@sbbds, do you mind if I answer this here since the other thread is closed?Originally Posted by sbbds
@sbbds, do you mind if I answer this here since the other thread is closed?
I must have done that accidentally... I wonder if mods can reopen closed threads. Anyway go ahead here for now.
This whole thing is based off of an assumption that "objectivity" will be reached by some sort of a consensus. That if everybody, or even if the majority of the people are seeing the same thing, then there must be something to it.
Well I think that's an attractive position to take, but you know that that's not necessarily the case. For example, if you were to ask people in 1830's America that if slavery should continue, then the 90%+ will vote for a favor and there'd be a general consensus. But that doesn't tell us anything about whether slavery is right or wrong, because there had never been any arguments about it.
So the main point is about the argument, and not the consensus. We only see in hindsight that the consensus was correct, if it ever were.
And so even if everybody is seeing the same thing, so what? Even if everybody can give the exact same description of a person, so what? The entire assumption being made here, is that the person will somehow always stay the same, the description will stay the same into the future. Because that would be about the only conclusion that we can make from the whole thing.
Basically, if the socionic hobbyists were representative of the people that participate online, I'd be shocked if they all came to the same conclusion after a one hour interview, because a lot of people on the internet seem confused and spread misinformation.
I think the more interesting question is: if experts from different socionic schools evaluated the same person, would the different schools agree?
I would hope that everyone within each school would agree among themselves. That is the goal of the guy from the DaveSuperPowers YouTube channel - making clear criteria and then training his students to independently get the same results. Retest reliability is necessary for replication in the scientific process, and for making sure the evaluation retains its integrity at scale, but it doesn't justify the model by itself.
Would all the different socionics schools agree? I don't know. Not all applications of Jungian typology are necessarily the same, or even comparable. For example, most people agree you shouldn't use the Myers Briggs test to decide your type in Augusta's model, because after studying Model A, many people realize their socionics type is not analogous to their MBTI result. Is the discrepancy because one system is better than the other, or are they describing fundamentally different things? No one knows, and I don't think we can figure it out with only philosophy, because typology from its start with Jung has always been observational. Jung noticed common differences between his patients, and then structured his observation into his typology. We don't understand the neurological mechanism, and so observations might seem surprisingly paradoxical while being the truth. The only way to know is to apply the theory to real people and measure the results.
...are you serious? To use a chemistry example, do you think the phenomena of burning wood is meaningless? For a long time, people could create fire without understanding its chemical reaction, but that did not invalidate the consensus that fire is real. The whole reason procedures are published with results is so anyone can recreate the results of an experiment, and verify or challenge the causal explanation. But if you really cannot see the point of objective and replicable phenomena, we don't have anything in common and I don't think there is any reason to continue this conversation.
Well I'm glad that we could finally agree that Socionics is mostly based on an observational approach, at least.
There is a confusion because we're talking of two separate things, in which both are objective and replicable:
- Of the observable phenomena of fire being "real" and as something that "really exist" in the physical world.
- How that fire works, what is causing it, and why.
(1) is of course easy to see, but (2) is difficult to come up with, which is why it took thousands of years to come up with the (chemical) explanation for what causes fire, and why.
In the same way, we can say that in Socionics:
- The observable phenomena of people's personalities as being "real" and as something that "really exist".
- How that personality works, what (psychological) laws are governing it, etc.
We can more or less agree that personalities as being "real" and as something that "really exist" in the physical sense, or else we'd be in chaos and there'd be no personalities or any rhyme or reason to how people act, etc. But what's really difficult to explain is exactly how that personality works. And yet it must be able to be explained, because well, it does "exist" and it is "working" and there is a "regularity" of sorts. It's not all just random.
So what we can conclude from this if we apply it to Socionics is:
- The "16 types" must be obvious enough that it's easily observed, either by our own eyes, or by some statistical method (although something would need to tell us what to look for. The real question is, what are we supposed to be looking for?).
- The "16 types" aren't obvious to see, and therefore we must rely on indirect methods in order to "see" them. And the only way to "see" something indirectly is by coming up with explanations on how something works, as in coming up with explanatory theories. For example, it was theorized that atoms or individual cells existed long before we could directly observe them, and therefore we started to look for them or acted as if they were real.
(1) isn't forthcoming because the "16 types" still aren't "obvious" and therefore there isn't much of a consensus, and if you were to devise some sort of a statistical method, then what variables are we supposed to be looking for? How do we find them?
If you suggest (2) to Socionists, which is what I've been suggesting for some time, then they would casually reject that and say that explanations aren't required because we could simply rely on observations. And yet the entire problem is that the "16 types" aren't "obvious to see", and therefore we must come up with a theory which would tell us what we're supposed to be looking for. And yet that isn't forthcoming, either.
So either way, Socionics is currently in a state of a kind of "Catch-22".
@ajsindri Somehow I don’t know if the bigger socionists engage in typing debates with each other very often. I would like to think that if they did, they would be able to reach consensus through meaningful discussion. But that could just be being hopeful.
Anyway I think your POV is very fair. It highlights even more how a lack of consensus in the community is a problem.
If you want to make Socionics scientific, you’re also going to have to create agreed upon criteria for each type, which should allow testers to all (ideally independently) arrive at the same typing for someone after some period of interaction. A forum or small group of people all arriving at the same typing with a certain amount of accuracy (at least 70% to start IMO if not higher), using simple criteria. You need to set some standards for determining the types of the subjects you’re using. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to conduct any experiments or make other claims meaningfully.
@ajsindri I think someone would need to do research on how to handle qualitative data that is inconcrete and highly subjective like this. Provided you don’t want to rely on self-report tests for personality, which I really don’t think you should. Better to create set criteria and have several strangers judge. Can even be double blind if you only invite noobs who don’t know about Socionics.
This discussion is a bit funny to me.
Actually, we should make science socionic before we make socionics scientific. This may be harder conceptually but it's actually a closer goal.
Please feel free to expand.
IEIs always go rock hard when they use catchy Ti summaries like this
I see socionics as a potential overarching framework for human knowledge. The kind of materialist scientific verification being talked about in this thread is mostly within the realm of Te which is just one of eight ways of acquiring knowledge (IM elements).
While socionics does make empirical claims, it also has a very deep logical structure which has thus far been elaborated mostly on the syntactic side. The semantic side is just beginning to be explored. See here for an example.
That’s a really cool post. Scientific discoveries on that side of things are moving forward rapidly, so you may be right about that. I could see Socionics gaining traction in the scientific community if we had a pro, active, successful mathematics researcher among us. But idk. I see going that route as more of a shot in the dark or hit or miss at this point though as far as we know, whereas the traditional materialistic route is more guaranteed to eventually work out somehow even with science’s current level of understanding.
You don't even understand what I'm saying, nor is your logical reasoning very impressive, either. So much for "3D Ti" or whatever it's supposed to be. You keep saying "criteria this, criteria that", but what exactly are we supposed to be looking for? You need to come up with a theory in order to know what that criteria is. You're just looking at the result but not the process.
Ok, so pretty much the path to "science" has been closed. And now what? I don't think one's knowledge should be limited to science. So can anyone come up with philosophical explanations? The answer is no, they're not even going to try, probably because they lack the creativity to do so.
So this community is pretty much hopeless, and there already are far greater alternatives to Socionics with so much better theoretical perspective and explanatory and predictive power. This whole observational approach of Socionics is simply not impressive, no matter how much mumbo-jumbo claims that they make with "It's not supposed to be science...".
It may not be science, but it's not anything particularly impressive or ground-breaking, either.
Ok. Prove it. LOL
Criteria for what makes someone a certain type, ya dingus. HINT: The theory is Socionics itself.
That "criteria" is what we should be looking for in order to determine what a "type" is. We are saying that if it fits all the criteria, then somehow, it makes a "type". This is tantamount to saying that if you have all the ingredients, then it will produce the final product, because the mixture of all things SHOULD create a type.
So the question is, what are we supposed to be looking for? Are we supposed to be looking for a certain kind of facial expressions? But what explanations do we have that says that certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc, would translate to certain kinds of facial expressions, and vice versa? This hasn't been explained.
Or are we perhaps saying that if a person uses "logic", then he is a "Thinker" type? So we are saying that the output determines the input, but the input is obviously much more complicated than that. It is possible, and it is also very likely, that a lot more stuff is going on in the input that can't be merely determined by the output that he's producing. And so what goes on in the input would essentially have to be guessed by a theorist. And perhaps this can be done by performing many many many experiments to isolate all the variables.
The input of a person is still pretty much a "black box", and the million dollar question is, what goes on in the input? That, like with anything else, has to be guessed by coming up with theories.
Yes, and? That’s exactly what a theory is. Jesus.
The explanation lies in the theory.So the question is, what are we supposed to be looking for? Are we supposed to be looking for a certain kind of facial expressions? But what explanations do we have that says that certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc, would translate to certain kinds of facial expressions, and vice versa? This hasn't been explained.
This doesn’t need to be addressed. Theories only cover one small aspect of reality usually. You can’t possibly explore and test for everything right down to the source of things. You seem to have a pretty fantastical idea of how science works.Or are we perhaps saying that if a person uses "logic", then he is a "Thinker" type? So we are saying that the output determines the input, but the input is obviously much more complicated than that. It is possible, and it is also very likely, that a lot more stuff is going on in the input that can't be merely determined by the output that he's producing. And so what goes on in the input would essentially have to be guessed by a theorist. And perhaps this can be done by performing many many many experiments to isolate all the variables.
The input of a person is still pretty much a "black box", and the million dollar question is, what goes on in the input? That, like with anything else, has to be guessed by coming up with theories.
@Singu
“And so what goes on in the input would essentially have to be guessed by a theorist. And perhaps this can be done by performing many many many experiments to isolate all the variables.”
You can’t explain what’s going on until you collect data to make an educated yet pioneering guess, and try something unknown out first.
Without factual confirmation, there can be no known-to-be-accurate explanation. And if the point of science is explanation of phenomenon........
You should be paying me for these Ti animal crackers like the parents of the kids I teach.
And What Data Are You Supposed To Be Looking For Without a Theory...?
It is the theory that tells us what data to look for in the first place. What are we supposed to look for, without the atomic theory? Never look for atoms?
Which is exactly what Socionics isn't doing, dumbass.
lol.
No shit.
Socionics is claiming that it has all the ingredients required to make a "type". It doesn't.
Lavoisier has successfully isolated all the ingredients required in order to create fire: fuel, heat and oxygen. We know that this explanation is correct, because it really will create fire, if you put all these ingredients together. You take even 1 ingredient out, and it will not work. And so the explanation is also a good explanation in that it's "hard-to-vary".
Once we figure out all the "ingredients" required in order to create a mind, then we could successfully create one, by say programming it. Of course, this will not likely happen anytime soon, because we're nowhere close to figuring that out. I'm also not saying that we will have to take a reductionist approach that Lavoisier has taken, because it will require a psychological explanation in order to figure out how the mind works. Just figuring out how neurons work won't work, because that only tells us how neurons themselves work.
Actually it’s a hypothesis, which is different from a theory. The theory point is reached when you already have a lot of research. You use research data to arrive at a theory, traditionally. Before that it’s a hypothesis.
It is, we just have to extract more definite parameters from it. I don’t know why you’re contradicting yourself either, because I’ve been describing what Socionics has been doing the entire time.
It doesn’t make claims that go into deep analysis of how the mind works, and that’s not necessary at this point either.Socionics is claiming that it has all the ingredients required to make a "type". It doesn't.
It’s not lol at all. It’s true and you don’t seem to recognize that, and why your viewpoint on this aspect can easily be ignored. You seem to think that a personality theory should be able to explain everything about human behaviour (or that any hypothesis needs a solid irrefutable backing which is ??? because it’s putting the cart before the horse) before it warrants any investigation when that’s just not done in practice not only because it’s impossible, but is also unnecessary.lol.
@Singu Btw in case you haven’t caught on yet, when I say Socionics already is/has a theory, I obviously mean in the non-scientific sense. Which, since you clearly don’t have a clue about the modern scientific evaluation process, should be more than good enough for you. Actually it makes it easy for us to try to prove scientifically because the result is already pretty clearly laid out for us already and we just need to fill in the blanks for what to do to arrive at the same conclusions on an objective materialistic level.
Well I'm glad you agree that science is about explanations.
So to ask a simple question, explain how the mind works. Explain how types work, explain how functions work, explain how consciousness works. If you say "That's not the point!", then you're not actually explaining much of anything. Because what you're doing is describing and deriving, not explaining.
And explaining is the only way to create any genuine new knowledge about anything.
The explanations are supposed to be derived from, and accurately describe the truth / genuine knowledge.
@Singu can you summarize your main criticisms and the solutions you are proposing, because I still don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. I don't like arguing unless there is a purpose to it.
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 12-07-2018 at 08:27 PM.
Well it's what I've been saying for ages: if you want to turn Socionics into a science (or not), then come up with a theory and an explanation. Even if you don't turn it into a science, it's still a good idea to come up with theories and explanations.
What's so difficult about coming up with explanations and theories about why things are the way they are, and explaining why people's behavior is so and so, and so on?
Well actually it is incredibly difficult to come up with theories and explanations, because it takes a huge amount of creativity and intellectual work to come up with something from basically scratch. It also is risky, in that you could be wrong. And if fact, you'd frequently be wrong. It's not just about recording the "right" data or quoting from the "right" sources. Things are uncertain, and you'd have to find all the data on your own, and even on how to find that data on your own. You'd have to go through the laborious process of coming up with alternative theories after theories, and throwing them out if they don't work out.
So that's probably why no one is willing to do it, because it's just so much easier to just observe things and record your observations. But that also means that you're not really finding anything important, and definitely not important enough to be called "science".
You'd have to be really stupid to think that socionics 1) isn't a theory and 2) doesn't explain things.
Like severely, massively stupid.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
What?! If you think socionics doesn't have a theory with explanations, you don't know what you are talking about. Model A already has a very detailed and well thought out theory. What we need to do is figure out how to objectively test the theory against reality. Maybe a lack of a theory and explanations is a valid criticism for the big 5, but you're not in a big 5 forum.
You're not listening to what people are saying and your arguments are convoluted and beside the point. You either don't know basic facts about socionics, or are purposefully obscuring them to make your point. It is not our job to educate you, and I'm not here to entertain your poorly researched and articulated cynicism. Please stop wasting my time.
Lol, fine, then go ahead and "objectively test the theory" already. What's stopping you from doing it?
The fact that you're so easily offended just shows that you actually have nothing to show and shows the weakness of the whole thing. It has no substance whatsoever. It will not be taken seriously.
It's just no wonder that this community is so touchy and easily offended. People go apeshit and act as if the whole thing will collapse at the slightest bit of criticism. It's only because it really has nothing to show to the world than some airheaded nonsense that they think is some deep wisdom.
The fact is that this whole thing is just idiocy, and you know it.
Meanwhile, I will be having a good laugh. LOL.
Whatever, we always have Grendel’s sig of you going Shut the fuck up dumbass and our memories of numerous other such examples from you framed in our minds for posterity.
You've been on these forums for nearly a decade. For being a whole lot of idiocy, you sure seem intent on stickin' around, like a fly to shit, I guess. Or are You one of the curious few here to 'correct' the rest of us? Some people do some strange things just to hang their hat up at the end of the day.
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se-
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
I’m pretty sure he’s just trying to hide the fact that he’s feeling victimized for having been made to feel brainwashed by Socionics. He probably doesn’t like that he believed in Socionics as if it were law or some kind of strong authority, and he projects that onto everybody else here, believing that we’re as stupid as him. Luckily thanks to his history on here showing, no amount of his whining and poor rationalizing can cover up what he’s trying to hide.
He’s unable to see and figure out for himself what is real or not, so this entire forum and especially topics like this trigger him to no end.
Lol, I don't really believe that people here "don't take Socionics seriously, anyways". I mean then why are you trying to turn Socionics into science and all that, if it's all meant to be a joke, with no objective laws? Sure, some people don't really take it seriously anymore, but it seems that most still do.
Anyway, I don't care if you take it seriously or not seriously. The point and the fact is that it's not going to work as long as people will keep applying the same method as before. And well, I'm just sorry that you can't see that. I don't really blame you, since it really is difficult to see it. It will likely take a while for people to get it.
The difference lies in your attitude towards information and how you react to and handle it. You can believe that something has truth to it without automatically assuming its usage is limitless and without nuance and feeling victimized by acceptance of it without any control of its influence in your life.
It’s not that we don’t take it completely unseriously or to be false and I never said that. It’s that most people here assume it has limits already and have the ability to exert control over the knowledge they deem acceptable and use in their lives. You don’t seem to believe that people can do that, and it’s probably just because you yourself can’t.
@Andreas Um, actually we have been discussing ways on how to carry out experiments here.
Now that I’m thinking more clearly about this @ajsindri I realize and totally agree that this is the most efficient way to do it, provided you can satisfactorily objectively record and measure each of the traits and can link them to sociotypes with distinct set criteria. You must also have distinct operational definitions for each of the traits and ways for how to measure/determine them.
You are a genius and I should have given you more credit for this, earlier too.
So by testing things this way, you can automatically account for and prove or disprove for both internal and external consistency, at once.
Statistics is not science... At best, it can tell us some clues about the causal inferences made by a theoretical perspective made earlier. That's why science is always careful to point out that correlation is not causation, and you can't make any conclusions from statistical data alone.
Statistics is only a summarization of some observed data made in the present. And since Socionics is almost entirely statistical, the limitation as well as the entire foundation of Socionics is based on the idea that some previous observed pattern of the past will continue into the future. And therefore, things like type descriptions or ITR are static concepts. But this ignores the obvious fact that people change over time, and people are influenced by their environments, as well by their own self-reflection and by their own agency. In other words, people are capable of making a psychological choice out of their own free will, if they do have a choice, and it is this choice that they make that ultimately lead to a certain behavior, if they were to put their beliefs into action.
Again, statistics can only give us some clues about the initial assertions made by previous theoretical perspectives. The statistical data themselves cannot be the "proof", as that will only lead to circularity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
