Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Lao Tzunami]

hehe your part one sounds a lot like my beginning. It's good to just start in reality. I've noticed many people start typing people online, or just like to talk a lot, but not experiment in real life. I remember the times I was interviewing my colleagues without them knowing, all these strange question i was asking to determine their type hehe. I used the 4 dichotomies a lot in the beginning, nowadays i have database in my head and use visual identification a lot, it's fast. Types look a like. This starts to become visible after a couple of years. e.g. You type your 5th SLE and you see they look the same as the other 4 in some ways...

Glad to find a kindred spirit in terms of applying socionics to real people when you learn it but I'm pretty against visual identification. Even if it worked (I think it does not), I like that I can only really know a person's socionics type once I get to now them. Its almost the last thing I learn about them, and it is a way to check if everything I learned about them is consistent. If I'm not sure of a person's type, that means I don't actually know them well.

But even if VI is controversial, It would be interesting to put it to the test. If we had a data base of people and their type, assuming people could agree that the database was accurate, we could show a picture or video clip of a person and test the accuracy of each person's ability to visually identify type.

[Jarno]

Glad to find a kindred spirit in terms of applying socionics to real people when you learn it but I'm pretty against visual identification. Even if it worked (I think it does not), I like that I can only really know a person's socionics type once I get to now them. Its almost the last thing I learn about them, and it is a way to check if everything I learned about them is consistent. If I'm not sure of a person's type, that means I don't actually know them well.

But even if VI is controversial, It would be interesting to put it to the test. If we had a data base of people and their type, assuming people could agree that the database was accurate, we could show a picture or video clip of a person and test the accuracy of each person's ability to visually identify type.

I once made a list of the phases people go through when discovering socionics, it's somewhere here on the forum. First they say socionics doensn't work, then they find out it does. then they say subtypes don't exist etc. and in the last phase they notice that VI works :-)

I agree with your database idea, except you have to make it yourself in your head. Do not try to get consensus, since you always have 50% of some half serious people, and they screw the result.
Just type enough people in real life, and you'll start to notice so called 'copies'. People of the same type who resemble as twins almost! This will be your important discovery. From that point on you start to 'believe' in VI. I've been doing socionics for 15 years or so, still learning though. VI doesn't work always but it sure works fast if it works, it's a handy extra tool.