Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[sbbds]

^^^ You just summed up everything already said in the thread @ApeironStella .

Except, mathematically confirming some of the inner relationships does help prove it empirically because you’d need to gather empirical data in the process of doing it.

[sbbds]

Mothafuckaz.

[ApeironStella]

^^^ You just summed up everything already said in the thread @ApeironStella .

Except, mathematically confirming some of the inner relationships does help prove it empirically because you’d need to gather empirical data in the process of doing it.

With this thread having turned to bickering at least twice from what I recall, I honestly forgot that people responded seriously at first, as anytime I saw it on the latest posts tab it was more the former than the latter, OTL.

Going through the thread from the start right now, so yep, basically ended up doing that.

And hmm... Could you give an example to how it could help to prove empirically then? I don't quite see that angle.

[sbbds]

And hmm... Could you give an example to how it could help to prove empirically then? I don't quite see that angle.

So say you’re trying to prove that A trait or dichotomy is positively correlated with B trait or dichotomy. How would you measure these traits to collect the numbers for them?...

You need to collect data from the environment to use for the calculations in the first place. If they exist in the environment, that proves they exist empirically.

[Lao Tzunami]

It’s just because since you never mentioned or emphasized the empirical measures part, people assume you weren’t even considering using empirical data at all. We thought you didn’t have that side to your experiment.

And technically, since you haven’t fleshed that side out more yet, we still don’t have anything satisfactory yet. This would require a lot more discussion though, and hopefully not preceding actual hopeful leads to have a chance of carrying it out.

So just to be clear, everything I am proposing is driven by empirical data. The mathematics is to analyze the empirical data, measure how well it fits the theoretical model, and decide if that application passes or fails.

With this thread having turned to bickering at least twice from what I recall, I honestly forgot that people responded seriously at first...

Sorry about that - without active mods, I can't stop people from starting useless fights. This topic is extremely important, so everyone, please please stay on topic.

[ApeironStella]

A few people have said proving the higher level correlations is not meaningful and cannot be the basis of a scientific test. I don't understand, why not? If we create reliable empirical measures, and there is a high correlation between the measures at an appropriate alpha level (which normally <5% for published research), why is that not enough?

So just to be clear, everything I am proposing is driven by empirical data. The mathematics is to analyze the empirical data, measure how well it fits the theoretical model, and decide if that application passes or fails.


Sorry about that - without active mods, I can't stop people from starting useless fights. This topic is extremely important, so everyone, please please stay on topic.

Now that I'm checking the first page again, the first derail happened just after Chakram asked what you meant with this:

"Right now, I'm trying to figure out a universal mathematical space that can record empirical observation of any approach. I think I'm close to finishing that. When I do, I want to make statistical tests specifically for socionics that can calculate the strengths of theoretical structural correlations in practice."

And I think that's where for me (and possibly for others) where the connection of "speculative, possibly would be written off as overthinking it/seeing patterns where there is none" was made with what you were trying to suggest, rather than the empirical side of it, as the quote again Chakram has is about that, but topic died down before you could explain further?

It is sadly nothing you can do much as a forum member without mods intervening, sadly, maybe aside from asking to them to have those parts of the thread split? I recall seeing them doing that once or twice, could make it easier for people to follow what was going on/not to dismiss this thread as "turned to another shitshow" threads?

In the meantime, I have a lot to catch up at the group then, as from again what I understand from that quote, you are almost done with the theoretical base of it to move on to testing area? I'm a noob at that level of math though, so what did you exactly mean by "universal mathematical space that can record empirical observation of any approach." part?

[Lao Tzunami]

...In the meantime, I have a lot to catch up at the group then, as from again what I understand from that quote, you are almost done with the theoretical base of it to move on to testing area? I'm a noob at that level of math though, so what did you exactly mean by "universal mathematical space that can record empirical observation of any approach." part?

All schools in socionics are measuring the same 16 types, but with different methods. If someone is typed with two methods, it makes sense to compare the results to see if they are consistent. If they don't agree, that means at least one diagnosis is incorrect.

I not only want to compare type outputs of any two given approaches to socionics, but all their parts as well.