Results 1 to 40 of 533

Thread: Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    If you think about it, Socionics is even more theoretical than a normal theory. The only reason you don’t think it is one is because you personally don’t think it explains anything.
    So your point is... to make Socionics even less theoretical?

  2. #2
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,654
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    So your point is... to make Socionics even less theoretical?
    ...
    No, it’s to test the theory. Why are you even asking this?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    ...
    No, it’s to test the theory. Why are you even asking this?
    ...Because you clearly don't even understand what a "theory" means.

    Your view of "testing" the theory is to see if it is "accurately describing" the observation of reality or not. Your view of a (successful) "theory" is if it's accurately descriptive of multiple people's observations.

    But that creates a new problem: How should we know about what the person is going to do in the future? Or how should we know about what the person's going to do in different, yet-to-be-observed situations? How do we even know that what we have observed of the person so far, is the entirety of a person's personality?

    In other words, how should we know about what we have yet to know? As in, what we have yet to observe?

  4. #4
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,654
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    ...Because you clearly don't even understand what a "theory" means.

    Your view of "testing" the theory is to see if it is "accurately describing" the observation of reality or not. Your view of a (successful) "theory" is if it's accurately descriptive of multiple people's observations.

    But that creates a new problem: How should we know about what the person is going to do in the future? Or how should we know about what the person's going to do in different, yet-to-be-observed situations? How do we even know that what we have observed of the person so far, is the entirety of a person's personality?
    Reproduceabiliy of the experiment. Cross-situational, cross-cultural studies. Peer review and critical analysis.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Reproduceabiliy of the experiment. Cross-situational, cross-cultural studies.
    So, if we reproduce the data in different time-intervals, in different situations, then it would produce the same type and ITR data? Doubtful.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •