I'm pretty sure what we're dealing with is theoritical.
Unless you're saying that Socionics is not theoretical, which I would somewhat agree.
I'm pretty sure what we're dealing with is theoritical.
Unless you're saying that Socionics is not theoretical, which I would somewhat agree.
The point to all this is that you shoot yourself in the foot because science is not just about the theoretical. It needs to be proven true via the hypotheses it’s built upon being tested. A theory that doesn’t work in practice isn’t science at all.Originally Posted by Singu
Science is 100% theoretical dude.
You are like a dystopian version of Sol. I’m just ignoring you from now on until you stop being 100% wrong.
Now mind your own damn business and quit being annoying if you don’t want more. I can make more at any time for the likes of commenting like this.
This pretty much says all about the current state of Socionics. And they expect to be taken seriously...
They need to step up their game.
@Uncle Ave And I only say Singu is being a dumbass by talking out of his ass because he lives in a hole, because it’s true. Relative to me. And I know that he can take it.
By play pretending to “be the bigger person”, you only support and enable his willful ignorance. And you make yourself look pathetically, tastelessly patronizing.
I’m going to be really busy again and not around as much probably so message me on Facebook if you need me for whatever reason @ajsindri . I’m going to be marketing a robotics program I’m involved with so if there’s any connection there let me know.
I’d recommend PMimg Myst too even though she’s often busy and is keen to help, just appreciate it and don’t overload her.
Cool! That sound fun. I think we need to finish the math first, but when we do, I'll let you know ^u^
Sorry still won't help you
Science is fiction
If there were ever to be an "experimental test" of Socionics, then it must show that "types" stay consistent across different times, situations and cognitive circumstances.
So for example, if there were a type that has been unquestionably typed as "LIE" by all typists, then:
A) Does the LIE act consistently over time?
B) Does the LIE act consistently across all different situations that he is put under?
C) Does the LIE act consistently, if we try to change his beliefs?
--
I think the answer is that obviously, who does actually act consistently and predictably under all those different circumstances? Especially C) is almost logically impossible, since it is the particular belief that translates into particular behavior. Someone with say, a capitalist belief is going to be acting completely differently than someone with a communist belief. And if you say that people are "born" with certain beliefs, then that can't be explained by how genes cause certain beliefs. In fact, how can something like belief in capitalism be evolutionarily guided by genes? That has been created post-birth.
Why are you continuing to consider this even if Socionics doesn’t have a theory apparently?
Everything has a theory, even if it's implicit and unexpressed. The "theory" of Socionics is expecting the current observation of types to stay consistent in the future and in different situations.
That theory will be refuted if it changes over time or in differe situations. And that must, because people change over time and will act differently in different situations.
A) No
B) No
C) No
Socionics is not a behaviorist theory. There will never be a 1:1 correlation between sociotypes and behaviors. If we allow that an individual's behavioral patterns can change over the course of time, and we do, then this is trivially the case.
If you don't like socionics, why think about it so much? What is your purpose in doing this? Socionics is a highly speculative theory that isn't totally ready for mass consumption. Over time, it will either lead to some obviously useful results and gain mainstream attention, or it won't. If you are not interested in learning or contributing anything, then the best course of action is to just leave it well alone.
@ajsindri I hate waiting so I’ll try to help with the math if it’ll speed things up a bit.
That would be great! Do you want to work on the structure, or the statistical analysis?
Prob analysis but interested in either
I really need to learn "structural equation modeling". But if you want to teach yourself that and then help us out, that would be super helpful! And if you can do basic programming, I would learn a free stats program called "R".
Good, thanks you can take care of him now. BBL
Something must stay consistent, so what does? (Otherwise there's not much point in saying anything, it might as well be random). Socionics is saying that a type, or the entire person, stays consistent over time and in different situations.
Does a physics theory for example, allow change? Yes, it allows the change of physical objects over time and space. But it is calculating that from the laws of nature and laws of physics that stay consistent and do not change over time.
Socionics obviously does not refer to any "laws of nature" or "laws of psychology". If it's saying that it does, then it's saying that the functions are timeless and stay consistent over time. The problem is that the functions are apparently capable of generating many behaviors (or cognition), even unknown ones. We have no idea what kind of behaviors they are capable of creating. That's not how you "prove" the existence of functions, because you might just as well attribute anything to functions. And if anything can be attributed to functions, then what is the point?
So the question arises: What does stay consistent in Socionics?
I'm trying to figure out why these kinds of communities try to shield itself from criticism by taking everything personally and not impersonally, which is not how you gain "mainstream attention".
^ Actually a pretty good post. I agree!Good job, @Singu .
@sbbds and start small. If you can figure out how to analyze a small group system, like temperament, then we can scale that up to all of socionics.
Yes, sir!
@sbbds I met someone who is a stats major, and he gave me links to books that can teach you basic structural equation modeling and R programming!
https://drive.google.com/open?id=122...ggy0-kwd4kBqHJ
LOL you’re awesome, nice work!
Let’s ofc open this up to anybody else interested too. I don’t exactly have the most time or resources to spend at the moment.
What's really required is an alternative theory to compare it to, not any more tests. It doesn't matter how rigorous and scientific the test is, if there's no alternative theory where we could choose which theory performs and survives the test better.
Even if the tests proves Socionics wrong in some ways, I doubt that most people would start abandoning Socionics en masse. That's because they could either blame the test as being flawed, or say that the basic premise of Socionics is correct, but it needs more research.
The fact is that there already are some alternatives theories in scientific psychology, which most people are either aren't aware of, or they deliberately ignore them. Or they would incorporate those theories into Socionics and start making ad-hoc modifications, and see no conflict or contradictions between them.
The reason why it's so easy to make ad-hoc modifications in Socionics, is because it has no systematic and theoretical skeletal framework. It has no mechanistic explanations as such. The more rigorous and scientific the theory is, the harder it is to make arbitrary ad-hoc modifications without ruining the entire thing. That's because each of the explanations have their own functions and have internal consistency with the other explanations, just as each of the components in a mechanical clock have their own use, and if you change 1 thing then it ruins the entire thing.
If it's so easy to modify a theory, then it's a bad theory, i.e. a bad explanation. A good theory or an explanation is hard-to-vary. You can't make arbitrary changes to how reality actually is.
You don't need an alternative theory to be able to check whether the hypothesis based on the theory is true or false.
There are no psychological theories that deal in depth with the compatibility of how different people interact with each other. There are observations in Western psychology on there being patterns but I have not seen anyone investigate it in depth like Socionists have.Even if the tests proves Socionics wrong in some ways, I doubt that most people would start abandoning Socionics en masse. That's because they could either blame the test as being flawed, or say that the basic premise of Socionics is correct, but it needs more research.
The fact is that there already are some alternatives theories in scientific psychology, which most people are either aren't aware of, or they deliberately ignore them. Or they would incorporate those theories into Socionics and start making ad-hoc modifications, and see no conflict or contradictions between them.
That's exactly what I was telling you about science.The reason why it's so easy to make ad-hoc modifications in Socionics, is because it has no systematic and theoretical skeletal framework. It has no mechanistic explanations as such. The more rigorous and scientific the theory is, the harder it is to make arbitrary ad-hoc modifications without ruining the entire thing. That's because each of the explanations have their own functions and have internal consistency with the other explanations, just as each of the components in a mechanical clock have their own use, and if you change 1 thing then it ruins the entire thing.
BTW Socionics's model does have a systematic framework that can be operationalised and be testable even in its current form for the ITR. The problem is the model as it is now is only capable to deal with a few things in a truly systematic way while it just claims to do so for the rest and it's too easy for people to go beyond that into the apophenic thinking - that's bad.
I can't believe I'm actually hearing the last sentence from you of all people.If it's so easy to modify a theory, then it's a bad theory, i.e. a bad explanation. A good theory or an explanation is hard-to-vary. You can't make arbitrary changes to how reality actually is.
Well you do actually, because you can just keep blaming the experiment or the instrument. Or the marginal errors in the data is going to be seen as some interesting but mysterious anomaly that can't be explained from the current theory, and hence it will likely be ignored. And even if it were proven to be wrong, where else would you go? You only have this theory to turn to anyway. So it's necessary to come up with an alternative.
Socionics deals with how different people interact with each other - but it's missing the context as to why people act in that way. It might be due to their "innate in-born personality traits", or it might be due to some other contextual factors that we're missing or we don't know of. Since Socionics is a correlational approach and not a causational approach, there's no way to tell whether how people interact with each other have to do with their innate personality traits, or something else entirely.
I would suspect that the reason why people get along and not get along have mostly to do with their cognitive and social reasons, and it's not as if people are "born" to get along or not get along, as if like some astrology.
E.g. two people were getting along relative well, until they found out that each other belonged to their politically opposite camps, such as liberal/conservative. Why?
See above. By "testable", ITR is just a statistical, correlational approach. All it's saying is that "X has happened before, therefore X will happen again". But there's simply no guarantee why that pattern should repeat without a rational reason as to why. A relationship may continue to conflict, or they may choose to make up and no longer conflict.
Again, see above. So far, Socionics only deals with observational facts. Those observations may be interesting, sure, but they're still observations to be further studied and investigated, and to be explained from a theory of some kind, which we don't yet have. There's not yet a psychological theory that can explain all these observational facts.
Last edited by Singu; 02-18-2019 at 12:52 PM.
Singu is a big nub
Ok. Finally I'm going to start working on this this weekend.
Always make use of the placebo effect. Blind faith and confidence that you'll succeed increases your odds beyond what's assumed to be reasonable. It's not just a new age motivational meme, it"s an actual thing that's ingrained in the scientific process. Scientists go to great lengths to get away from it because it messes up the numbers. Today we use it in an ironic way. Fuck the odds, don't let them fuck you.
Even if we fail it will be educational and fun. Anybody welcome to join me, if only to help me make fun of Singu.
Wtf are u talking about
It's chaos magick. Sort of.
@Myst, as a psychologist, what evidence would socionics have to present for you to take it seriously?
She’s not just another psychologist. She’s also cognitive psych leaning. That’s scientific concrete thinking realm.
These opinions don’t always come easily and for free like they do from Gulenko caliber people.
@Myst btw, I'd be interested to hear about those experiments, and what you mentioned in the other thread -
Lmao lost time and interest for this
Feel free to carry the torch, Andreas
Any updates?
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
As it relates to activity over time, the subjects have a mean score that sometimes falls in the middle of the dichotomy.
If most subjects' mean score falls in the middle, then maybe the focus should first be on mapping out the individual functions, and focusing on general personality later.
Just because most people fall somewhere in the middle doesn't mean there aren't underlying causes for introverting and extraverting.
This reminds me of the issue I take with the false dichotomy argument. Perhaps most people fall in the middle, which means that the dichotomy is false as it relates to the general personality expressed over time. But categorically, the dichotomies aren't false on their own, so they're not false as they relate to the unique neurological processes that govern them. For example, the parasympathetic nervous system works as its own process while the sympathetic nervous system works as its own process, each having unique implications for consciousness.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote