Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[sbbds]

You’d need to establish ties between some features unique to Socionics, connecting them to other former canonically accepted studies or proof using original studies that the dynamics and observations exist using operationally defined terms.

For example it’s all good to find patterns with certain dichotomies, but exactly what is Static vs Dynamic in reality? How do we know it exists? How do we define and measure it in the first place?

And even if we find patterns between certain dichotomies, how or why are those patterns effectively meaningful? In other words, how do they (these patterns, and the types) manifest?

@ajsindri

[squark]

No. I’m not talking about problems in making scales or in research subjects using the scales. I’m talking about the proposal that for any given personality trait, the strength of that trait will show normal distribution. My understanding — based on reading I did several months ago — was that it’s been consistently found that traits distribute this way. Therefore, if you use a dichotomy, you may slice across the center of the curve where the greatest number of people are clustered.

Yes, that's true. For example regarding introversion/extroversion as a trait, most people are actually in the middle. Very few people are on the ends of extroversion or introversion, and it does form a normal bell curve. Other traits are similar, and it's one reason why I'm finding Big 5 very interesting to look into, because it doesn't assume there's a division, but instead looks at each trait along a scale, which is more normal and true-to-life. Dichotomies are a shitty way to describe people and the biggest downfall imo of MBTI because most people actually should be between types than solidly in any. (It's probably also why the vast majority of people test as a different type each time they take the MBTI)

[Singu]

No, I'm suggesting people let socionics die in the dustbins of failed epistemologies, like astrology, and adopt models that better explain our mind, motiviations, behaviors, etc. I say let people have fun with it in the way people do astrology for fun, but don't take it seriously and don't treat it like valid profession. The problem is too many people take it seriously. It becomes a means of exploitation. I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed this.

I think that's right. "The 16 types model" is far too limiting, and you have to keep adding unnecessary complications in order to explain the actual complexities that you actually observe in the real world, whether that be Reinin dichotomies, Quadras, subtypes, sub-subtypes, DHCN, or any of the millions of other bunch of crazy crap that Gulenko keeps churning out on a daily basis.

So apparently, people's behaviors can be explained by the fact that we prefer either feeling or thinking, and sensing or intuition. I just don't see how pretty much anyone wouldn't value all of those things at some point.

I also can see how some people can be good at both relationships and logic, or good at both physical abilities and abstract thinking (hello, Plato). It is also obvious that all of those things have some sort of an evolutionary advantage for human beings, and we evolved to have the ability to be good at most of those things.

So saying that a person fits into any one of the descriptions is pointless, because all observations are necessarily limited to that particular observation at that particular place at that particular time. You can't possibly observe ALL of a person, at least not without great difficultty. So if a person is being good at feelings in that moment, then that person gets typed as a "Feeler". And if a person is good at logic in that moment, then that person gets typed as a "Thinker". But the reality is that the person is good at both, and this can't be explained by Socionics, without of course adding more unnecessary complications like subtypes or making other ad-hoc exceptions.

So Socionics may indeed contain some grains of truth. It may be a start in creating a grandiose "Universal Theory of Human Beings". But the approach is just so hopelessly misdirected.

--

So there must exist a "Universal Theory of Human Beings" that can be used as a framework to explain every single human behaviors that there is. Just like the Theory of Evolution can be used as a framework to explain every single biological beings on this planet, or even the entire universe. It indeed is a huge undertaking, but such a theory must exist, because without it, then we wouldn't even exist, we wouldn't have evolved to be such a way.

So the answer may lie in looking back at our evolutionary past and finding the answer to the question, "What made us human?".

It may also have something to do with our emotions, and how our emotions work.

It may even have something to do with our consciousness and self-awareness.

[Lao Tzunami]

ʕ •`ᴥ•´ʔ
@Kill4Me, @sbbds, @echidna1000 and anyone else, would you guys kindly argue in another thread, like this one: [link]? I really care about this topic and you're making anyone who wants to read this discussion later have to wade through useless drama. Thanks

[golden]

ʕ •`ᴥ•´ʔ
@Kill4Me, @sbbds, @echidna1000 and anyone else, would you guys kindly argue in another thread, like this one: [link]? I really care about this topic and you're making anyone who wants to read this discussion later have to wade through useless drama. Thanks

@woofwoofl, is it possible to split the thread?

[sbbds]

> Sindri used ethics

> It was super effective

[vesstheastralsilky]

Taxonomy is taxonomy. It is at least as scientific as anything else in modern psychology and I dare say more thought and functional theories have been put into Socionics with far greater success. What Socionics needs is better lucidity and consensus.

[Desert Financial]

Anyway...

https://www.quietrev.com/why-introve...t-the-science/

I’m standing in the crowd in front of the stage at the small gritty music club. My two friends—both extroverts—are on either side of me, swaying along with the crooning Indie singer and smiling. I was having fun for a while, but now I’m ready to head home and find my bed. The loud music, the dense crowd of strangers, and the small talk I’ve made all night have left me feeling drained. It’s just too much, for too long, for an introvert like me.I’d rather be in the peaceful solitude of my apartment. Just me, no noise, maybe a good book or the Internet to help me turn inward and recharge after this much socializing. Yet, my extroverted friends could probably stay at the concert, chatting long past the encore. They’ll actually feel energized when they leave and won’t need any recovery time. So, why do I react so differently than my extroverted friends to the same situation? The answer has to do with some key differences in the way introverts’ brains are wired.

The dopamine difference

One major difference between the brains of introverts and extroverts is the way we respond to the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine is a chemical released in the brain that provides the motivation to seek external rewards like earning money, climbing the social ladder, attracting a mate, or getting selected for a high-profile project at work. When dopamine floods the brain, both introverts and extroverts become more talkative, alert to their surroundings, and motivated to take risks and explore the environment.
It’s not that introverts have less dopamine present in their brains than extroverts do. In fact, both introverts and extroverts have the same amount of dopamine available. The difference is in the activity of the dopamine reward network. It is more active in the brains of extroverts than in the brains of introverts as Scott Barry Kaufman, the Scientific Director of The Imagination Institute, explains in this short video:

https://www.quietrev.com/why-introve...t-the-science/

At the expectation of, say, getting the phone number of an attractive person or earning a promotion at work, extroverts become more energized than introverts. They buzz with an enthusiastic rush of good feelings, while introverts feel overstimulated.
For my extroverted friends, the noise and the crowd at the concert were simply all part of the fun. In fact, this intensity of stimulation acted as a cue to them that they were achieving their goal (the reward of socializing and a fun night out). Yet, for me, as the night wore on, the hubbub became annoying and tiring—even punishing—as I became overstimulated.

For introverts, acetylcholine is where it’s at

Introverts prefer to use a different neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, writes Christine Fonseca in her book Quiet Kids: Help Your Introverted Child Succeed in an Extroverted World. Like dopamine, acetylcholine is also linked to pleasure; the difference is, acetylcholine makes us feel good when we turn inward. It powers our abilities to think deeply, reflect, and focus intensely on just one thing for a long period of time. It also helps explain why introverts like calm environments—it’s easier to turn inward when we’re not attending to external stimulation. When I lounge at home in quiet solitude, lost in a book or watching Netflix, I’m basking in the pleasant effects of acetylcholine.

Nervous system differences

Another piece of the introvert-extrovert puzzle has to do with the nervous system, writes Dr. Marti Olsen Laney in her book The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World. Acetylcholine is linked to the parasympathetic side of the nervous system, which is nicknamed the “throttle down” or “rest-and-digest” side. When we engage the parasympathetic side, our body conserves energy, and we withdraw from the outer environment. Our muscles relax; energy is stored; food is metabolized; pupils constrict to limit incoming light; and our heart rate and blood pressure lower. Basically, our body gets ready for hibernation and contemplation—two of the things introverts like the most.
Both introverts and extroverts use both sides of their nervous systems at different times, just like they use both neurotransmitters. But—no big shocker here—extroverts tend to favor the opposite side of the nervous system: the sympathetic side, known as the “full-throttle” or “fight, flight, or freeze” system. This side mobilizes us to discover new things and makes us active, daring, and inquisitive. The brain becomes alert and hyper-focused on its surroundings. Blood sugar and free fatty acids are elevated to give us more energy, and digestion is slowed. Thinking is reduced, and we become prepared to make snap decisions. While extroverts thrive on the dopamine-charged good feelings created when they engage the sympathetic side, for us introverts, it’s too much.
Do introverts dislike people?

If you don’t understand introversion, you might get the mistaken idea that introverts are antisocial, reclusive, or rude. At the concert, I bolted for the door the first chance I got, leaving my extroverted friends behind. I imagine they only reluctantly left after the last song was played, the lights came on, and a security guard brusquely ushered them toward the door. Yet, given how my introverted brain works, it makes sense that after a few hours of stimulation and socializing, I needed to get out of there. It’s not that I dislike people; it’s just that socializing is more effortful and tiring for me than it is for extroverts. Curled up back at home, in a calm, familiar environment, I unwound and relaxed. Sure, I would go to another concert and hang out with the extroverts again, but only after some soothing alone time—and not a moment sooner.

Jung started with the introversion/extraversion dichotomy and unpacked every other dichotomy from there. Essentially, the functions and the types rest on this dichotomy, as it explains function orientation (whether a function looks toward the object or looks toward the subject). So, starting from the scientific observations about introverts and extraverts, could we hypothesize that function orientation is determined by activity or lack thereof in the dopamine reward network, differences in acetylcholine activity, and differences in nervous system activity? If Model A is accurate, then it suggests particular relationships between the aforementioned activities and other areas of the brain. For example, as it relates to introverted feelers, this research could suggest communication between acetylcholine, the parasympathetic nervous system, and the amygdala (a region involved with emotions). Whereas with extraverted feelers, this research could suggest communication between dopamine, the sympathetic nervous system, and the amygdala (also preferred by introverted feelers).

[Desert Financial]

http://www.rediviva.sav.sk/56i3/65.pdf



This and other studies, rather than showing some kind of on-off switch for extroversion/introversion do indeed show a scale with most people falling in the center of that scale. This particular study was interesting in that it took the approach that ambiversion was a separate component, which breaks up the scale idea. Rather than a continuous gradation from one extreme to the other, they suggest that something else is going on . . . which I wonder is a combination of factors leading people to fall into the middle.

As it relates to activity over time, the subjects have a mean score that sometimes falls in the middle of the dichotomy.

If most subjects' mean score falls in the middle, then maybe the focus should first be on mapping out the individual functions, and focusing on general personality later.

Just because most people fall somewhere in the middle doesn't mean there aren't underlying causes for introverting and extraverting.

This reminds me of the issue I take with the false dichotomy argument. Perhaps most people fall in the middle, which means that the dichotomy is false as it relates to the general personality expressed over time. But categorically, the dichotomies aren't false on their own, so they're not false as they relate to the unique neurological processes that govern them. For example, the parasympathetic nervous system works as its own process while the sympathetic nervous system works as its own process, each having unique implications for consciousness.

[xerx]

@OP proposal: Socionics is masochistic enough without big pharmaceutical companies getting their hands all over it.

[Lao Tzunami]

@OP proposal: Socionics is masochistic enough without big pharmaceutical companies getting their hands all over it.

Well I've never heard of doctors prescribing medication based on the big 5, which is actually scientific. Maybe socionics would be used for marketing or political purposes, but unless you gave corporations your personality type, I'm sure the current AI models would preform better.

No, what I am afraid of is how to fund socionics research while keeping the field open. Socionics can't go down the private path of the MBTI, but at the same time, they need to make money.

[sbbds]

^ Want to click “Like” for the above, but afraid ...

[Singu]

Taxonomy is taxonomy. It is at least as scientific as anything else in modern psychology and I dare say more thought and functional theories have been put into Socionics with far greater success. What Socionics needs is better lucidity and consensus.

Science is the process of finding causes and explanations for facts or observations. Socionics is the assumption that the current observation will continue into the future - for no reason. Or even that the current, local observation is a complete, objective observation. And that "no reason" part can't be scientific.

It would like how in pre-Newton days, where they measure the speed of a feather and an iron ball falling, and conclude that lighter objects fall slower because they have "slower-falling properties" (and you can show neat data and statistics showing exactly that). But this would mean nothing unless we can explain why they fall slower. It would require a new assumption that all objects actually fall at the exact same rate. Only then, we can start introducing newer concepts like air resistance, etc.

So what is ajsindri doing, does he just keep measuring the speed of a feather and an iron ball falling, and make a neat statistics out of it and say, "Look how objective my data is! It must be true that feathers drop slower and iron balls drop faster!"? Well that's pointless, since he can't even explain why that fact seems to keep happening.

So if you notice that fact, then it's only a start, and not the conclusion. That was the easy part.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Socionics is too obvious, intuitive and feel-ery to be scientific. Science is about things commonly believed to be true that is actually the opposite when you verify and test it in reality. Socionics is how the brain metabolizes/processes social information. "How much do I value what you say because of our Fi" etc. The Fi/Fe in socionics alone stops it from operating on any scientific level.

Socionics is on a more real/deeper truth than science. Not to the level of deep spiritual wisdom, cuz it still operates on the dimension of duality - but deeper than the scientific level.

Non-scientific doesn't mean soconics is bullshit or fake- it is very deeply truly REAL.

But then again, so are your feces after you take a shit. It doesn't mean it's wise to be super obsessed/invest yourself too much into socionics (smearing your face with shit) - or be a narcissistic abusive ass to others because of it.

[Ryan]

Socionics is too obvious, intuitive and feel-ery to be scientific. Science is about things commonly believed to be true that is actually the opposite when you verify and test it in reality. Socionics is how the brain metabolizes/processes social information. "How much do I value what you say because of our Fi" etc. The Fi/Fe in socionics alone stops it from operating on any scientific level.

Socionics is on a more real/deeper truth than science. Not to the level of deep spiritual wisdom, cuz it still operates on the dimension of duality - but deeper than the scientific level.

Non-scientific doesn't mean soconics is bullshit or fake- it is very deeply truly REAL.

But then again, so are your feces after you take a shit. It doesn't mean it's wise to be super obsessed/invest yourself too much into socionics (smearing your face with shit) - or be a narcissistic abusive ass to others because of it.

This is very true.

When scientists discuss the "theory of everything" or "string theory" they are attempting to do the same thing socionics does but using different tools.

It's all mental masturbation.

[sbbds]

Science is the process of finding causes and explanations for facts or observations. Socionics is the assumption that the current observation will continue into the future - for no reason. Or even that the current, local observation is a complete, objective observation. And that "no reason" part can't be scientific.

It would like how in pre-Newton days, where they measure the speed of a feather and an iron ball falling, and conclude that lighter objects fall slower because they have "slower-falling properties" (and you can show neat data and statistics showing exactly that). But this would mean nothing unless we can explain why they fall slower. It would require a new assumption that all objects actually fall at the exact same rate. Only then, we can start introducing newer concepts like air resistance, etc.

So what is ajsindri doing, does he just keep measuring the speed of a feather and an iron ball falling, and make a neat statistics out of it and say, "Look how objective my data is! It must be true that feathers drop slower and iron balls drop faster!"? Well that's pointless, since he can't even explain why that fact seems to keep happening.

So if you notice that fact, then it's only a start, and not the conclusion. That was the easy part.

(non-sarcastic)

(legit support this well-articulated post; proud of u Dingu)

[Lao Tzunami]

..Science is about things commonly believed to be true that is actually the opposite when you verify and test it in reality. Socionics is how the brain metabolizes/processes social information

...Socionics is on a more real/deeper truth than science. Not to the level of deep spiritual wisdom, cuz it still operates on the dimension of duality - but deeper than the scientific level...

...it is very deeply truly REAL.

Something I've come to believe studying socionics is everyone has a medium for interacting with the world, but what makes something worthwhile is outside your ego. That's why you come across people all the time who are different from you, but you can recognize they are an awesome person and can do things you can't.

If socionics is real, then it will manifest on multiple levels, including scientific. That doesn't mean we have to abandon Model A for factor analysis, but we need to start thinking how we can verify theoretical concepts empirically. Right now, socionics is unbalanced in the opposite direction. I'm convinced socionics will continue to gain popularity, and eventually will be tested by some kind of gatekeeper. There is a good chance who ever tests socionics might be stupid and get bad results based on an unfair test. If we figure this stuff out first, we can make sure it is done right. Plus, maybe we can make our community resources better in the process.

[sbbds]

This kind of activity fondles the fine line between the spiritual and subjective human experience and the real, objective and scientific.

My favourite!

[Skepsis]

This kind of activity fondles the fine line between the spiritual and subjective human experience and the real, objective and scientific.

My favourite!

Mine too

[sbbds]

Mine too

･:*+.\(( °ω° ))/.:+

[Singu]

(non-sarcastic)

(legit support this well-articulated post; proud of u Dingu)

This "science as a mode of explanations" is surprisingly still not very well known. It also took me a while to fully get the concept. I also used to think that science was the stereotypical "empiricism objectivity blah blah blah".

Even when you criticize Socionics from the scientific standpoint, people still go "Oh so you're an empiricist" "You're a Positivist". Well no, since both empiricism and positivism have been rejected by science a long time ago, and it was never science to begin with. Those are just the stereotypes of science. Science has always been about finding the best explanations for phenomena.

[Lao Tzunami]

(Reposting this here since it got lost in the fork)

There are too many variables in socionics which cannot be controlled for. You have to be able to control for an observation...

I think the solution to this is to reduce the model A concepts into dichotomies.

The first way would be to define the type dichotomies in terms of information metabolism, like defining rational / irrational types by their accepting and producing functions in Model A. This is nice because these kind of type dichotomies are mini typologies in themselves and can be tested independent of the larger theory. However, only the three temperament dichotomies can be isolated from the theory without degrading the structure. For example, think about quadra value. Merry / serious and judicious / decisive are the reinin dichotomies that define ego quadra value. They intuitively make a set and it would be wrong to only test one without the other. However, ego value (the classic quadra small group) is only one way to measure quadra value. You could also measure the specific quadra value of the base function.

This creates a different kind of quadra small group. If you combine these, you get an 8 part typology of dual pairs. This is the complete idea of quadra and has a "dihedral four group" structure. Anything less degrades the structure. I'm still not exactly sure how to define a dihedral four structure with dichotomies. It has eight elements, but if you only use 3 dichotomies to define it, you lose the dihedral structure, and make something isomorphic to the fano plane instead. @thehotelambush showed me there is a parallel dichotomy space we've been calling the Tencer space. I'm pretty sure if you define quadra with an extra dichotomy from this overlapping space (four dichotomies total) you define the correct dihedral structure. However, maybe there is a better way, I'm still working on this.

... I definitely come across as a logical type to most people, especially in real life. Thinking and feeling aren't mutually exclusive. It really is a false dichotomy. You can be logical and have an emotionality. You can value logic and relations with other human beings. I am a scientist and an artist. It is how my brain works. The largest discrepancy is between my N and S. They don't even come close. As I've been told throughout my life, I live in my mind, my own inner world...

The dihedral four structure is also the true form of the four Jungian functions (intuition, logic, sensing and ethics), and is one reason why the MBTI is wrong. The way they test intuition / sensing and thinking / feeling does not respect that one is dominant. Over the years, I've watched people having taken the MBTI test learn enough socionics to figure out their Model A type. Normally the MBTI test gets the dominant process right, but its a toss up if they get their auxiliary process (N/T/S/F) correct, assuming you can compare MBTI to Model A type. Jung had the same problem, which is why he wrote about eight psychological types, not sixteen.


Model A is very clever how it defines the sixteen types in a relational structure rather than straight behavior, and how you are describing yourself as using both logic and ethics is consistent with Model A, and my own observations. The producing functions are not set in a certain expression like the accepting functions are. Augusta's creative function was defined as the inner type balance and application to the world of the base function, but that does not mean it is the only way the base can block. Even though I think Gulenko's energy model is inferior to Model A, I think he is right to add emphasis to the equivalent of the Model A demonstrative function. Maybe we also need to add emphasis to the mobilizing function to balance the portrait of average behavior a description constructs. However, all of this seems to be subtype related, and unless I want something that can define explicit behavior rather than mental architecture, Model A works great, because the purpose of the functions, if and when people use them, seems accurate to me.


Getting back to simplifying the application of socionics to dichotomies, I hope you can see there is both a mathematical and empirical reason why most dichotomies are gross abstractions of what they are defining. Maybe the solution is to use a hybrid Tencer and Reinin dichotomy space, but if we are going to make it that complicated, we might as well just test the higher order objects so we don't lose emergent behavior. These higher order concepts can be defined as dichotomies if we can define their positive and negative aspect, like a criteria for having base introverted intuition verses not having base introverted intuition. The problem with this is the higher order objects have more complex information metabolisms. Theoretically, introverted intuition as base also equals introverted sensing as role, extroverted sensing as suggestive and extroverted intuition as ignoring, as well as limiting the producing functions. A proper test of base function theory might imply testing 32 information-function combinations, which is getting into the ridiculous range. Also if you tested all of this together without understanding the structure it came from, you'd easily get lost. @sbbds this is why you can't just research a few traits and call it good, and why Model A has not been tested yet.


Nebula, you are also right to bring up the problem of how a continuous empirical measurement can be categorized in a binary way:

...I think what is going on beneath the surface is that everyone sees everyone else as being either stronger, weaker, or relatively the same in certain dimensions. You have to look at where you are on each spectrum: T vs F and N vs S, and I would even add P vs J. If you have a very high preference for T, like Sol, then almost everyone else you meet will likely have less T and therefore will appear F. Since most people prefer a mixture of T and F, and test somewhere in the middle, it is in actuality a minority of people who are exclusively T or F. This is basic statics. These people will see things differently than those with a more hetergeneous distribution. It is like in American politics: The far right sees even the moderates as liberals, which is a perspective problem...

Now I disagree with you because I see socionics as describing internal motivations, not external behavior, but I accept that something like a socionics test can only measure external behavior, and so is at the heart of empirically testing socionics. I think the only way to test this fairly is to create a criteria for logic and ethics separately and then test thinks like inverse correlation and bimodal distribution. I know a major problem the MBTI has had is bimodal distribution.

Jung also imagined his type compass (N-T-S-F) was a spectrum, not discrete categories like in socionics. This would mean there is a smooth gradient between mirror types. However, it may be that socionics is more correct than Jung's fuzzy and mystical intuition, or that subtype can account for this difference between discrete types.

Either way, the only fair way to test Model A is to allow a smooth empirical space that does not exclude any of these effects, and then see if these discrete categories happen naturally in the empirical data. I'm really interested in this problem, if you want to help me work on it, or even just list all the way the binary structure of socionics might be wrong, I'd appreciate it.

The smooth empirical space is hella difficult to define and will be one of the final stages. I'm not sure if it is best expressed as a Lie group, a vector space or a Clifford space. Either way, I still haven't figured out the discrete structure of the intertype relations, so I have to do that first.

Nebula, I also want to address the problem of generating standards you brought up, because I have a plan for that too, but this is already a long post and I want to give you a change to respond before going into that.

[Jarno]

This convinced me that socionics was describing something very real about people. Then over the next year, I typed all of my friends I knew well with the same results.

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...

[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.

[The Reality Denialist]

I kind of find it funny to try to prove that structure exists.

#1 it is all hypothetical
#2 what are we supposed to be measuring?
#3 questionnaires do not seem to be good for fine resolution.

As socionics deal with intertype relations it could be used as a stepping stone (one potential mine for ideas) for mapping interpersonal stuff in science. Brain imaging and stuff whatever comes along.

[Lao Tzunami]

@Singu, @Troll Nr 007 I don't see the problem of testing Model A's validity as much different than studying physical relationships, except that it is more difficult to isolate variables in people than it is with physical objects. Take gravity for example, since it was brought up earlier. As we learn about all the forces acting on a falling object, our simulations of real life get better and apply in more circumstances. Differential equations are needed to calculate the trajectory of objects falling near terminal velocity, like a feather falling through air on earth, but that doesn't invalidate the force of gravity, it just means you can't neglect air resistance.

We know a lot about gravity. We can measure the relativistic effect denser rock strata have on the passage of time. We can fire artillery miles with high accuracy. We sent the Voyager probes into the far reaches of our solar system using gravity assist orbits. But we don't know what gravity "is" as much as we know what anything "is". Even so, we've benefited a lot by studying nature and tuning our models to higher degrees of accuracy.

This is all we can hope to do with socionics - test to see how close the theory matches reality, try and improve it, and decide if our current model is good enough to use in a certain circumstance, or if another model has more utility. Anything else is an impossible standard for anything, and is not worth worrying about.

[Singu]

Well a theory is supposed to explain the evidence, not that you use the evidence to support a theory. So whatever theory that can explain the evidence in the best and the most detailed way, is the theory that we would naturally prefer, since the theory has much more use than the other rival theories. And if a theory can explain the evidence more, then the theory would have better predictive ability. So we would naturally pick the theory that has greater explanatory and predictive power.

If you're going to say that "This theory accurately describes reality", then of course it does, because any theory is going to describe some kind of partial reality. But it becomes a problem when a theory starts to become unable to describe some evidence or observations. And since the theory can't actually explain the evidence, the evidence would likely get ignored or pushed aside as something irrelevant or some mystery that is still yet to be solved.

And so the purpose of a rival theory is to solve that unresolved mystery. If Socionics can't explain some evidence, then it's time to come up with a new explanation, or a whole new theory. But of course this evidence can be easily pushed aside as some minor error to be ignored. Or the evidence can be forced into the theory by coming up with ad-hoc modifications. But if we do have an explanation them, then that would be great, and it would highlight the flaw of Socionics even further.

[Singu]

We know a lot about gravity. We can measure the relativistic effect denser rock strata have on the passage of time. We can fire artillery miles with high accuracy. We sent the Voyager probes into the far reaches of our solar system using gravity assist orbits. But we don't know what gravity "is" as much as we know what anything "is". Even so, we've benefited a lot by studying nature and tuning our models to higher degrees of accuracy.

This is all we can hope to do with socionics - test to see how close the theory matches reality, try and improve it, and decide if our current model is good enough to use in a certain circumstance, or if another model has more utility. Anything else is an impossible standard for anything, and is not worth worrying about.

Well, here's the problem. You're saying that Socionics, and any scientific theory for that matter, should have 1:1 correspondence to reality, and the goal is to have it as close to describing reality as possible.

But how are we supposed to describe what has yet to have been? As in, how are we supposed to predict things about the future, which is by definition something that has never happened yet, and therefore we can never describe anything about the future in the present? At least, we can't make any observations about the future.

And yet the entire scientific knowledge depends on the ability to predict events. Nobody has ever been to outer space before, and yet science was able to predict things with great accuracy. How was this actually possible?

[Lao Tzunami]

Well, here's the problem. You're saying that Socionics, and any scientific theory for that matter, should have 1:1 correspondence to reality, and the goal is to have it as close to describing reality as possible.

Well technically, the criteria for science is not perfection (induction is never 100% certain) but falsifiability so our understanding converges to the right answer through cycles of the scientific process.

But how are we supposed to describe what has yet to have been? As in, how are we supposed to predict things about the future, which is by definition something that has never happened yet, and therefore we can never describe anything about the future in the present? At least, we can't make any observations about the future.

Socionics is concerned with human nature, which is very old and has a long history. Also the standard procedure to test a prediction is make a hypothesis, run an experiment, and see if the results support or contradicts the hypothesis.

And yet the entire scientific knowledge depends on the ability to predict events. Nobody has ever been to outer space before, and yet science was able to predict things with great accuracy. How was this actually possible?

Bro, there are people living in the ISS right now. What are you talking about?

[Singu]

Well technically, the criteria for science is not perfection (induction is never 100% certain) but falsifiability so our understanding converges to the right answer through cycles of the scientific process.

Socionics is concerned with human nature, which is very old and has a long history. Also the standard procedure to test a prediction is make a hypothesis, run an experiment, and see if the results support or contradicts the hypothesis.

Yes, that's exactly correct. So science isn't actually a 1:1 correspondence of reality, but rather a hypothesis of the unknown world, as in what we expect to happen in the future. It's an act of pure imagination, because any assertion about the future must be an act of imagination. There's nothing controversial about that. It's simply obvious.

So people are mistaken when they think that science is just something that's dry and unimaginative, because science is purely a creative and an imaginative endeavor. It requires the creativity and the imagination of coming up with explanations. And of course not just any kind of explanations, but explanations that are rational, grounded and objective. So scientists are often a special kind of people that are highly imaginative and creative, and yet are at the same time grounded enough to be realistic and rational about it. So they need to have a good balance of both.

So science is reality plus imagination.

And what do we exactly mean when we say that Socionics is "accurately describing reality"? Well Socionics is after all just one of the many interpretations of reality, and none can be said to be "the" description of reality. There are so many other interpretations of the same fact or an observation beside the Socionics interpretation. All it can hope to do is that it interprets it in the best way according to the purpose of utilizing the interpretation, as in solving whatever problem that we have at hand.

Bro, there are people living in the ISS right now. What are you talking about?

Well obviously, I'm talking about the days of Newton and Einstein, where they have made predictions about outer space that nobody has ever been to before, and where they have been vindicated for the most part, by correctly predicting the things that the theory would predict that it would happen.

So you really need to ask the question, how is it possible for them to have made such predictions?

[Lao Tzunami]

...I'm talking about the days of Newton and Einstein, where they have made predictions about outer space that nobody has ever been to before, and where they have been vindicated for the most part, by correctly predicting the things that the theory would predict that it would happen.

So you really need to ask the question, how is it possible for them to have made such predictions?

Reality is self-consistent. All physical factors (properties and relationships) we discover on earth apply anywhere in the universe and all relate to each other. Both Newton and Einstein took known factors and combined them into greater paradigms. Because all the factors relate to each other, both deduced new emergent patterns.

I don't know exactly what aspect of astrophysics you have in mind, but if either's theories can explain a phenomena completely, its because they accounted for all relevant factors in their model. Neither Einstein nor Newton accounted for quantum physics, and so for instance, could not describe why black holes evaporate over time.

Most activities we do in space are on the macro scale, so Newton and Einstein's paradigms are sufficient, and even the preferred mental model, even though in a sense they are wrong. In the same way, socionics can be useful even if there is a deeper process happening (which there certainly is). All that matters is if socionics is accurate for the scope it is describing. If we could get socionics really rock solid, and its limited scope demarcated, then it can be a foundation for future paradigms, but we, and any future new paradigm makers, will never know if it should be used as a foundation until we test it.

[Singu]

Reality is self-consistent. All physical factors (properties and relationships) we discover on earth apply anywhere in the universe and all relate to each other. Both Newton and Einstein took known factors and combined them into greater paradigms. Because all the factors relate to each other, both deduced new emergent patterns.

I don't know exactly what aspect of astrophysics you have in mind, but if either's theories can explain a phenomena completely, its because they accounted for all relevant factors in their model. Neither Einstein nor Newton accounted for quantum physics, and so for instance, could not describe why black holes evaporate over time.

Most activities we do in space are on the macro scale, so Newton and Einstein's paradigms are sufficient, and even the preferred mental model, even though in a sense they are wrong. In the same way, socionics can be useful even if there is a deeper process happening (which there certainly is). All that matters is if socionics is accurate for the scope it is describing. If we could get socionics really rock solid, and its limited scope demarcated, then it can be a foundation for future paradigms, but we, and any future new paradigm makers, will never know if it should be used as a foundation until we test it.

Yes, so we don't actually know whether something will actually "work" or not. They were both guesses, as it were, albeit very good guesses that happened to have been miraculously right for the most part. They could have been wrong. In fact they could have been easily proven wrong, but they weren't. And if they were wrong, then they would have remained some obscure figures that have made some outlandish guesses about the universe.

So the point is, how much of the part of Socionics are hypotheses? How much of the reality can it explain? You would notice that not much, since they're mostly based on previous observations of people. And it's the expectation or the assumption that the observation would somehow continue in the same way in the future. And that is obviously problematic, since things don't necessarily just keep repeating itself. You can't know things about the future by just analyzing past patterns.

So if you want to make Socionics "scientific", then you're going to have to come up with some risky hypotheses that could be easily proven wrong by a test or an experiment. But my view is that it's more important than that to come up with good explanations for phenomena.

Unfortunately "hypotheses" have become a bit of a dirty word in some parts of the world due to misconceptions, especially in a country like the US, even though that's the only way to know anything about the future. I mean of course the evidence could be empirical, and it should be empirical, but hypotheses can't obviously be empirical. So it misses the point when the criticism is "it's not empirical" or "that's just a hypothesis or a theory". The criticism should be directed at whether it's a good and a sensible hypothesis or not.

[Lao Tzunami]

@Singu I don't know why you are focusing on "predicting the future." That's not the aim of socionics. The aim is describing a part of human nature that is the same across time. The reason stories from hundreds of years ago still capture us is because they were people just like we are people. Unless we start genetically engineering people, its going to be the same in the future too.

All of socionics is a hypothesis as far as I know, because nothing has been tested (although maybe there is some Russian research I don't know about). As for if socionics is a compelling hypothesis, I think it is. I've applied socionics in my personal life and it works very well for me. But there are a lot of promising psychological theories out there, so people should study what they are interested in. I have no problem if people study something else instead of socionics. But I'm interested in socionics, and I assume anyone who spends hours of their day posting on socionics forum are also interested in socionics. The burden of proof is on the socionics community, not its critics.

Also, if you want this to be a constructive discussion, please stop asserting your opinions as facts.
You think hypothesis is a dirty word -> it is not a dirty word
You think predicting the course of the future events is the purpose of socionics -> no, the purpose is to describe human nature

It is a subtle manipulation tactic and its very annoying. I think you are a smart person and this conversation might lead to an interesting outcome, but if you don't stop, I'm going to ignore what you say. Please stop so we can have a good discussion.

[Singu]

@Singu I don't know why you are focusing on "predicting the future." That's not the aim of socionics. The aim is describing a part of human nature that is the same across time. The reason stories from hundreds of years ago still capture us is because they were people just like we are people. Unless we start genetically engineering people, its going to be the same in the future too.

...Because "predicting the future" is the aim of science, and you're trying to turn Socionics into a science. I'm sure that if you can describe human nature, as in describe how they work, then you can predict them (to a certain extent) anyway.

Can we agree that science is basically nothing more than a series of explanations and predictions? I think we can. What I'm saying is nothing controversial. Explanatory power and predictive power.

What I'm saying is really no different than some of the typical criticisms that are aimed at Big Five, for example. Is Big Five a total nonsense? No, but it's not exactly treated as a science, either. I also don't think that the approach of Big Five is very different from Socionics:

Critique of Big Five

Subsequent critical replies by Jack Block at the University of California Berkeley followed. It has been argued that there are limitations to the scope of the Big Five model as an explanatory or predictive theory.

Also, the static Big Five is not theory-driven, it is merely a statistically-driven investigation of certain descriptors that tend to cluster together often based on less than optimal factor analytic procedures.

A frequent criticism is that the Big Five is not based on any underlying theory; it is merely an empirical finding that certain descriptors cluster together under factor analysis. Although this does not mean that these five factors do not exist, the underlying causes behind them are unknown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Fi...raits#Critique

I just don't see much point if you can't explain why an observed regularity seems to be occurring. Don't mistake appearance for substance.

[sbbds]

@ajsindri For some reason I didn’t get pinged by your tagging of me.

”Getting back to simplifying the application of socionics to dichotomies, I hope you can see there is both a mathematical and empirical reason why most dichotomies are gross abstractions of what they are defining. Maybe the solution is to use a hybrid Tencer and Reinin dichotomy space, but if we are going to make it that complicated, we might as well just test the higher order objects so we don't lose emergent behavior. These higher order concepts can be defined as dichotomies if we can define their positive and negative aspect, like a criteria for having base introverted intuition verses not having base introverted intuition. The problem with this is the higher order objects have more complex information metabolisms. Theoretically, introverted intuition as base also equals introverted sensing as role, extroverted sensing as suggestive and extroverted intuition as ignoring, as well as limiting the producing functions. A proper test of base function theory might imply testing 32 information-function combinations, which is getting into the ridiculous range. Also if you tested all of this together without understanding the structure it came from, you'd easily get lost. @sbbds this is why you can't just research a few traits and call it good, and why Model A has not been tested yet.”


To repeat myself yet again: What I said only had to do with proving that some elements of Socionics exist empirically. At some point you need to prove the entire structure of Socionics is meaningful, but it’s far easier to try to prove some simplistic claims made by Socionics yet which are unique to Socionics, and thus would be an expedient way to help it gain some traction in the scientific community. The bolded is you yourself describing how approaching this from Socionics’ abstract structural aspects is by comparison going to be a far more difficult task.

[sbbds]

@ajsindri Do you know even if there’s currently any single, unifying institute or board on Socionics theory out there right now? Does anybody own any rights or is this all loosely goosey free knowledge? You’d need to find out about that first too.

[Singu]

I think Freudian psychology is a bad theory, while Jungian psychology is even worse.

Freudian psychology offers a rudimentary theoretical framework of how the human mind works. Which means that at least it can be proven wrong.

Jung's approach is entirely based on categorization of observations, which means that it can't be proven wrong, since you can't exactly prove an observation wrong. At least, an observation will always be true and correct to the observer.

The obvious limitation of Jung's approach is that you can't predict the future by just expecting the current observation to stay the same into the future. Yes, it could be true that things will stay the same, but it's not necessarily the case that it will. Another limitation is that you can't know more than what you have already previously observed.

Freud's approach is an explanatory approach, although it offers bad explanations. Jung's approach is purely an Empiricist, Instrumentalist and explanation-less approach.

Either approaches are differences in philosophies and methodologies.

[sbbds]

@Singu I have observed that your existence here is boring and can predict that it will continue to be that way in the future.

What value do you gain out of continually logging in day in day out just being a dissenter?

[Singu]

@Singu I have observed that your existence here is boring and can predict that it will continue to be that way in the future.

What value do you gain out of continually logging in day in day out just being a dissenter?

Well that's funny, since I didn't even used to have these thoughts before. I used to be an "Empiricist", but I have changed my mind. I or anyone else can never predict how my mind will change into the future.

What value do you get out of sinking your time in something that doesn't work out in the end? Unfortunately, I know it too well that this whole thing is methodologically flawed so that it's largely a waste of time. All I can do is spread the idea everywhere that explanations are what matters, and that empiricism and instrumentalism are flawed. It also helps me to understand my own position better by creating arguments.