience with an ESFj... I'd love some empirical guideposts.

In MBTI and "The Big Five," etc, it's easy to establish type... Those are simple little dichotomous systems. Also, there are good tests for them.

Socionics is not a simple little system... And type tests produce misleading results.


For now, it seems to me: unfortunately, the most accurate approach to tying oneself quickly w/ Socionics is via guru... Also unfortunately imo, the most accurate approach to typing oneself in the long haul is years of learning.

Do you think there need to be studies, Vero?? If yes, maybe we could form an organization and see if we could get some grant money to run experiments... If that happens, I think we'd get places with Socionics very quickly.

[Wynch]

I'm going to be really honest for a second here, JuJu, and say that I feel you're one of the people who jumps ahead of themselves where socionics certainty is concerned. I see you saying a LOT of stuff as though you know precisely what you're talking about, but you haven't really shown any kind of...tie back? As though people are expected to take your word for it, as it were, which always makes me skeptical.

And talking about grant money is really idealistic, I think. I'm not ambitious enough to head that route. I enjoy the intellectual pursuit of exploring socionics, but I don't think I have the ambition or attention span to really dedicate myself as a champion of it.

[JuJu]

I see you saying a LOT of stuff as though you know precisely what you're talking about, but you haven't really shown any kind of...tie back? As though people are expected to take your word for it, as it were, which always makes me skeptical

That's fair, really.

I wouldn't want you or anyone to take what I write for granted.

I'm aware that people are skeptical whenever they read something written with a tone of authority on a given subject... All I can tell you is that I am being genuine about what I write, and although I know I get things wrong on occasion--without being modest or boastful--I know my stuff well.

As to writing ahead of my understanding... The truth is: my understanding advanced a great deal during a time when I wasn't posting post here. (Dec, Jan, Feb of this year.) As a regular poster, I do not post (if you look at post counts) nearly as much as many... And it's true--you are right--I never really explained what I learned during that time... (Frankly I do not know how to do it without visuals... Which is why I am looking forward to producing this documentary.)

My motives for writing what I do here is to help other people use Socionics well, and in practice.. I'm very sincere about it b/c of how much Socionics has benefited me in my relationships with my family, my gf, and other friends....

I really do wish everyone could see benefits like this.

As regards "tie-back," I think I know what you mean... What you have to realize, Vero, is that is your skills, and intellectual criteria, as an individual and NeTi... Are not the same as my skills and intellectual criteria as an individual and a FeNi.

Whereas you are quite good at categorizing abstract data, and explaining your reasoning for it, I am not great at it. (My history of science profs will back me up.) When I try to write technically, it's even less technical and more gobbledy**** than Strrrng writes... It's unpleasant for me to do--and since I'm not getting paid to do it, you know, I haven't been doing it.

This is by way of saying, I'm very good at a different aspect of Socionics--especially, getting peoples' types right. (Personally, I believe this is a really important aspect of Socionics, b/c if a person never gets his/her type right, Socionics can never really benefit him/her.)

Specialized, yes, but it's what I am interested in, what my particular skill set lends itself to, and to be honest, that it works in practice (i.e. typing and accurately predicting of intertype relations) satisfies my intellectual criteria... So that's why I do it.

Categorizing the empirical e.g. "this ____ is an expression of this function because"--if that is what interests you about Socionics... I really hope you pursue it! I would love to read works about it... Socionics needs more works like that which aren't in Russian.

But what I'm trying to say is, it ain't my bag.

There are some people here who are hoping to learn the very basics of Socionics for various reasons, e.g. "what type am I?" "what type is my girlfriend?" "why do we fight?" That's where I want to--and can--help.

In other words, remain skeptical of me... Honestly... I want what I do to stand up to any evaluation based on Model A... Especially one based on your criteria, i.e. "tie backs;" but know that I may put it in different language, or you may have to ask me to clarify a point b/c I won't have explained it the first time.

If anything wins you over--again, I want someone scrutinizing who knows Model A--let it be that I continually get the typings correct. That's my goal.

[Jarno]

In MBTI and "The Big Five," etc, it's easy to establish type... Those are simple little dichotomous systems. Also, there are good tests for them.

Socionics is not a simple little system... And type tests produce misleading results.

What's wrong with socionics dichotomies? Most russian sites use them.

[Banana Pancakes]

But you see, JuJu, the problem with socionics is that people want to skip ahead to using it before they've established what's being used. So people develop a vague context of the logical framework and then begin a free-for-all of typing. However, if persons A, B and C all have a different understanding and the logical framework is unclear, then you have nothing to argue on. Nothing but vague principles which people will argue about until the end of time.

This.

[Wynch]

But this becomes a question of exploring a system or exploring a concept. If you want to talk about exploring the concept of typing people, then by all means, absolutely anything is valid. You could offer me a system where you type people based on varieties of fruit, and as long as it's logically consistent and has some empirical value, then why the hell not?

But if you want to talk about a theory, you need to build off it's original premise or else you're no longer talking about that. Calling something socionics simply because you use the XXXx structure, doesn't make it so. If you and I try to type someone and we're functioning within two different theories then when you say I'm wrong and I say you're wrong, neither of us is wrong or right. We're just not talking about the same thing.

Oh, and to add to that. If we want to talk about something like Reinin dichotomies, we can argue the case for them based on Model A. If you look at the dichotomies, most (if not all? I haven't looked throroughly into all of them) function within Model A and "classical" socionics. They're just another format of breaking down type characteristics. They're still related to the original model and the logical roots of most of what I've seen seem to be consistent with Model A. Expanding on a theory is ok. As long as it shares the same foundation as what everyone else is trying to talk about.

[Wynch]

tbh, I think we're in agreement here. If people want to talk about alternate theories then they should be allowed to talk about alternate theories without harrassment or fear of condemnation. Ideas shouldn't be censored.

That said, this is a socionics forum. People talking about things which are either not at all socionics or that do not connect back to socionics (meaning things that relate back to the original theory) should post in places where it's appropriate. And if you're going to use something that doesn't relate back to the original theory to refute thoughts on the original theory, then you're just contributing to unnecessary confusion.

[JuJu]

tbh, I think we're in agreement here. If people want to talk about alternate theories then they should be allowed to talk about alternate theories without harrassment or fear of condemnation. Ideas shouldn't be censored.

That said, this is a socionics forum. People talking about things which are either not at all socionics or that do not connect back to socionics (meaning things that relate back to the original theory) should post in places where it's appropriate. And if you're going to use something that doesn't relate back to the original theory to refute thoughts on the original theory, then you're just contributing to unnecessary confusion.

In 100% agreement... Well-put again.

[Wynch]

You're quite welcome. Any time.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request