Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Singu]

IEIs always go rock hard when they use catchy Ti summaries like this

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.

[sbbds]

@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.

[sbbds]

@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.

[Exodus]

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.

[sbbds]

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.

[Exodus]

Please feel free to expand.

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.

[sbbds]

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.

[sbbds]

@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........

[Singu]

@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........

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?

[sbbds]

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?

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.

[Singu]

And if the point of science is explanation of phenomenon........

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.

[sbbds]

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.

[sbbds]

You should be paying me for these Ti animal crackers like the parents of the kids I teach.

[sbbds]

@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.

[Lao Tzunami]

@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.

[Singu]

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.

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".

[Lao Tzunami]

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?! 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.

[Exodus]

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.

[Singu]

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.

[sbbds]

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.

[Memento Mori]

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.

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.

[sbbds]

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.

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.

[Singu]

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.

[sbbds]

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.

[sbbds]

@Andreas Um, actually we have been discussing ways on how to carry out experiments here.

[sbbds]

Yeah. I just ... I don't know why it still looks like going nowhere. I remember to want to reply your design of experiments, but I am stuck because even I am not counting yet in number, my feeling just said that it's has a low chance for someone get correct type and being accepted by 70% typists around them. And that feeling making me afraid to do research, because it's too risky for me to made your advice being accepted into my "desk" and being labeled as "need further investigation".

Can you convince me that your method is worth to try for experiment? At least if you are sure with yourself, you should can make me sure too that you are serious to bring it further. Because, for me, this is not for fun. I am serious. :")

I apologize.

... It’s like 3 or 4 people discussing this lightly as a hobby. What do you expect LOL. We just started too. I’m glad you’re interested, why don’t you add something then.

[sbbds]

So by testing things this way, you can automatically account for and prove or disprove for both internal and external consistency, at once.

[Singu]

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.

[sbbds]

And since Socionics is almost entirely statistical,

No it’s not lol. Big Five is statistical, by contrast. Socionics actually has a structure and explanation behind it, albeit a mostly philosophical one.

Also we were talking about the internal statistics of it mainly there with application of it.

As usual, you’re taking out of your ass.

[Singu]

No it’s not lol. Big Five is statistical, by contrast. Socionics actually has a structure and explanation behind it, albeit a mostly philosophical one.

Also we were talking about the internal statistics of it mainly there with application of it.

All I can say is, it's amazing that you think Socionics is fundamentally any different from Big Five.

It's just a fact that 16 types, 8 functions and ITR are all summarization of observations. Yes, that makes it statistical.

"This person fits this type description! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of observations of people

"These two types are so similar to each other, amazing!" -> Correlation made between two potentially similar people

"What this person is saying fits the description of Fe! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of what people say

"This relationship unfolded in the exact way predicted by ITR! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of certain kinds of relationships

--

Those are all based on some previously observed statistical trend, that will apparently continue into the future. So you haven't answered that question, of why should that trend continue. That's because you can't, because Socionics is statistical and not explanatory.

Come up with an explanation for why should there be a type, or why should a certain kind of a relationship should unfold in a certain way and so on.

[sbbds]

All I can say is, it's amazing that you think Socionics is fundamentally any different from Big Five.

It's just a fact that 16 types, 8 functions and ITR are all summarization of observations. Yes, that makes it statistical.

"This person fits this type description! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of observations of people

"These two types are so similar to each other, amazing!" -> Correlation made between two potentially similar people

"What this person is saying fits the description of Fe! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of what people say

"This relationship unfolded in the exact way predicted by ITR! Amazing!" -> Based on summarized data of certain kinds of relationships

--

Those are all based on some previously observed statistical trend, that will apparently continue into the future. So you haven't answered that question, of why should that trend continue. That's because you can't, because Socionics is statistical and not explanatory.

Come up with an explanation for why should there be a type, or why should a certain kind of a relationship should unfold in a certain way and so on.

Big Five was derived from statistical analysis alone, while Socionics is derived from the concept of duality of information and information processing. If you are honestly putting all forms of empirical observation under the umbrella of “statistical” though, I can’t help you.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

A core tenet of Socionics is that you can predict how well people interact with each other by knowing their psycho-types. I've never been satisfied that there has been any study to show this conjecture has any merit that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal. I am also unaware of any study that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal which shows that people are compatible with each other as Socionics speculates with the eight Jungian functions.

[sbbds]

A core tenet of Socionics is that you can predict how well people interact with each other by knowing their psycho-types. I've never been satisfied that there has been any study to show this conjecture has any merit that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal. I am also unaware of any study that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal which shows that people are compatible with each other as Socionics speculates with the eight Jungian functions.

That part would be statistical if anybody actually carried out that research but it hasn’t happened yet like you said. There are no legit statistics to be seen as of yet in Socionics. The only statistician I’ve seen in Socionics so far has been @Director Abbie with her charts. At most you could say it has elements of that in theory, but technically it has yet to be proven. Statistics implies some level of analysis of actual data that is quantifiable. The origins of Socionics concepts are the exact opposite of quantifiable.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

That part would be statistical if anybody actually carried out that research but it hasn’t happened yet like you said. There are no legit statistics to be seen as of yet in Socionics. The only statistician I’ve seen in Socionics so far has been @Director Abbie with her charts. At most you could say it has elements of that in theory, but technically it has yet to be proven. Statistics implies some level of analysis of actual data that is quantifiable. The origins of Socionics concepts are the exact opposite of quantifiable.

We may have our observations, but they are far too impartial and limited in scope. I think for the conjecture regarding Socionics psycho-type relations to be even considered a hypothesis in any meaningful sense, we need a rigorous method of typing individuals and a quantifiable measure of relationship quality. At the same time, I would expect non-Socionics research to be congruous with the conjecture. Research into the quality of relationships using the Big Five for example contradicts what the conjecture predicts.

[sbbds]

Research into the quality of relationships using the Big Five for example contradicts what the conjecture predicts.

Assuming you mean Socionics conjecture, what parallels are you drawing between the two systems?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Assuming you mean Socionics conjecture, what parallels are you drawing between the two systems?

I was referring to this:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1134376

I made my comment on the basis that the Big Five factors of Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, are somewhat comparable to Socionics dichotomies of Extraversion, Intuition, Ethics, and Rationality.

[sbbds]

Talanov has done a lot of statistical work and created his test based on it.

Do you have a link or key search terms?

[sbbds]

http://sociotoday.narod.ru/olderfiles/1/index1.html

Or, this thread where esq broke the types out with individual links: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ctor-L-Talanov

Thank you. This is a gold mine for all sort of crazy shit. In one of the articles with a total lack of irony he claimed that two functions were the most correlated to sex hormones and the most diametrically opposed. https://translate.googleusercontent....iIZ7GX9LyTKsGg

I mean this is definitely statistical work LOL and some of it may potentially be pretty accurate but I don’t see very many details about their methods. Honestly I feel like Director Abbie’s conclusions are probably more reliable and meaningful than these. Of course it could just be the way this stuff is being presented and the unscientific discourse it’s steeped in but idk if I would consider this “legit”. I’d personally trust @ajsindri , who I think has been in contact with Gulenko and SSS who he could consult for guidance, to do design of and carry out some quick experiments and analysis on a couple hundred people and glean conclusions from them, over this guy. He’s also studying a hard science atm IIRC so he has some incentive and the means to make something legit out of it and not do a shit job.

[sbbds]

A core tenet of Socionics is that you can predict how well people interact with each other by knowing their psycho-types. I've never been satisfied that there has been any study to show this conjecture has any merit that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal. I am also unaware of any study that would be meet the requirements of a scientific journal which shows that people are compatible with each other as Socionics speculates with the eight Jungian functions.

That part would be statistical if anybody actually carried out that research but it hasn’t happened yet like you said. There are no legit statistics to be seen as of yet in Socionics. The only statistician I’ve seen in Socionics so far has been @Director Abbie with her charts. At most you could say it has elements of that in theory, but technically it has yet to be proven. Statistics implies some level of analysis of actual data that is quantifiable. The origins of Socionics concepts are the exact opposite of quantifiable.

Actually again even if this part panned out statistically ideally, the concept of ITR is backed up with the explanation of Model A and the IEs and TIM are based on concepts that are more complex than what can be associated with statistical probability. We could/should definitely use statistics to investigate these things, but it’s definitely outside the scope of the origins and beyond the point. IMHO. @Singu

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Actually again even if this part panned out statistically ideally, the concept of ITR is backed up with the explanation of Model A and the IEs and TIM are based on concepts that are more complex than what can be associated with statistical probability. We could/should definitely use statistics to investigate these things, but it’s definitely outside the scope of the origins and beyond the point. IMHO. @Singu

If types cannot be rigorously defined, and if what Socionics conjecture says about relationship dynamics cannot be measured in significant and quantifiable terms, then Model A cannot be considered an explanation of something that has not be observed to meaningfully exist.