Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[sbbds]

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.

Oh, I completely agree. Sorry, to clarify, with my last statement I meant that about the last part of my first sentence, that is, about the theoretical concepts of Model A, TIM etc.

It’s just that Singu seems to believe that Socionics is just some kind of huge statistical number crunching machine and sees this as a problem. My main point was in response to him about that, that it isn’t that at all in terms of what it was created from and how people have been using it it in practice so far, for the most part. It should be like that though in some ways to prove its existence.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Oh, I completely agree. Sorry, to clarify, with my last statement I meant that about the last part of my post, that is, about the theoretical concepts of Model A, TIM etc.

It’s just that Singu seems to believe that Socionics is some kind of huge statistical number crunching machine and sees this as a problem. My main point was in response to him about that, that it isn’t that at all in terms of what it was created from and how people have been using it it in practice so far, for the most part. It should be like that though in some ways to prove its existence.

I actually agree with @Singu's general sentiment. As far as I can see, at best, that is how Socionics is in its current state. People may believe they get some practical utility out of Socionics conjecture, but the conjecture has not been substantiated to a significant degree.

[sbbds]

I actually agree with @Singu's general sentiment. As far as I can see, at best, that is how Socionics is in its current state. People may believe they get some practical utility out of Socionics conjecture, but the conjecture has not been substantiated to a significant degree.

If the conjecture hasn’t been substantiated statistically then how can this sentiment be correct?

[sbbds]

I actually agree with @Singu's general sentiment. As far as I can see, at best, that is how Socionics is in its current state. People may believe they get some practical utility out of Socionics conjecture, but the conjecture has not been substantiated to a significant degree.

Even if bits and pieces of his ideas are correct, I don’t believe in pitying and coddling Singu. Maybe he needs a few people to do that too, but it’s not going to be me.

[sbbds]

I’m sure Singu would agree that Socionics is (statistically and generally) meaningless but that’s sort of a given he’d think that IMO.

[Dalek Caan]

Put simply, there exists things which can fall under science. Then there exists things which don't fall under science, but could. Then there exists things which don't fall under science, but also can't; Socionics belongs here.

Because...although the mind is built upon objective phenomena, the mind plays with subjective relationships. Somebody mentioned hardware in a computer and how it organizes and manipulates 1s and 0s as programs are run as being an equivalent relationship. The cpu and memory and other hardware can be studied with science, but it won't infer how software will run on that hardware because it all depends on how that software is initially structured and how it changes as time goes on.

But depending on the hardware, it limits what the software can do to. This is probably similar to Socrates answer to Meno's Paradox, in that rather than recalling knowledge, you are simply bound by your hardware to be capable of even knowing certain things. So they depend on each other as well.

Then to have the full picture of someone's running software, you'd need to be a God viewing that software running in its entirety in a simulation that you have full control of that nobody can manipulate, but you. Obviously, none of us are that God and we have to instead frame other people in certain ways in order to make better sense of them in relation to ourselves. Doing so will always be scientifically and logically flawed because we can not know the whole picture. The best you can do then is come up with something that makes the most sense. The only other seeming solution is to kill yourself if it bothers you that much.

[Desert Financial]

For anyone who's actually interested in how the brain works: a book exploring the implications of the left and right hemispheres, as the implications involve the development of society and culture.

https://www.amazon.com/Master-His-Em.../dp/0300188374

[sbbds]

I’m sorry, please don’t let that deter you. Please keep talking to me @Singu , this is hilarious.

[sbbds]

How were the laws of physics discovered and proven, @Singu ?

[Singu]

How were the laws of physics discovered and proven, @Singu ?

Well you should take it from the physicist Feynman:

Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

Unfortunately Socionics, and maybe the popular culture in general, is so... stuck in empiricism, so stuck in the myth and the misconception that we "derive" things from "carefully observing nature" or something like that, that they just can't see that that's how it's really done.

Also you should take out the "proven" part, because we can never really prove anything.

[sbbds]

Well you should take it from the physicist Feynman:


https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

Unfortunately Socionics, and maybe the popular culture in general, is so... stuck in empiricism, so stuck in the myth and the misconception that we "derive" things from "carefully observing nature" or something like that, that they just can't see that that's how it's really done.

Also you should take out the "proven" part, because we can never really prove anything.

Ok. What you quoted involved computations and comparing to real observation.

...

You don’t realize this is what we’re trying to do, and what you claim Socionics is all about too, yet as if it’s a problem? I don’t see how you aren’t putting two and two together here, seeing this as somehow any different.

And where do you think guesses come from too btw? Completely random data divorced from anything in reality?

This is unbelievable.

[Singu]

Ok. What you quoted involved computations and comparing to real observation.

When he said "computation", he meant calculating the result of the consequence of what would happen, if the guesses being made were correct.

And where do you think guesses come from too btw? Completely random data divorced from anything in reality?

No, the point is that the "random" guess sometimes, happens to be "miraculously" describing the reality in some ways. That's the whole point of an experimental testing, to see if the guess is correctly describing reality or not.

This is unbelievable.

It's so unbelievable, that a Nobel-prize winning physicist is telling you that's exactly how it's done?

I'm no fan of appeal to authority, but all I'm telling you is that that's just how it's really done. If you can't believe it, then well I'm sorry, but you're the one who has to change your view, not reality.

You realize deciding a hypothesis is right or wrong, and cannot be questioned, regardless of evidence is the definition of psuedoscience, right? Why are you advocating psuedoscience?

I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not, but why did you miss the part that 1) it's criticized and 2) it's tested?

Indeed, the only thing that separates science from pseudoscience, is that the theory is criticized and tested. That's why the Popper's demarcation of science is falsification: that the theory is testable.

[sbbds]

When he said "computation", he meant calculating the result of the consequence of what would happen, if the guesses being made were correct.



No, the point is that the "random" guess sometimes, happens to be "miraculously" describing the reality in some ways. That's the whole point of an experimental testing, to see if the guess is correctly describing reality or not.



It's so unbelievable, that a Nobel-prize winning physicist is telling you that's exactly how it's done?

I'm no fan of appeal to authority, but all I'm telling you is that that's just how it's really done. If you can't believe it, then well I'm sorry, but you're the one who has to change your view, not reality.



I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not, but why did you miss the part that 1) it's criticized and 2) it's tested?

Indeed, the only thing that separates science from pseudoscience, is that the theory is criticized and tested. That's why the Popper's demarcation of science is falsification: that the theory is testable.

....

I’m obviously not questioning your Feynman quote, I’m in disbelief of your inability to see your self-contradiction with its content. With my questions, I was trying to lead you to figure things out by yourself. It didn’t work. I’m not holding your hand anymore.

[Lao Tzunami]

...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.

That's a great point, universal standards are the goal. The question is how we create them.

This problem reminds me of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. It goes: a group of blind men in India heard a merchant had brought an elephant to their town square. Curious, because they had never heard of an elephant, they went to find out what it was. They all were able to get close enough to touch a part of the elephant before being shooed away by the owner. Later, they all started arguing because they had pictured something totally different depending on what part of the body they had touched. The tusk felt like a spear, the trunk like a snake, the ear like a fan, the leg like a tree, the side like a wall, and the tail like a rope.


The point being that all their observations were correct, but they were fighting because they couldn't conceptually synthesize all the perspectives into one picture.




If you cut through all the meta, there seems to be two main positions:
1. Socionics is describing a major and real phenomena that can be described from many different perspectives but has one source, and
2. Socionics is an arbitrary construction that was imagined, and then imposed on reality. The categories are meaningless, and you get different groups depending on the specific details.

I'm definitely in the first group, because I've applied socionics in my own life, and it definitely works. However, that is anecdotal, so if someone tried socionics, and got bad results, it would makes sense that they'd trust their own experience over mine. But, that's a two way street - I don't take their experience seriously, because you have to be very intelligent to understand socionics, and I don't know if they are applying it right, or if their issue is a personal problem they bring to every aspect of their life.

So the root of this conflict is anecdotal opinions and the only solution is objective testing. I'm not here to listen to people complain and do nothing, I'm here to do my part in solving the problem. It doesn't matter what side you are on, you should be in favor of testing socionics.

I calculated that there are 4432 binary divisions in socionics today (not including information metabolism):
https://repl.it/@ajsindri/Total-Group-Generator
That means potentially 4432 basic criteria, hundreds of thousands of predicted correlations, and only 16 types. In this way, socionics is extremely restrictive, meaning it is extremely falsifiable. If you are against socionics, first of all, why are you wasting your time on this forum, and second, test those correlations and show that its structure collapses under scrutiny. If you think socionics works, test the those correlations and show that the model is objective and coherent with reality, and the different parts can be synthesized into a single picture, because socionics is a language describing something real. Either way, the solution is to test!

[Singu]

If you cut through all the meta, there seems to be two main positions:
1. Socionics is describing a major and real phenomena that can be described from many different perspectives but has one source, and
2. Socionics is an arbitrary construction that was imagined, and then imposed on reality. The categories are meaningless, and you get different groups depending on the specific details.

I'm definitely in the first group, because I've applied socionics in my own life, and it definitely works.

Well too bad though, because science is #2. However instead of throwing them all out and decide that it's all meaningless and random nonsense, we use (rational) arguments to keep the ones that "work", and to cut the wheat from the chaff. One is done through criticism, the other is experimental testing. And experimental testing is just a kind of a criticism.

[Lao Tzunami]

Well too bad though, because science is #2...

You realize deciding a hypothesis is right or wrong, and cannot be questioned, regardless of evidence is the definition of psuedoscience, right? Why are you advocating psuedoscience?

[sbbds]

@ajsindri “I calculated that there are 4432 binary divisions in socionics today (not including information metabolism):”

Erm, from what? Sorry if it says, I only really go on here on my phone so view is limited.

[Lao Tzunami]

@ajsindri “I calculated that there are 4432 binary divisions in socionics today (not including information metabolism):”


Erm, from what? Sorry if it says, I only really go on here on my phone so view is limited.

I used 5 Renin / Tencer dichotomies to generate the entire structure of socionics. If you follow the Repl.It link, you'll see the python algorythm. Its not very efficient, so it takes a minute, but it might work on your phone.


https://repl.it/@ajsindri/Total-Group-Generator

[Lao Tzunami]

@Andreas no I mean how are they deciding the type? Are they using dichotomies, small groups, Model A position, or a mix? How many observations is each person making before deciding the type, what is the error rate, and how do the people resolve conflicting information?

/ would you mind not collapsing your posts?

[Lao Tzunami]

...Different typists will have different approach when it goes to observation. Some will needs more interviews and asking like journalists (questionnaire method), and some even just do by instinct without asking (if you know what some members here whom said themselves as VI experts). This is outside of my control and I ignore it.

About error rate, I open with all possibilities, from "god mode" which has zero error rate, until newbie mode which do typing like throwing dice of 16types.
And about how they resolve conflicting information (especially when a group is difficult to reach 7 out of 10 agreement), i assume it as a "confidence of typing" condition. So it's like, taking a risk to reach agreement even they actually not agree with it. (It might look like, you actually didn't like the flavor of medicine because it is so bitter, but you choose to agree for take it because you need it to heal your body)...

Before you deleted it, you posted the output statistics of your simulation with ~23% maximum consensus. I'm asking what parameters and simulation rules gave that output and why you think it is meaningful.

...If only I can set my mind to not collapsing it. I have no control over my own mind. :")

Are you like a crazy person?

[Lao Tzunami]

... By the way, maybe is that why you are not interested in simulation with random number and preferring math to describe all phenomenon that happened in Socionics. I will not blame you wrong, because I even glad when I knew that you are the only member here whom in a right track for using math rather than other members. (Remember how you made me change from skeptical about Reinin until now can fully accepting it as a part of Socionics? That's because of you)

So, um, about sbbds case, I tried to think a lot in night sleep about this, to wonder what is the math formulation that can describe the chance of it (because maybe seeing simulation result isn't useful for you). And I found this appears in my mind... (I apologize I can't write it here, if only this forum has a feature to write equations)
Attachment 14406

And I won't support that experiment if your minimum chances to do it are below 50%. So... good luck.

Okay, so in an ideal world, where each individual always diagnoses the correct type, the chances are below 50% that the groups agree? Obviously not. So what number are you using for individual success, and what happens when, for example, in a group of 30 typist, 15 people agree on one type, and the 15 other people each think it is a different unique type. Is that a majority because 15:1 is greater than 70%, or is that a failure because 15/30 is less than 70%. Your simulation is only meaningful if you factored this kind of stuff in.

[sbbds]

@Singu I knew you’d come around

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[Lao Tzunami]

If Socionics types could be shown to exist in the brain, I would be highly inclined to believe that the Socionics conjecture is meaningful. I don't dispute that there is such a thing as distinctive personality traits, but I am skeptical about what Socionics says about psycho-type relations.

I agree that neuroscience research would be great, but how could you study the socionic types if you couldn't define what they were? If there was a reliable test, you could use it to categorize people and then study the brains of the different groups. But we don't have a reliable way of determining type. We have to figure that out first.

I can't imagine neuroscience discovering socionic types from unguided empiricism, because information theory and neuroscience are opposite ends of the spectrum. Information theory is about the contents of consciousness, while neuroscience is the physical medium consciousness happens in. To bridge the gap, we would have had to solve the hard problem of what consciousness is. If neuroscience was ever so advanced it could simulate human consciousness and read thoughts, Model A would be obsolete.

So even if the end goal is to study the brain for more objective answers, the only path toward progress is to make a reliable application of socionics, and that means testing socionics in the absence of neuroscience (which for the record, is perfectly normal for psychological theories).

Socionics is special because it is a network of implications that describe the same thing from many different angles. We can test if those implications are real in practice, and if it turns out to be false, it would totally destroy Model A. I'm sure you know that the Ego block implies the Super-Ego, Super-Id and Id blocks. That is the basis of the intertype relations. For example, Duality is resonant because the focus on the base element blocks a focus on the suggestive element, which creates a space where it is possible to accept another person's input. If you undermine the function structure, you would undermine the concept of type and the intertype relations, making any residual concepts useless.

But these theoretical correlations might actually exist. If they did, that would validate socionics, even if we didn't understand the causal neurological mechanism - that research would have to come after we could define the groups to be studied. The only way to know is to do the test, and the only way to process the results and decide if these correlations exist is with the math I and other people am developing.

This math is very difficult, so I'm not surprised the professional socionist haven't solved it yet. I'm really fortunate that @thehotelambush discovered a parallel dichotomy space and shared it with this community because I'm pretty sure it is the key to making this work. In 50 years, he might be as famous as Reinin, who knows.

I really believe this is the best path forward. It doesn't matter what side you are on - if you are for or against socionics - this is the only fair test with definite results I can think of.

I appreciate proper criticism of socionics, because it is still developing, and without knowing the problems, we can't address them. But the purpose of criticism is to make things better. I'm done with people spreading negativity to make themselves feel intellectually superior to other people. Not everyone is like that, like I think @Nebula is honestly trying to learn more about herself with socionics, but is getting confused because she can't decide what type fits her, causing her distress. Not that it's my responsibility, but socionics is failing her, and I'd like to help fix it.

This math stuff is not for everyone, but I hope it serves as a litmus test that divides serious critics who want to make things better, from complainers who want to bully other people.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I agree that neuroscience research would be great, but how could you study the socionic types if you couldn't define what they were? If there was a reliable test, you could use it to categorize people and then study the brains of the different groups. But we don't have a reliable way of determining type. We have to figure that out first.

I can't imagine neuroscience discovering socionic types from unguided empiricism, because information theory and neuroscience are opposite ends of the spectrum. Information theory is about the contents of consciousness, while neuroscience is the physical medium consciousness happens in. To bridge the gap, we would have had to solve the hard problem of what consciousness is. If neuroscience was ever so advanced it could simulate human consciousness and read thoughts, Model A would be obsolete.

So even if the end goal is to study the brain for more objective answers, the only path toward progress is to make a reliable application of socionics, and that means testing socionics in the absence of neuroscience (which for the record, is perfectly normal for psychological theories).

Socionics is special because it is a network of implications that describe the same thing from many different angles. We can test if those implications are real in practice, and if it turns out to be false, it would totally destroy Model A. I'm sure you know that the Ego block implies the Super-Ego, Super-Id and Id blocks. That is the basis of the intertype relations. For example, Duality is resonant because the focus on the base element blocks a focus on the suggestive element, which creates a space where it is possible to accept another person's input. If you undermine the function structure, you would undermine the concept of type and the intertype relations, making any residual concepts useless.

But these theoretical correlations might actually exist. If they did, that would validate socionics, even if we didn't understand the causal neurological mechanism - that research would have to come after we could define the groups to be studied. The only way to know is to do the test, and the only way to process the results and decide if these correlations exist is with the math I and other people am developing.

This math is very difficult, so I'm not surprised the professional socionist haven't solved it yet. I'm really fortunate that @thehotelambush discovered a parallel dichotomy space and shared it with this community because I'm pretty sure it is the key to making this work. In 50 years, he might be as famous as Reinin, who knows.

I really believe this is the best path forward. It doesn't matter what side you are on - if you are for or against socionics - this is the only fair test with definite results I can think of.

I appreciate proper criticism of socionics, because it is still developing, and without knowing the problems, we can't address them. But the purpose of criticism is to make things better. I'm done with people spreading negativity to make themselves feel intellectually superior to other people. Not everyone is like that, like I think @Nebula is honestly trying to learn more about herself with socionics, but is getting confused because she can't decide what type fits her, causing her distress. Not that it's my responsibility, but socionics is failing her, and I'd like to help fix it.

This math stuff is not for everyone, but I hope it serves as a litmus test that divides serious critics who want to make things better, from complainers who want to bully other people.

I think as long as the Big Five is largely descriptive rather than explanatory, there is not much immediate hope of Socionics conjectures qualifying as hypotheses.

[Lao Tzunami]

I think as long as the Big Five is largely descriptive rather than explanatory, there is not much immediate hope of Socionics conjectures qualifying as hypotheses.

Socionics and the big 5 are totally different approaches and the only thing they have in common is they are describing personality differences. Why are you equating them?

[Singu]

Socionics and the big 5 are totally different approaches and the only thing they have in common is they are describing personality differences. Why are you equating them?

The fact is, Jung's functions started out as observations of his patients, which may have included his own conscious or unconscious theories about people and how they worked. But Jung didn't systematize his observations, he didn't try to explain how they worked or the mechanisms behind how they worked, and he deliberately took a non-systematic approach. He didn't for instance, explain why all the "Fe" that he was observing and labeled under the same umbrella, were related to each other, other than the fact that they all apparently came from the same person or similar persons (which in itself is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction). It was all rather arbitrary, and Jung himself admitted that it was arbitrary.

So I think "Model A" created another kind of a confusion, when they tried to say that these "observations" were now somehow something to do with things that are located somewhere in our minds. But they're just observations, they're observations about people, not about how the mind works internally (do you categorize a bunch of different dog breeds, and create and organize a model out of it and claim that's what the mind of a dog looks like?).

--

So I really don't understand why should anyone make things more complicated out of Jung's writings. People can simply focus on what Jung is saying about his observations, and not the observations themselves (which are not some sort of an "Absolute Truth"), that are interesting or not interesting.

[Lao Tzunami]

... Jung didn't systematize his observations, he didn't try to explain how they worked or the mechanisms behind how they worked, and he deliberately took a non-systematic approach...

You need to read psychological types because you consistently have no idea what you are talking about.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Socionics and the big 5 are totally different approaches and the only thing they have in common is they are describing personality differences. Why are you equating them?

Both systems intend to describe the same thing (i.e. personality) & the Big Five is far more widely known than Socionics, thus the Big Five serves as a barometer telling us what state Socionics is in.

[Lao Tzunami]

Both systems intend to describe the same thing (i.e. personality) & the Big Five is far more widely known than Socionics, thus the Big Five serves as a barometer telling us what state Socionics is in.

Um, no. Socionics is not a factor analysis model. Socionics cannot take credit for the 5 five's success or failures.

[Singu]

So much for the importance of "gathering empirical evidence"...

[sbbds]

So much for the importance of "gathering empirical evidence"...

It’s not just that, it’s that your stupidity remains constant over time. Unfortunately I can’t come up with a solid explanation for this yet. I can only guess.

I’m going to write an essay on your bs someday soon I hope. It will be so epic that it will break the laws of physics and prove Socionics empirically. You still wouldn’t acknowledge it though even if this happened.

[Desert Financial]

Socionics is not scientific, in part, because its tests fail to meet the criteria for what makes a psychological test scientific. To be scientific, a test has to have validity and reliability. A test must be reliable in that it should be able to yield consistent results on the same subject. For example, if we took the Sociotypes.com test repeatedly over the span of several years, to be scientific, it should give each subject the same type every time. The Sociotypes.com test fails to pass muster in this respect. I have scored as a range of types using that test, including IEI, ILE, LII, and LSI. Furthermore, Visual Identification fails to pass muster because it tends to yield a variety of results for the same subjects over the course of experimentation. Since Socionics tests lack reliability, they also lack consistent validity in that they do not always measure what they claim to measure.

[Lao Tzunami]

Socionics is not scientific, in part, because its tests fail to meet the criteria for what makes a psychological test scientific. To be scientific, a test has to have validity and reliability. A test must be reliable in that it should be able to yield consistent results on the same subject. For example, if we took the Sociotypes.com test repeatedly over the span of several years, to be scientific, it should give each subject the same type every time. The Sociotypes.com test fails to pass muster in this respect. I have scored as a range of types using that test, including IEI, ILE, LII, and LSI. Furthermore, Visual Identification fails to pass muster because it tends to yield a variety of results for the same subjects over the course of experimentation. Since Socionics tests lack reliability, they also lack general validity in that they do not always measure what they claim to measure.

But that's not socionics, that is (I assume) an armature attempting to create a socionics test. Socionics is most taught as a model and applied in a diagnostic interview. Of course that training and practice is in Russian, so it is hard for English speakers to evaluate. Scientific evaluation should be directed at Model A.

[Desert Financial]

But that's not socionics, that is (I assume) an armature attempting to create a socionics test. Socionics is most taught as a model and applied in a diagnostic interview. Of course that training and practice is in Russian, so it is hard for English speakers to evaluate. Scientific evaluation should be directed at Model A.

Even in Russia, typing methods have been observed as inconsistent among "experts", yielding mixed results: http://uralsocionics.ru/article/57

[Lao Tzunami]

Even in Russia, typing methods have been observed as inconsistent among "experts", yielding mixed results: http://uralsocionics.ru/article/57

For anyone reading along, the tl;dr of the study was high error rate, but definite convergence.
@Karatos, this was done in 1999. Do you know of any more recent experiments? Two decades might be enough time to fix the problem.

[Singu]

Why are there laws of physics, laws of chemistry, laws of biology? Arguably, what they have all in common is that they all stay the same over time.

But that's not to say that whatever that stays the same IS the law. Rather, these laws explain the mechanisms and the processes behind the things that do change over time. The laws of physics explain the change in position of matter that change over time. The laws of chemistry explain the change in molecular units that change over time. The laws of biology explain the change in biological organisms over time. And so on. All of these laws are explanations of something, not just something that somebody has happened to have randomly "found" or "stumbled upon".

So if there were to be "laws of psychology" in the same way, then these laws should explain how the psychological phenomena that do change over time, such as our thoughts, beliefs, feelings, etc., change.

And I'm sure that the aim of psychology is to eventually find these laws. But it's not going to be easy to find those laws, just as it wasn't easy for biology until Darwin came up with his Theory of Evolution, which became one of the laws that explained much of biological phenomena.

It's likely that we're going to have to come up with a completely different mode of explanation to come up with these laws, just as Darwin came up with a different mode of explanation with his theory of evolution. And I'm sure that once we do find it, it would seem so "obvious" that one wonders how no one could have seen it in hindsight. Just as evolution seems "obvious" to us now.

But on the other hand, it's also going to be some exciting times, because there's going to be another "Darwin" moment in history.

So if there were going to be a revolution in psychology, then that would be it. Somebody coming up with a legitimate "laws of psychology", that can help explain everything about human psychology. It would also mean the very beginning of a genuine psychological discovery, and not the end.

[Singu]

Well that's getting old. So far, none could prove that what I'm saying is wrong.

It's because the whole problem is bigger than simply what I'm personally claiming. If what I'm saying is wrong, then the entire Popperian epistemology is called into question. And you might say that "Oh, but you're just misinterpreting it!". But it's like, no. It's simply that what Socionics is claiming is an impossibility. Also an absurdity.

It's an impossibility to make any claims about the future by simply analyzing the present. If you think that's possible, then I'd like to hear how. It's logically impossible and rationally untenable.

Socionics claims things about the future, even though it doesn't explain how it gets to that state, other than that types and functions staying the same over time (and if they do change, then it clearly becomes unpredictable. Unless you can explain how they change over time). And they're things like people's thoughts, beliefs, feelings, etc. But how can they be a regularity, if they clearly change over time?

So essentially, Socionics is claiming that things don't change, people don't change, nothing changes. It's a state of total status and an absurdity.

So it's simply that people are asking the wrong question. The question isn't, "How do I know that what I'm observing is true? (And therefore the observation stays the same?)". The question is, "How is it possible that this is what will lead to that? (And hence explaining the underlining mechanism of how that happens?)"

[Skepsis]

It often comes down to same questions: Is there a "true" self or are we constantly changing and evolving? Jungianism always stops at what is observable in the now, with little emphasis on changes over time. The 'now' holds more weight than it should. I think observable behavior and tendencies over 30 years should hold more weight over what someone's one sentence response is, or the look in their eyes. Unfortunately it is not and we are left with typologists who aren't interested in an individual, but their own speed typing. It is a battle of egos by idiots.

[Desert Financial]

For anyone reading along, the tl;dr of the study was high error rate, but definite convergence.
@Karatos, this was done in 1999. Do you know of any more recent experiments? Two decades might be enough time to fix the problem.

... I literally just dumped 2 paragraphs into a response, hit "Go Advanced", and this janky forum just ate them up like a broken vending machine eats quarters.

I don't know of any particular study.

Reasons exist to retain doubt about testing methods. Since then, new theories like the DCNH have provided more reason to maintain skepticism about typing methods because DCNH type gives the base type a specific flavor associated with certain functions that fall outside of what's supposed to be conscious and valued, indicating that Model A isn't as accurate as it appears insofar as it corresponds to neurological activity. Dario Nardi's work and his failure to affirm function stackings exactly as they appear in MBTI also tells us that whatever's going on under the hood doesn't precisely correspond with MBTI's function sequence. I remember a user from another forum posting her results from Nardi's testing process and it said that her most conscious functions were Ti and Ni (both introverted orientation, meaning that if the neurological makeup responsible for MBTI Ti and Ni converges enough with that of Socionics Ti and Ni, then her results fly in the face of MBTI, Socionics, and Jungian models). So, evidence indicates that reality is messier than criteria used to test Jungian-based types, meaning that the criteria used to test types has basic flaws that make it unreliable and invalid as a basis for making testing instruments and methods.

Additionally, the body of Socionics has only become more complex since the 1999 study was produced; we now have more type criteria and more models, some of which contradict each other. Some criteria lack clear, logical explanations for how they are supposed to even build on function stackings (Reinin, Gulenko), meaning that they fail to amount to coherent testing criteria on the whole. Moreover, since Socionics has evolved, the number of criteria used to type people has increased, becoming less standardized and therefore less scientific because for a test to be valid it must test for something comprehensively (ie. it must know what the fuck it's looking for, generally speaking, which is made more convoluted by the Psychology-Biology gap). The scientific method repeats in cycles based on past observations; when a scientific hypothesis is developed it's meant to derive from previous empirical observation. Since previous empirical observation about Model A has never been established due to the Psychology-Biology gap, layers of uncertainty have always existed about this hobby. A paradigm shift is necessary to make Socionics scientific; either the scientific method must be revised to include subjective phenomena, or Socionics must be revised to include objective phenomena about the brain and the nervous system. I don't think it's realistic to expect revision in the scientific method at the present moment, so you need to simply treat Model A as a hypothesis and define it in terms that seem to correspond with objective factors. Ask yourself what you're looking for in the brain/nervous system and what you expect from an experiment under these terms.