Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[sbbds]

Learning anything requires a feedback loop. Science is based on this principle; knowledge is generated and refined with the scientific cycle. In a lot of ways, socionics is still at the starting line because the lack of empirical trials is a lack of evolution. This kind of circularity is good because it converges on the right answer.

It’s not good. These statements make me think you might devalue Se and value Te. A right answer within a system that is fundamentally wrong, is not good.

It makes the answer wrong too.

This is why I think you’re starting backwards. What you’re doing, while complex, is easy in a way. It won’t get Socionics very far. But if you wanna try to get your work published as a mathematical analysis project, go ahead. You might and it is better than nothing to have on your CV.

Sorry that I didn’t have the time and mental energy to reply to you earlier.

[Lao Tzunami]

...This is why I think you’re starting backwards. What you’re doing, while complex, is easy in a way. It won’t get Socionics very far. But if you wanna try to get your work published as a mathematical analysis project, go ahead. You might and it is better than nothing to have on your CV...

What I'm saying is inspired by Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). The CTMU talks a lot about how language is generated from a field of potential, a utility parameter, and a loop of cybernetic feedback. We have a field of potential from all the different socionic schools of thought. I am trying to develop a utility function that can measure how well an application matches the theoretical structure when applied. The structure is a self imposed constraint from socionics, but without it, the model would totally collapse, effectively proving Model A wrong. This creates a pass fail criteria for the application of socionics, fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to win the game.

I'm expecting that if we try to make reliable standard way of applying model A, it won't work well at first, and we'll have to refine our method through trial and error. The key question is if it works well enough to start the refining process, and if the best version passes a standard, like less than 5% mistype error. We won't know any of this until we actually do it.

[sbbds]

What I'm saying is inspired by Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). The CTMU talks a lot about how language is generated from a field of potential, a utility parameter, and a loop of cybernetic feedback. We have a field of potential from all the different socionic schools of thought. I am trying to develop a utility function that can measure how well an application matches the theoretical structure when applied. The structure is a self imposed constraint from socionics, but without it, the model would totally collapse, effectively proving Model A wrong. This creates a pass fail criteria for the application of socionics, fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to win the game.

I'm expecting that if we try to make reliable standard way of applying model A, it won't work well at first, and we'll have to refine our method through trial and error. The key question is if it works well enough to start the refining process, and if the best version passes a standard, like less than 5% mistype error. We won't know any of this until we actually do it.

There are already criteria and such requirements for falsifiability and error in the fields of research in question. Not being an institutional leader yourself, I don’t see how you expect to inject your own.

[Lao Tzunami]

There are already criteria and such requirements for falsifiability and error in the fields of research in question. Not being an institutional leader yourself, I don’t see how you expect to inject your own.

If there are, then I look forward to the entire professional socionic community coming to a consensus how socionics is best applied, which theories are wrong, and how to settle a difference of opinion when two schools disagree what type someone should be, and putting all of this in a format that can be presented to researchers in american and convince them socionics is a field worth studying.

[Lao Tzunami]

If you want to give Socionics a start in making it scientific, you need to take one of its small, specific concrete claims, such as “people who act in x way (implying they’re of a certain type(s)) will also later act in y way more than the control”, and find a way to reliably measure it. That’s how Big 5 / OCEAN built a name for itself. It took many years though

Again, I have no problem with factor analysis models like the big 5. I would love for socionic methodologies to be so precise, if you analyzed them with factor analysis, you would generate a structure isomorphic to Model A, but we are no where near that point. If that means people chose to spend their time studying other theories, that's fine with me. But I'm interested in socionics, and I assume everyone on a socionics forum is as well. What I am proposing is not directed to the general psychological community, only to the socionics community.

If you just did factor analysis of every potential definition in socionics without taking into account the structure, you would be testing thousands of variable that all might decompose into sub factors. It would be way too much work, especially for a theory that has not demonstrated its empirical utility. You also risk falling into the trap of the MBTI which applied Jungian principles too simplistically and lost most of its meaning, which can never be generated with empirical testing.

... Not being an institutional leader yourself, I don’t see how you expect to inject your own.

Well at the very least, we could integrate the analysis I am creating into a wiki source that could help us amateurs try and figure out what theories work best, or maybe even make a good online test for people just getting into socionics. There is a lot of negativity on this forum. If people actually want to fix the problem, I think we could do it together. However, if they are trolls and just want something to complain about, then I have a legitimate reason to ignore them.

In terms of impacting the way socionics is done in Russia, both Bukalov and Gulenko seemed open to reviewing my paper when I'm finished and publishing in one of their academic journals. Depending on how user friendly and convincing I can make it, hopefully some socionic researchers will apply it to their research. If they do, and they produce a better version of socionics as a result, maybe other schools will follow suit to stay competitive. That's all hopeful speculation. Regardless, none of that will happen if I can't figure this stuff out.

[sbbds]

@ajsindri You wouldn’t necessarily need to test for tons and tons of factors. Even a couple interesting ones that are unique observations to Socionics would help Socionics generate momentum, as it would put its name out there and connect it to some empirical basis.

Anyway, I think you’re EII. You do you though.

[Lao Tzunami]

@Nebula I totally get what you're saying and I still plan on replying to an earlier comment. It was just complex so I'm trying to do it justice.

@ajsindri You wouldn’t necessarily need to test for tons and tons of factors. Even a couple interesting ones that are unique observations to Socionics would help Socionics generate momentum, as it would put its name out there and connect it to some empirical basis.

How do we decide which few traits are worth investing decades of research into? If there is a consensus, it would be the Model A analytics: 8 functions * 8 information elements = 64 basic categories, each with multiple aspect. That is a monster of a factor analysis. Also, there is no consensus what the definitions are exactly or even that is the best way to test the theory.

Anyway, I think you’re EII. You do you though.

>:| this must be why you people are always complaining about socionics, because you think you know someone well enough after an internet conversation to type them, and then when your stereotypical thinking cause problems, you blame the theory. No, just because I don't agree with you and think socionics can be improve with science does not make me EII.

[sbbds]

fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west.

PS- That’s how we do things here in the east too.

Sorry in advance for the reality.

[Lao Tzunami]

... fulfilling the criteria of falsifiability, which like it or not, is how we do things in the west. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to win the game...

PS- That’s how we do things here in the east too.

Sorry in advance for the reality.

How can socionics be falsified without testing the structural correlations?

[sbbds]

If there are, then I look forward to the entire professional socionic community coming to a consensus how socionics is best applied, which theories are wrong, and how to settle a difference of opinion when two schools disagree what type someone should be, and putting all of this in a format that can be presented to researchers in american and convince them socionics is a field worth studying.

We all know, lol. Is this something you just became aware of?

How can socionics be falsified without testing the structural correlations?

Refer to my first post in this thread.