Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 62

Thread: Socionics Can't Be Objective

  1. #1
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics Can't Be Objective

    For the most part, you can't really type other people in socionics, and Sol had a point when he said you can only type people 20% of the time. To be able to really type someone else, you have to completely know their motivations to do what they're doing and assess their competence. Unless you actually have the same or at least similar IEs, you can't do that at all, and saying "you must be X type because I'm Y type and I see X" is a circular argument. Observed behaviors can't directly proceed from "information processing" the same way qualia can't directly proceed from stimuli (hallucinations, everyone actually sees color differently, etc.).

    This is also why socionics can't/shouldn't pretend to be a science even if you want to use it. Socionics is ideas without any vague possibility of empiricism. You can't see yourself except reflected in other things like a mirror, and since all you see is your perceptions, you paradoxically have to be constantly changing them around to compensate for your blindspot to have a constant idea. Socionics can be a body of knowledge and useful as long as you don't think all knowledge is ultimately empirical or get too dogmatic with it, but it can only have meaning to the person doing the typing because you can't get outside of your own perceptions. The only way to vaguely type other people is based on your relations with them, but doesn't that sort of bring two people together into one unit with shared thoughts anyways? You can't just sit back and type someone based on their behaviors and say you're being rational about it. It is inherently irrational since empathy is the only way to know how someone would relate to their IEs since everyone displays all of them. You have to figure out how the other person relates to their IEs, which means empathy, and even that depends somewhat on them. So socionics is marvelously the least objective thing there can be, and even a pseudoscience as long as people pretend it's scientific.

  2. #2
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    For the most part, you can't really type other people in socionics, and Sol had a point when he said you can only type people 20% of the time. To be able to really type someone else, you have to completely know their motivations to do what they're doing and assess their competence. Unless you actually have the same or at least similar IEs, you can't do that at all, and saying "you must be X type because I'm Y type and I see X" is a circular argument. Observed behaviors can't directly proceed from "information processing" the same way qualia can't directly proceed from stimuli (hallucinations, everyone actually sees color differently, etc.).

    Its BS that socioinics cant be much more that Ne. Sol is a wonderful person but not much more that than. If you really understand why a person is no more then there is much more to say. Fe is Fe and Si is Si. Dont try to Fi on the terms of Si!

    This is also why socionics can't/shouldn't pretend to be a science even if you want to use it. Socionics is ideas without any vague possibility of empiricism. You can't see yourself except reflected in other things like a mirror, and since all you see is your perceptions, you paradoxically have to be constantly changing them around to compensate for your blindspot to have a constant idea. Socionics can be a body of knowledge and useful as long as you don't think all knowledge is ultimately empirical or get too dogmatic with it, but it can only have meaning to the person doing the typing because you can't get outside of your own perceptions. The only way to vaguely type other people is based on your relations with them, but doesn't that sort of bring two people together into one unit with shared thoughts anyways? You can't just sit back and type someone based on their behaviors and say you're being rational about it. It is inherently irrational since empathy is the only way to know how someone would relate to their IEs since everyone displays all of them. You have to figure out how the other person relates to their IEs, which means empathy, and even that depends somewhat on them. So socionics is marvelously the least objective thing there can be, and even a pseudoscience as long as people pretend it's scientific.
    If you can not Si on the terms of Fi then shut the f..... up.

  3. #3
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    The map is not the territory applies to Socionics. It is a cognitive model of our personalities on how we communicate with others and the outside world, nothing more and nothing less. It does not describe our complete personality, but merely a limited aspect of it. Enneagram and instinctual stackings cover other parts of our personality, but even those do not describe everything. No theoretical model can describe you in your entirety, only fractions of it.

    Even within those fractions, there is imperfect aspects as personality theories are bound to have flaws. This is why the best way to approach Socionics is to recognize what it is good for and what it is bad for. Overvaluing it will result in you being disappointed with Socionics flaws and limitations and undervaluing it will result in you missing out in potential benefits in your interactions with other people. Balance is the key to utilizing Socionics properly IMO.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  4. #4
    meme hotline Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    ethic 3
    Posts
    9,083
    Mentioned
    716 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    All this "you can't, you shouldn't" - come on! We wanna know what we are capable of doing with it instead, no matter the objectivity or subjectivity! Limitations exist to be surpassed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    To be able to really type someone else, you have to completely know their motivations to do what they're doing and assess their competence.
    ^That's determining the enneagram type of someone.

  5. #5
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    That's determining the enneagram type of someone.
    You can't be good without being good at/for. They are inherently interrelated.

  6. #6
    Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    San Junipero
    TIM
    EII 9w1 so/sx
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not super bothered by the idea of socionics not being objective/scientific in the strictest sense, as long as it's useful. But I'm not sure the argument in OP is conclusive. I think the "circular argument" issue can be resolved with standard mathematical representations like fixed points and integration over a distribution of people's typings of each other.

    There's also been work done with neuroscience/EEG (brain scans), which seems as objective of a measure as any (if you believe that socionics IE = MBTI cognitive function, which I do). See Dario Nardi's work.

    I also completely agree with @Raver's post. "No theoretical model can describe you in your entirety, only fractions of it." And then there's the saying, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Socionics is a very useful model as long as you aren't dogmatic about it (as @Wyrd said)--I don't know if its founders even intend for every statement about a type to be true of all people in that type, or just true on average/for most people of that type. Its usefulness is also magnified when combined w/ other models like instinctual variants.

    Is socionics objective? Not really, in its current incarnation/how most socionists use it now. Is it inherently unable to be objective? I don't think so, but it would take a lot of resources to collect the data necessary to make it objective. Is it "true"? That's too philosophical of a question for me.

  7. #7
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree and have been saying this for years.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  8. #8
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economist View Post
    I'm not super bothered by the idea of socionics not being objective/scientific in the strictest sense, as long as it's useful. But I'm not sure the argument in OP is conclusive. I think the "circular argument" issue can be resolved with standard mathematical representations like fixed points and integration over a distribution of people's typings of each other.

    There's also been work done with neuroscience/EEG (brain scans), which seems as objective of a measure as any (if you believe that socionics IE = MBTI cognitive function, which I do). See Dario Nardi's work.

    I also completely agree with @Raver's post. "No theoretical model can describe you in your entirety, only fractions of it." And then there's the saying, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Socionics is a very useful model as long as you aren't dogmatic about it (as @Wyrd said)--I don't know if its founders even intend for every statement about a type to be true of all people in that type, or just true on average/for most people of that type. Its usefulness is also magnified when combined w/ other models like instinctual variants.

    Is socionics objective? Not really, in its current incarnation/how most socionists use it now. Is it inherently unable to be objective? I don't think so, but it would take a lot of resources to collect the data necessary to make it objective. Is it "true"? That's too philosophical of a question for me.
    I think it's much more interesting that there's this thing that people can elaborate on until the end of the world and agree on enough to keep developing the theory, but no one can be objective about. I wouldn't want it to be empirical. It's like a different and important kind of thing.

    The brain scans don't mean anything to me, by the way. "These parts of the brain light up when people see something beautiful!" But that isn't the cause of something being beautiful, and people still have to just feel that something's beautiful first.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    For the most part, you can't really type other people in socionics, and Sol had a point when he said you can only type people 20% of the time. To be able to really type someone else, you have to completely know their motivations to do what they're doing and assess their competence.
    Not really, you just need to perceive general trends about the person. The trick is the Socionics model is really only about a handful of these trends on a very very general level. Anything else is only loosely correlated if at all.


    Unless you actually have the same or at least similar IEs, you can't do that at all, and saying "you must be X type because I'm Y type and I see X" is a circular argument. Observed behaviors can't directly proceed from "information processing" the same way qualia can't directly proceed from stimuli (hallucinations, everyone actually sees color differently, etc.).
    No, observed behaviours are not directly caused by types of information processing and that's quite unfortunate in how the Socionics model is too sloppy with this, not making it clear that it doesn't work that way. The model can only be used as a general model of trends, nothing more - no direct causality.

    Qualia actually has a decent relation to stimuli though, unlike the observed behaviour vs internal information processing (which is a way weaker relation due to several reasons).


    This is also why socionics can't/shouldn't pretend to be a science even if you want to use it. Socionics is ideas without any vague possibility of empiricism. You can't see yourself except reflected in other things like a mirror, and since all you see is your perceptions, you paradoxically have to be constantly changing them around to compensate for your blindspot to have a constant idea.
    Actually, you can point to distinct datapoints and so it doesn't have to be constantly changing.

    But yeah, it's complex stuff about people, it won't all fit inside one single model even if that's a Socionics model.


    Socionics can be a body of knowledge and useful as long as you don't think all knowledge is ultimately empirical or get too dogmatic with it, but it can only have meaning to the person doing the typing because you can't get outside of your own perceptions. The only way to vaguely type other people is based on your relations with them, but doesn't that sort of bring two people together into one unit with shared thoughts anyways?
    I disagree that that's the only one way to type other people. I don't even see it as a way to arrive at a confirmed typing, it can only be an interesting (and possibly useful) followup to check if stuff works like Socionics predicted, and if not why not, apart from trying to change the typing.

    The only way that I can see to confirm a typing is seeing the trends for the Ego functions (and the belonging Dual seeking function, preferably). Everything else is either superfluous or just heuristics.

    As for it having meaning only to one person.... I don't think so, the system one goes by can be shared. It's just gonna get complex. lol


    You can't just sit back and type someone based on their behaviors and say you're being rational about it. It is inherently irrational since empathy is the only way to know how someone would relate to their IEs since everyone displays all of them. You have to figure out how the other person relates to their IEs, which means empathy, and even that depends somewhat on them. So socionics is marvelously the least objective thing there can be, and even a pseudoscience as long as people pretend it's scientific.
    I don't really use empathy for this.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    I think it's much more interesting that there's this thing that people can elaborate on until the end of the world and agree on enough to keep developing the theory, but no one can be objective about. I wouldn't want it to be empirical. It's like a different and important kind of thing.
    Objectivity is lacking because of our lacking good concrete measurement tools with a deep enough understanding for interpreting what the tools measure.

    We can do some measurements still, though, of those general trends, but it requires a lot of analysis of a lot of data and there need to be nicely operationalized definitions of things first, blah blah.


    The brain scans don't mean anything to me, by the way. "These parts of the brain light up when people see something beautiful!" But that isn't the cause of something being beautiful, and people still have to just feel that something's beautiful first.
    They mean something once you do put them in context of that understanding I'm referring to in the above line too.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, one of the problems that I have with Socionics and all the other personality theories is that... it seems like everyone is talking about completely different things, but pretend that they're talking about the same thing and know exactly what they're talking about...

    So for example, someone might say:

    "I know an SEE, he's like this..."
    "I also know an SEE, he's like this..."
    "I, too, know an SEE! She's like this..."

    when in reality, none of them even agree on the typing of an "SEE". So, what the hell were they exactly talking about?

    Or there might be a thread like:

    "Discuss Supervision relations here"
    "Well, in my experience, Supervision relations are like this..."
    "My Supervision relation experience is like..."
    "Here's how to handle Supervision relations..."

    again, none of them might even agree on what exactly entails a "Supervision" relationship or the typings of two people. So, what the hell are they exactly talking about?

  12. #12
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,785
    Mentioned
    282 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is the discovery of a structure of IM in the human mind.

    This is not "just a model" or something like that. Socionics shows very clearly that this structure exists.

    Socionics is a way to analyze and classify humans objectively because it only focuses on this rigid repetitive structure in individuals and ignores the rest.

    Typing people is a practical problem. With practice it gets easier.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  13. #13
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,581
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    people place socionics frameworks over reality - the framework "catches" what corresponds with socionics while discarding what doesn't, therefore its (perceived) correctness relies on projection, extrapolation, and confirmation bias. it's not incorrect, per se, but it only covers a small subset of an incomprehensible whole. if anything, it's how Ne-Ti categorizes people, but rolling with that comparison - why would you trust autistic alpha NTs to teach you how people work? my autistic alpha NT friends don't even use the system. they have their own systems. that's what I assumed wyrd was saying.

    LOOK AT HOW MUCH INFORMATION IT FAILS TO CATCH




    as for incorrect typings - I know this happens because I've heard my typology friends tell me their friends type them [x] when (at least from how I understand socionics) it's clear they're [y], but if that friend of theirs were to get more involved in typology - they may still type our mutual friend [x]. where's the objectivity? socionics is fun. it's not horoscope but it IS like reading horoscopes and projecting that onto yourself, other people, and the world.

    this is how I interpret some of the threads on this forum:
    "okay so I was talking to my conflictor today and she got angry at me? I made fun of her dead mom, pushed her down the stairs, and kicked her in the stomach until she screamed bloody murder, but I'm pretty sure it was my Ni that pissed her off. she just doesn't get me, you know? maybe it was my Te-creative? because, I mean, it was quite creative of me to push her down the stairs, no? I'm sorry, I just have absolutely no idea why she's angry at me."
    "yeah, this matches up with my experiences with ESEs. Run."
    "dude kill her. what if she's SEE and this is just her aggressor way of getting your attention? you know, getting angry at you."
    "oh fuck yeah you're right. I'll take her out to dinner next week."
    Last edited by wasp; 09-06-2017 at 10:17 AM.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Socionics is the discovery of a structure of IM in the human mind.

    This is not "just a model" or something like that. Socionics shows very clearly that this structure exists.
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just a model. It's not the infallible Bible.


    Socionics is a way to analyze and classify humans objectively because it only focuses on this rigid repetitive structure in individuals and ignores the rest.
    That's precisely what decreases objectivity. It has to be viewed together with other things.


    Quote Originally Posted by super mbti user View Post
    people place socionics frameworks over reality - the framework "catches" what corresponds with socionics while discarding what doesn't, therefore its (perceived) correctness relies on projection, extrapolation, and confirmation bias. it's not incorrect, per se, but it only covers a small subset of an incomprehensible whole.
    That's natural that a model only covers some things and not other things. The other things also have to be kept in mind. Integrate the Socionics ideas with them (as far as they prove to be valid). People only place Socionics over reality when they forget that. And correctness hardly has to do with projection etc...


    LOOK AT HOW MUCH INFORMATION IT FAILS TO CATCH
    That's not really how Ti works tbh, it's not just a simplistic grid .


    as for incorrect typings - I know this happens because I've heard my typology friends tell me their friends type them [x] when (at least from how I understand socionics) it's clear they're [y], but if that friend of theirs were to get more involved in typology - they may still type our mutual friend [x]. where's the objectivity? socionics is fun. it's not horoscope but it IS like reading horoscopes and projecting that onto yourself, other people, and the world.
    Again, this happens when limits of the model are not specified.


    this is how I interpret some of the threads on this forum:
    "okay so I was talking to my conflictor today and she got angry at me? I made fun of her dead mom, pushed her down the stairs, and kicked her in the stomach until she screamed bloody murder, but I'm pretty sure it was my Ni that pissed her off. she just doesn't get me, you know? maybe it was my Te-creative? because, I mean, it was quite creative of me to push her down the stairs, no? I'm sorry, I just have absolutely no idea why she's angry at me."
    "yeah, this matches up with my experiences with ESEs. Run."
    "dude kill her. what if she's SEE and this is just her aggressor way of getting your attention? you know, getting angry at you."
    "oh fuck yeah you're right. I'll take her out to dinner next week."
    Do you have an example post that you thought was right to exaggerate in this way?

    I get your point, however you exaggerated this phenomenon to the point that it gets too distorted and leads to not actually understanding the situation and people in it.

    I mean, yes, some people do get stuck in trying to analyze based on Socionics ideas where other psychological understanding of people would work better, but it's like you come at it with this assumption that people all have to see every little motivation of other people really clearly just by magic just because you see them fine. I suggest you try and be more accepting of people who don't understand other people that well and suggest them non-Socionics explanations and solutions if you think in some cases (I'm sure many such cases btw) Socionics is more a hindrance than help in figuring out what's going on with someone.

  15. #15
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,581
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    nah I don't take issue with people seeking external input for interpersonal issues. I like giving advice - I don't think my word is bond, but I do get a kick out of sharing alternative perspectives with the aim of devising a best-fit solution for any given issue. I think xSE (alternatively: ESxJ) hate is one of the most common typology tropes out there - so no, I didn't nitpick a particular thread. I think it's important to recognize that I'm usually poking fun at generalizations in my posts - sprinkled with a dash of satirical edge for humor's sake - so it may require reading between the lines to unearth the point.

    anyway I think Ti relies heavily on building "latticework" of mental models - all new incoming information is placed ever-so-carefully on these models, but it needs to be sifted through with a fine-tooth comb before it's finally accepted. if it doesn't fit then it's still acknowledged (a la sifting) but it's ultimately rejected. Ti-egos (Ti-leads, in particular) build frameworks of principles that fit together like a web - which they apply to various fields of knowledge.

    now apply that same principle to Fi but replace "mental" with "emotional" - this is why gamma SFs polarize between "good" and "bad" (us vs them) and why delta NFs are known as the empaths of the socion. delta NFs internalize their emotional experiences (Fi-Si) due to a lowered propensity to resist or react (low Se) - they generalize and extrapolate (Ne) their emotional experiences so as to increase their ability to empathize with a wider variety of people, even if - on the surface - their emotional experiences bare few similarities. gamma SFs are more likely to empathize with those whose emotional experiences correspond closely to their own. tl;dr delta NFs empathize with humanity. gamma SFs empathize with particular people (or a group of them).

    I imagine it's similar for alpha NTs and beta STs - we just replace Fi with Ti and various emotional experiences with various fields of knowledge.

    that was just my long-winded way of saying Wyrd, that was a Good Post.
    Last edited by wasp; 09-06-2017 at 02:05 PM. Reason: apologies for the late edits - I got kind of carried away

  16. #16
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics errs in trying to make a theory based on rationalistic principles appear to be objective, to justify the theory. In this age of science, empiricism holds significantly more weight. You can no longer just logically deduce a principle on argument alone; you need data to back up the claim. There is a reason for this. If you are trying to make claims about objective reality, which includes a person's type, you need evidence and correlations, and a mechanism to link cause and effect, otherwise there is no link to objective reality. If there is not evidence, no predictable correlation beyond chance, and no possible mechanism, then there is no way to justify a tie to objective reality, which reduces the claims to hypothesis, conjecture, and even mere belief. If the hypothesis fails rigorous testing, either the hypothesis is false or the experiment was faulty. If no experiment can be designed to test correlation beyond chance, no further studies can be done to establish likely causations, then nothing conclusive can be said about the hypothesis, or its claims about objective reality.

    Science has yet to backup the claim that 1) information elements exist 2) they cause certain observable physical features and behaviors.

    So when socionicists make a claim such as "That person has Si eyes" or "their clothes are so beta!" that they just sound like fucking idiots.

    It should stick to using models of the mind(separate from observable reality) to help people understand themselves and other people while keeping in mind that type is a relative construct and drop the visual identification and the obsession with falsely guessing the "hidden intentions" and motivations of other individuals they lack enough information on and other sorts of penis envies.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  17. #17
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,050
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have your same concerns Wyrd, and the more I dig into it the more I realize it's all useless, to dig and dig, to unveil the surfaces, to find for a part of the truth that looks more real to us, what's the use? The more you dig the more you see all the labels, all the divisions, all that creates a contrast is actually made of the same matter, it all responds to the same ungraspable laws, it's all action, all changing... but this is true only after much thinking.. or attunement to things..
    Naturally, and socionics value lies in this to me, we'll be establishing some sort of relationships and deal with people differently, because of this reality of revealed selves. It's both subjective as it is objective that you'll deal better with some kind of attitudes, accorded to your nature. It's always a matter of interactions, of realizing what parts need to be left out, which ones instead integrate perfectly... you'll find the differences, and so you can put the labels to describe those things that you know are basically all the same...
    There's an idea of wholeness too that is important, the aim of these tools should be to integrate our unconsciousness, the shadows of our selves, all our parts... this is ideal, and even hard to achieve,

  18. #18
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,373
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Men ought to know that from the brain, and from the brain only, arise our pleasures, joys, laughter and jests, as well as our sorrows, pains, griefs and tears. Through it, in particular, we think, see, hear, and distinguish the ugly from the beautiful, the bad from the good, the pleasant from the unpleasant…. It is the same thing which makes us mad or delirious, inspires us with dread and fear, whether by night or by day, brings sleeplessness, inopportune mistakes, aimless anxieties, absent-mindedness, and acts that are contrary to habit. These things that we suffer all come from the brain, when it is not healthy, but becomes abnormally hot, cold, moist, or dry, or suffers any other unnatural affection to which it was not accustomed. Madness comes from its moistness. When the brain is abnormally moist, of necessity it moves, and when it moves neither sight nor hearing are still, but we see or hear now one thing and now another, and the tongue speaks in accordance with the things seen and heard on any occasion. But when the brain is still, a man can think properly." ~ Hippocrates

  19. #19
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,563
    Mentioned
    321 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I must say that I have never wanted to use it as a tool for furthering myself. Neither to classify people.

    Just see how much you can plunge into it and to be able to separate 'thought elements' from information and build world view of how the tiny part of reality (the pathetic minuscule human sphere in universe – people are just incredibly clueless beings with complete lack of other-awareness) functions based on that and their interaction with each based on their mode of use.

    I value information more than humanity.

    Last edited by Sanguine Miasma; 09-06-2017 at 06:01 PM.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  20. #20
    Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    658
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is much like any other class you would take in school. The information is there for you to learn, but it's up to you to learn it correctly or not. The A students will be much different than the D students.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    "the table of multiplication can't be objective"
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  22. #22
    Milo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    443
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    For the most part, you can't really type other people in socionics, and Sol had a point when he said you can only type people 20% of the time. To be able to really type someone else, you have to completely know their motivations to do what they're doing and assess their competence.
    Typing accuracy should change by how well you know the person being typed and how much information about them you have at your disposal. Certainly your type guesses for your family members would be more accurate than a stranger you've met once in grocery store line. That 20% is a blanket estimate. Another problem is that there is no way of checking accuracy in socionics and no proof that types even exist, thus we have no way of even making any educated guesses.

    Doesn't Sol type himself as Te leading LSE? I would have considered Te leading to be sufficiently fact and evidence based to forego making such unsound estimates.

  23. #23
    Simo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    620
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    For the most part, you can't really type other people in socionics, and Sol had a point when he said you can only type people 20% of the time. To be able to really type someone else, you have to completely know their motivations to do what they're doing and assess their competence. Unless you actually have the same or at least similar IEs, you can't do that at all, and saying "you must be X type because I'm Y type and I see X" is a circular argument. Observed behaviors can't directly proceed from "information processing" the same way qualia can't directly proceed from stimuli (hallucinations, everyone actually sees color differently, etc.).

    This is also why socionics can't/shouldn't pretend to be a science even if you want to use it. Socionics is ideas without any vague possibility of empiricism. You can't see yourself except reflected in other things like a mirror, and since all you see is your perceptions, you paradoxically have to be constantly changing them around to compensate for your blindspot to have a constant idea. Socionics can be a body of knowledge and useful as long as you don't think all knowledge is ultimately empirical or get too dogmatic with it, but it can only have meaning to the person doing the typing because you can't get outside of your own perceptions. The only way to vaguely type other people is based on your relations with them, but doesn't that sort of bring two people together into one unit with shared thoughts anyways? You can't just sit back and type someone based on their behaviors and say you're being rational about it. It is inherently irrational since empathy is the only way to know how someone would relate to their IEs since everyone displays all of them. You have to figure out how the other person relates to their IEs, which means empathy, and even that depends somewhat on them. So socionics is marvelously the least objective thing there can be, and even a pseudoscience as long as people pretend it's scientific.
    socionics is subjective & not scientific so what? do you suggest we should ignore it or better yet close the forum?

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by super mbti user View Post
    nah I don't take issue with people seeking external input for interpersonal issues. I like giving advice - I don't think my word is bond, but I do get a kick out of sharing alternative perspectives with the aim of devising a best-fit solution for any given issue. I think xSE (alternatively: ESxJ) hate is one of the most common typology tropes out there - so no, I didn't nitpick a particular thread.

    I think it's important to recognize that I'm usually poking fun at generalizations in my posts - sprinkled with a dash of satirical edge for humor's sake - so it may require reading between the lines to unearth the point.
    I didn't think you nitpicked just one particular thread, maybe my request was misunderstandable in terms of this.


    anyway I think Ti relies heavily on building "latticework" of mental models - all new incoming information is placed ever-so-carefully on these models, but it needs to be sifted through with a fine-tooth comb before it's finally accepted. if it doesn't fit then it's still acknowledged (a la sifting) but it's ultimately rejected. Ti-egos (Ti-leads, in particular) build frameworks of principles that fit together like a web - which they apply to various fields of knowledge.
    No, it's not a latticework and it's not a web. It's simply, logical (unemotional and explicit) analysis of things, you could say it does do "sifting" but it's not so perceptual like "sifting" would imply, it's a bit more distinct judgments than that.

    Applying a general idea to various fields of knowledge is the Ti of Alpha NTs, with Ne. I did hear ILE talk about a "web" before so maybe that's the Ne.


    now apply that same principle to Fi but replace "mental" with "emotional" - this is why gamma SFs polarize between "good" and "bad" (us vs them) and why delta NFs are known as the empaths of the socion. delta NFs internalize their emotional experiences (Fi-Si) due to a lowered propensity to resist or react (low Se) - they generalize and extrapolate (Ne) their emotional experiences so as to increase their ability to empathize with a wider variety of people, even if - on the surface - their emotional experiences bare few similarities. gamma SFs are more likely to empathize with those whose emotional experiences correspond closely to their own. tl;dr delta NFs empathize with humanity. gamma SFs empathize with particular people (or a group of them).

    I imagine it's similar for alpha NTs and beta STs - we just replace Fi with Ti and various emotional experiences with various fields of knowledge.
    New @Bertrand. (In terms of randomly starting to analyze Socionics bits out loud in a similar style trying to go deep with Ni. Not meant as an insult or anything.)

    He also imagined Ti as some grid/web. Huh.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptitron View Post
    Science has yet to backup the claim that 1) information elements exist 2) they cause certain observable physical features and behaviors.

    So when socionicists make a claim such as "That person has Si eyes" or "their clothes are so beta!" that they just sound like fucking idiots.

    It should stick to using models of the mind(separate from observable reality) to help people understand themselves and other people while keeping in mind that type is a relative construct and drop the visual identification and the obsession with falsely guessing the "hidden intentions" and motivations of other individuals they lack enough information on and other sorts of penis envies.
    1): Yeah, I can only see this stuff for myself by introspection. (Sometimes I can also see maybe "energies" and impressions of people that seem like the IEs as defined on the most general level but these things often get mixed with many other factors too so it's not that simple.) But I can see ways to point at them in reality too. You can just analyze what the IEs mean logically and compare to other psychological research - I've done this before and did find some extremely well-correlated stuff in other research. My problem isn't really the ideas on the IEs themselves but the model they are put into.

    2): No need to try and back that up. They don't directly cause them. They contribute to causation, is all.

    As for visual identification, I think we talked about that before
    Last edited by Myst; 09-06-2017 at 07:30 PM.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo View Post
    Doesn't Sol type himself as Te leading LSE? I would have considered Te leading to be sufficiently fact and evidence based to forego making such unsound estimates.
    He does though someone recently saw him as LSI apparently.

  26. #26
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,581
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've been analyzing socionics this way since the first day I signed up, so I don't think it's fair to disregard my understanding of it because a few inconsequential details reminded you of someone you don't particularly like. we can agree to disagree on what this or that means because at the end of the day we're all just a bunch of contradictory opinions floating around in cyberspace, I just found that part weird and kind of unnecessary.
    Last edited by wasp; 09-06-2017 at 08:00 PM.

  27. #27
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    998 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    It can't be objective since it is only some words put together by people, based on their theories and reinterpretation of theories, then interpreted further by different people. People are known to be very subjective creatures when it comes to interpreting and implementing information. The world is still flat to a percentage of the population, global warming is a hoax and Trump is president... blows my mind. Need I say more?

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by super mbti user View Post
    I've been analyzing socionics this way since the first day I signed up, so I don't think it's fair to disregard my understanding of it because a few inconsequential details reminded you of someone you don't particularly like. we can agree to disagree on what this or that means because at the end of the day we're all just a bunch of contradictory opinions floating around in cyberspace, I just found that part weird and kind of unnecessary.
    Wow that's like a complete misunderstanding of my motivations and what I wrote, even though I explicitly tried to make it clear that I'm not trying to make any personal associations. I said: "Not meant as an insult or anything". I don't dislike Bertrand by the way. I have no problem with him, idk what even made you think that I do.

    And yeah, maybe you've been analyzing socionics for a while but that doesn't mean anything on its own, and I didn't disregard your entire understanding of Socionics. My judgment on how well you described Ti in a way that would apply to all Ti egos 1) had nothing to do with Bertrand lol, that was a completely separate comment 2) it has nothing to do with fairness or lack of fairness either.

    As for why I mentioned Bertrand - striking similarity, no more no less. Wondered if it meant anything for type. End of story.

  29. #29
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,581
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Wow that's like a complete misunderstanding of my motivations and what I wrote, even though I explicitly tried to make it clear that I'm not trying to make any personal associations. I said: "Not meant as an insult or anything". I don't dislike Bertrand by the way. I have no problem with him, idk what even made you think that I do.

    And yeah, maybe you've been analyzing socionics for a while but that doesn't mean anything on its own, and I didn't disregard your entire understanding of Socionics. My judgment on how well you described Ti in a way that would apply to all Ti egos 1) had nothing to do with Bertrand lol, that was a completely separate comment 2) it has nothing to do with fairness or lack of fairness either.

    As for why I mentioned Bertrand - striking similarity, no more no less. Wondered if it meant anything for type. End of story.
    well if that's the end of that story then lemme begin a new story

    once upon a time there lived a royal clan of dragonflies that circled around a tree...

  30. #30
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,800
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only people claiming socionics to be objective/scientific are the russians if that, maybe WSS too but idk. I think typing through VI has the potential to become scientific but it would obviously require large scale research, larger then us forumites are capable of doing ourselves.

    Socionics as it is now is just something we are going to have to accept as imperfect. Much of it is likely BS yes, but there also likely a lot that is actually true or at the very least useful. Give newbies a disclaimer that this isn't science and let the rest of do what can with, that's the only constructive point I can see coming out of this.

  31. #31
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    The only people claiming socionics to be objective/scientific are the russians if that, maybe WSS too but idk.
    Russian-speaking community does not claim that socionics is a science neither that it's an objective measure of anything. This is the second sentence from the the Russian wiki page addressing Socionics (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1...%D0%BA%D0%B0):

    "Соционика не имеет общепризнанного научного статуса, независимые авторы указывают на недостаточную эмпирическую обоснованность соционики как в её основе, так и в дальнейшем развитии"

    Which translates as: "Socionics does not have any widely recognized scientific status. Various independent authors have pointed out the insufficiency in empirical evidence at its foundation as well as in its further development."

  32. #32
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    For the most part, you can't really type other people in socionics, and Sol had a point when he said you can only type people 20% of the time. To be able to really type someone else, you have to completely know their motivations to do what they're doing and assess their competence.
    You can get a very good sense of people's motivations by observing their behavior on a long-term basis.

    Unless you actually have the same or at least similar IEs, you can't do that at all, and saying "you must be X type because I'm Y type and I see X" is a circular argument.
    Huh? This isn't necessary. The definitions of the IM elements are objectively observable, you don't need to be a particular type to apply them. If you're good at a function it may make some of its nuances more apparent to you, but that's all.

    Observed behaviors can't directly proceed from "information processing" the same way qualia can't directly proceed from stimuli (hallucinations, everyone actually sees color differently, etc.).
    There are some confounding factors but they can be dealt with, just like you can remove noise from a signal.

    This is also why socionics can't/shouldn't pretend to be a science even if you want to use it. Socionics is ideas without any vague possibility of empiricism. You can't see yourself except reflected in other things like a mirror, and since all you see is your perceptions, you paradoxically have to be constantly changing them around to compensate for your blindspot to have a constant idea. Socionics can be a body of knowledge and useful as long as you don't think all knowledge is ultimately empirical or get too dogmatic with it, but it can only have meaning to the person doing the typing because you can't get outside of your own perceptions. The only way to vaguely type other people is based on your relations with them, but doesn't that sort of bring two people together into one unit with shared thoughts anyways? You can't just sit back and type someone based on their behaviors and say you're being rational about it. It is inherently irrational since empathy is the only way to know how someone would relate to their IEs since everyone displays all of them. You have to figure out how the other person relates to their IEs, which means empathy, and even that depends somewhat on them. So socionics is marvelously the least objective thing there can be, and even a pseudoscience as long as people pretend it's scientific.
    ( @Milo, if you want an example of postmodernism, here is an excellent one.)

    Typing based on your relationship with someone is not a very good idea. As an LII I can realize that overly aggressive behavior is something that irritates me, but why does this prevent me from recognizing behavior as aggressive or passive in the first place? This is something that is objectively observable, as is level of expressiveness, the presence of logical/systematic thinking, character judgment, etc. How much people use something will tell you a lot about their relationship with it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well, one of the problems that I have with Socionics and all the other personality theories is that... it seems like everyone is talking about completely different things, but pretend that they're talking about the same thing and know exactly what they're talking about...

    So for example, someone might say:

    "I know an SEE, he's like this..."
    "I also know an SEE, he's like this..."
    "I, too, know an SEE! She's like this..."

    when in reality, none of them even agree on the typing of an "SEE". So, what the hell were they exactly talking about?

    Or there might be a thread like:

    "Discuss Supervision relations here"
    "Well, in my experience, Supervision relations are like this..."
    "My Supervision relation experience is like..."
    "Here's how to handle Supervision relations..."

    again, none of them might even agree on what exactly entails a "Supervision" relationship or the typings of two people. So, what the hell are they exactly talking about?
    This is why it is pointless to refer to that-guy-you-know unless you're talking with people that will accept your typings at face value. When you're typing people on the forum you may be working from different theoretical bases.

  33. #33
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,392
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke View Post
    Russian-speaking community does not claim that socionics is a science neither that it's an objective measure of anything. This is the second sentence from the the Russian wiki page addressing Socionics (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1...%D0%BA%D0%B0):

    "Соционика не имеет общепризнанного научного статуса, независимые авторы указывают на недостаточную эмпирическую обоснованность соционики как в её основе, так и в дальнейшем развитии"

    Which translates as: "Socionics does not have any widely recognized scientific status. Various independent authors have pointed out the insufficiency in empirical evidence at its foundation as well as in its further development."
    That's refreshing, but there is a very loud and apparently large contingent of Russian socionists that insist socionics is an empirical science.

  34. #34
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,050
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    He does though someone recently saw him as LSI apparently.
    lol tbh I was thinking the same thing, what do you think Myst? and good point about Bertrand and mbti similarities... you're so good at noticing things! @super we all like Bertrand, and you're just as cool in some very weird similar ways... that was a nice comparison to me

    wasn't socionics promoted in the workplaces in Russia? I've talked with a Lithuanian psychologist who's never heard of it before...
    Last edited by ooo; 09-07-2017 at 09:02 AM.

  35. #35
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    In the wrong hands, socionics would be a totalitarian nightmare. Imagine being branded as an infant because you looked like a certain type. Imagine being typed by an authority figure without the chance to provide evidence on the contrary. Think of your relationships, your place of employment, etc. In such a world, one is guilty before proven innocent.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  36. #36
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,934
    Mentioned
    171 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought that psychology, in general, was referred to as a soft science; many tests are non-repeatable and a lot of information is anecdotal. Non-objectivity is expected even though most psychologists approach their field very objectively. I think that Socionics theory provides a clue toward a hard science (artificial intelligence) model but we're not there yet. It'll be like it was to get the mechanically oriented auto industry to go electric/electronic. I extensively referred to Socionics in a work environment where I was able to get to know employees as well as family members and it provided useful guidance in resolving many personnel issues. Now I didn't exactly apply Socionics as written but it led me to an understanding and structure that worked for me - at the least, it was better than nothing. One should look to Socionics for perspective like any text but don't expect it to do the thinking for you - it'll likely never be a computer app.

    a.k.a. I/O

  37. #37
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    I thought that psychology, in general, was referred to as a soft science
    It is. Sometimes I think people forget that, as some of their objections to socionics could be applied to psychology as a whole as well - but aren't.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the problem is, these "personality theories", like Socionics, MBTI etc. aren't even taken seriously by psychologists

  39. #39
    Insert Password Here User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Italy
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    506
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is just a fun way to spend time. It can't be objective if we're not objective first. Personally, I don't believe in Socionics. Too general to be accurate, too stereotypical to be taken seriously. But I like it. And I strive to make it work.
    KEEP IT LIGHT AND KEEP IT MOVING

  40. #40
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think the problem is, these "personality theories", like Socionics, MBTI etc. aren't even taken seriously by psychologists
    Usually they are dealing with illness and treatment isnt that right? Personality is just interesting when it is a disorder or sorts.

    edit:I did some research now and here is who got nobel for it and why:

    2016: Psychology: Evelyne Debey and colleagues, for asking a thousand liars how often they lie, and for deciding whether to believe those answers.
    2014:
    Psychology: Peter K. Jonason, Amy Jones, and Minna Lyons, for amassing evidence that people who habitually stay up late are, on average, more self-admiring, more manipulative, and more psychopathic than people who habitually arise early in the morning
    2013:
    Psychology: Laurent Bègue, Brad Bushman, Oulmann Zerhouni, Baptiste Subra, and Medhi Ourabah, for confirming, by experiment, that people who think they are drunk also think they are attractive.
    2012:
    Psychology: Anita Eerland, Rolf Zwaan, and Tulio Guadalupe for their study "Leaning to the Left Makes the Eiffel Tower Seem Smaller"
    2011:
    Psychology: Karl Halvor Teigen of the University of Oslo, Norway, for trying to understand why, in everyday life, people sigh.
    2004:
    Psychology – Presented jointly to Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Christopher Chabris of Harvard University, for demonstrating that when people pay close attention to something, it's all too easy to overlook anything else – even a woman in a gorilla suit.[84] (See inattentional blindness).
    2001:
    Psychology – Presented to Lawrence W. Sherman of Miami University, Ohio, for his influential research report "An Ecological Study of Glee in Small Groups of Preschool Children".
    2000:


    1995:

    • Psychology – Presented to Shigeru Watanabe, Junko Sakamoto, and Masumi Wakita, of Keio University, for their success in training pigeons to discriminate between the paintings of Picasso and those of Monet.

    1993: Psychology – Presented jointly to John E. Mack of Harvard Medical School and David M. Jacobs of Temple University, for their conclusion that people who believe they were kidnapped by aliens from outer space, probably were—and especially for their conclusion, "the focus of the abduction is the production of children".

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •