ns
Do you believe socionics is as valid as astrology?
ns
Nothing is as valid as astrology.
Yes, I recently asked an SEE how astrology works, and she replied that it works by “gravity”.Originally Posted by Muddy
And of course, nothing is more valid than or as reliable as gravity.
Ipso facto, nothing is more valid than astrology.
How is that any different than saying, "I've recently asked a Virgo how..."?
In fact, how does Socionics work?
You might say, "Well, Model A..."
How does Model A work?
"Well, Jung's 8 functions..."
How does Jung's 8 functions work?
"Well, he came up with some insights based on his observations of his patients..."
How do those insights work?
"Well, look, I don't know how they work, exactly, but they just work, okay? It confirms with my observations perfectly well"
...So, just like how astrology "works"?
I have a hypothesis that Jung's eight functions are ontologically based off of fundamental distinctions in computational complexity.
For instance, Se is space. Just like space complexity used in computer science. But Si is space that is internal. But what's another word for internal space? Memory. Just like in computational complexity.
I further speculate that Ne and Ni have a relationship to time complexity. If this is so then Se, Si, Ne, and Ni are based off of fundamental divisions of space and time in computational complexity. There may also be a correspondence between T and F and communication complexity.
Last edited by CosmicCat; 12-17-2018 at 05:54 AM.
Same here. Please help out in this thread if you ever feel up to it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/57065-Anyone-want-to-help-make-socionics-scientific
I see, Causal determinism at its finest. This mode of thinking truly lies beyond naturalistic viewpoint as it is truly artificial. Streams of chains of "logic". The understanding of reality that arises from set of learned rules. If a person does not question it, it might become truly absurd and sometimes funny.
Let me introduce forest raking (and floors of the forest, which seems to have similarities to my mode of thinking):
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
The result from when a SEE make use of PoLR-to explain something?
Has to be imaginative gravity that works in astrology.
The influence of gravitation of other planets and even the moon to a single person is extremly weak compared to other forces here on earth. And I don't mention other stars, that would be ridiculous.
Anyway. The difference is that socionics actually looks at the people individuelly, whereas astrology looks away from the people and only at their birth date, birth time and birth location.
You don't find genetic information or environmental factors that causes human behaviours by looking into the sky.
Sociology is as valid as Socionics. I just heard some retarded SJW bitch was sounding the alarms about how she thought Mumkey Jones was unironically advocating terrorism before he was depersoned from the internet, and how social justice classes are describing incels as a dangerous armed male supremacist insurrection instead of just a pack of deluded losers. Humanities academia is a mental tumor. Fuck non-stem professors. Philosophy has become an epidemic.
The autism spectrum is more valid than both.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 12-17-2018 at 08:00 AM.
Well, one lets you pick your own personality or have others pick it for you, the other determines your personality based on time. I'll just leave it at that.
Which is as valid as the entire DSM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Socionics = astrologySocionics >>> Astrology
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
socionics has more sense and easier to be noticed in practice
look at my IR test, for example
So basically what you're saying is that Socionics leads into Astrology.Socionics >>> Astrology
At least, socionics is considered to be a part of academia and taught in many universities within Eastern Europe. This is a feat that astrology cannot accomplish.
I’ve studied the programming requirements for autonomous mobile robots and I completely understand why Socionics infers that human behavior can be sourced from eight basic functions.
And I'm sure those autonomous robots will need to have the ability to learn in order to do anything competent in the physical world. And humans, and even animals, are learners, and not just programmed to do one thing or the other. They learn by trial and error. They try to do something, and eliminate the mistakes.
So we definitely can't say, for instance, that conflicts or disagreements are genetically determined or something, as suggested by ITR. It needs to be explained, how those genes cause the conflicts, or even the reason for how the things that make the conflicts are expressed by the genes, or the brain structure, or whatever, which neither are explained. I'm sure that the vast majority of the things that humans do and think and feel are learned after their birth.
I really hope you're not gonna leave me hanging without an elaboration.
Well, I considered it. I’ve talked about this elsewhere on this forum, but I can repeat myself here.
As I understand it, Socionics is an attempt to understand human behavior in terms of isolated functions named Ti, Te, Fe, Fi, Se, Si, Ne, and Ni. This is a fairly successful approach to breaking down and modeling behavior.
One could look at a bunch of ants swarming over an area of ground, looking for food and avoiding enemies, and wonder if each ant has a model of the terrain, or if the behavior of the swarm is driven by simple rules.
Early robots were programmed to move a part from one place to another. This required that they have a map of the area in memory, and presumed that the thing that they were moving existed and could be grasped. But this model quickly ran into problems in the real world, where things are changing all the time.
Programmers were forced to take a different approach when faced with interacting with an unpredictable world. Instead of commanding the robot to go to point (x1,y1,z1) at time (t1), then close the actuators, and then move to point (x2, y2, z2) in time Δt when there might be no part at point (x1,y1,z1), it would be better to give the robot some method of sensing the environment, along with the ability to recognize a part and search for a moved part, the ability to decide on the importance or relevance to the task of the parts that it does find, and options for what to do when it does not find a part.
These abilities enable a robot to function in a world where not everything is where or what it expects it to be. You can break down the functions as subroutines of a larger program in the following manner:
1. Se: Sense the world, possibly by camera (sight), collision detection (touch), sounds (hearing), etc.
2. Si: Sense internal states, like battery charge (hunger), circuits working properly or not (pain), motor drives operating normally or in overcurrent sensing (comfort), light too bright or too dim so adjust system gains, etc.
3. Te: Identify the separate parts in the sensory data. Is a “part” detected, and is it separate from the background? Name the parts. Is this part relevant to the task or not?
4. Ti: Does the identified part fit into an internally stored class of objects?
5. Fi: Assign a “value” to this part, with respect to the task at hand. Is this “part” something which should be moved or avoided? Is the part broken?
6. Fe: If there are other robots operating in the area, how should their actions be coordinated? What are the communication protocols? Which robots should take priority when both share a common assignment? How are priorities negotiated?
7. Ne: What alternate actions can be taken in any situation? If a part has been moved or cannot be found, what other actions are possible?
8. Ni: Given a list of possible alternate actions in any situation, which single action is best pursued under the present conditions?
From this simple list of functions, it is pretty easy to see how almost any behavior can be modeled. With a hierarchy of subroutines, you can model behavior of almost any complexity you wish.
For example:
The “ant” runs it’s six leg-motor subroutines and moves forward out of the nest, in search of food. It bumps into a blade of grass with its antennae and the leg subroutines stop, to be replaced in sequence by “back up” and “turn” and “go forward” again. When the ant’s sensors detect the chemical traces of a dead fly, separated from the many other chemicals it is continuously sensing, the motor subroutines are overridden to turn towards the antenna with the stronger signal. The ant eventually either comes to the dead fly, at which point it identifies it as something classified as food, grasps it (more motor subroutines) and returns to the nest, or if the fly has been moved, it keeps doing a semi-random search until it gets low on sugars. The ant can find its way back to the nest without knowing where the nest actually is, since it and every other ant left a pheromone trail as it left the nest (another subroutine running intermittently), so it only has to encounter one of these many trails and follow it to find its way back to the nest.
Basically, almost any behavior can be simulated with the above eight basic functions that are serving a master task-achieving program. You can build hierarchies of these task-achieving programs, with each one having the ability to override other task-achieving programs, depending on the situation. For example, I normally like to eat and need to excrete, but I don’t allow the sequence of motor controls which control these operations to activate at any time. The operational importance of these subroutines is continuously being adjusted by internal sensing (hunger, need to pee) and social propriety and situational opportunity and aren’t always under my intentional control.
Some individuals are going to have stronger arms, stronger legs, be taller or shorter, thinner or fatter, etc., than other individuals. So, too, will some of their basic functions be stronger or weaker than other individuals. This creates the “types”.
Personally, I’m not sure why some functions seem to go together (F & T, S & N), or why it happens that some functions inhibit others (Ti & Te), but there is probably a reason for this.
My guess is that this inhibitory effect exists because of the operational limitations (bandwidth) of the human brain as a heat-limited information processor. This is why you can see great detail in the center of your field of view with very slow updates, or sense coarse motion at the periphery of your visual field very quickly. The Information content of (fine_resolution)x(small_area)x(slow_updates) = Information content of (coarse_resolution)x(large_area)x(fast_updates).
It may not be possible to do Te "feature isolation and recognition" simultaneously with Ti "feature internal compare and classification". Both are extremely processor-intensive.
Anyway, that's my opinion of the "validity" of Socionics.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 12-18-2018 at 02:31 AM.
If Se correlates with taking action then Si can also be correlated to inhibition of action based on past experience. Operant conditioning seems to involve Si and the type most susceptible to posttraumatic stress disorder (ISTp) has Si as a leading function. So I think that the conclusion you've drawn is overreached: any function can inhibit any other if it feeds into another function in a certain way. I'm also not sure if Si is the ultra-specialized function that you and all the IM descriptions make it out to be. Si seems to be very narrow in scope (tied essentially to physiological sensation like hunger, tiredness, etc...) while Se, Ne, and Ni are broad.
But if I really am an LII--not sure about my type, but it's a live option at this point--then we're going to have a relationship of extinguishment meaning we'll see the same thing (correspondence between jungian functions and robotics design) is a completely incompatible and contradictory way. Sorry if I am an LII!
Socionics is the more calcified version of astrology. It's the system that drank lots of milk as a kid and grew up big and strong with sturdy bones.
Astrology is the frail sibling that is still more popular than the other, just because they are more easy-going, low-key and less mentally unstable (unlike the former).
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Either system is only as good as the practioner of it, so....
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
You’ve reached a new low @Singu . This is like the Te polr faux pas version of being an immoral rapist.
I'm more certain about Socionics being valid than astrology.
When we read our horoscope or natal chart, we are subject to the Forer effect, a psychological effect in which we give high accuracy ratings to descriptions simply because they are meant to be tailored to us and because they are vague enough to apply to anyone.
Similarly, when we read our Socionics type profile, we are subject to the Forer effect, meaning we are just as as biased to think it's accurate, simply because the descriptions are vague and meant to be tailored to us.
Therefore, we lack absolute certainty in either self-assessment.
Additionally, like Astrology, Socionics is not falsifiable because its models are defined non-empirically. Therefore, both Astrology and Socionics are non-scientific.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 12-18-2018 at 12:06 AM.
The more important question is: do you strive to be scientific and empirical? Is it ever acceptable to deny science and empiricism? Why or why not?
Jung himself was not a positivist and in fact was against it. So I don't see why people expect his ideas to be subjectable to empirical testing.
I don't think it's ever acceptable to deny science, but science can't account for everything because it's limited by human inquiry, human resources, and the parameters that scientists decide to work within. For unanswered questions, you have to use your own mind, relying on philosophy and modes of thinking like rationalism, and intuition. So here's an even more important question: do you strive to critically think about systems like Socionics, using your own reason?
Your response here suggests that you think Socionics is above reasonable criticism, as it concerns the dialogue in this community:
No. I don't think Socionics is above criticism. I just think you're beating a dead horse lol. And you don't seem to have a goal in mind.
Quote from Jung's psychological types:
I have been thinking about Socionics for a long time and have even thought that it might not exist at all. Nonetheless, it seems pretty true based on my own observation. That's the best I've got.And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.
The essential argument I've seen in a lot of random articles against typology is that, because consensus of observation does not exist, typology does not exist or is invalid. It's a silly argument. It's the one I've seen you make a million times lol.
Maybe you're trying to promote skepticism. That's fine. But you're doing it wrong a lot of the time lol because you don't frame your posts the right way.
Last edited by Aramas; 12-18-2018 at 10:43 AM.
I'm never going to be "beating a dead horse" because the environment here is always in flux. There's always been a market for the things I have to say; 3 people "liked" the post you originally responded to. I'm not interested in maintaining orthodoxy because as soon as you fall back on orthodoxy, you stop thinking. If your opinion is that I'm "doing it wrong", I'll take that as a sign that I'm doing it right. You have a problem with the things I post? Please put me on ignore.
Quote from Jung's psychological types:
I think the kind of irony is that Jung himself was using Positivist or Empiricist methodology, as in mostly basing things on his observations, or "deriving" from observations.And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.
It is true that everything will eventually lead back to our own subjective thoughts. That's kind of why things like Positivism and Empiricism have been criticized, and why they're no longer tenable.
Yet nonetheless, we are still capable of understanding things objectively, or else things like science or math wouldn't be possible. So the question is, how do we know when something is objective, or not?
Well, ultimately we can only rely on certain criteria such as rationality or laws of logic. And Jung has already denied that things like logic are valid at all, which he expounded on his own ideas like "Synchronicity". He'd rather rely on supernatural, mystical and irrational explanations. And those are not rational at all. So everything just collapses and explodes into a world of nonsense, and the irony is that Jung himself is using logic or rationality to try to convince others with his own arguments, which are based on logic and rationality. He's not trying to emotionally convince us, and why should we believe in supernatural or irrational things that are rather arbitrary?
Great quote!
I have moved away from descriptions because by going through descriptions I'd be ILX. I just get certain set of positive experiences when I meet some sort of data which can be mapped to a one sort of folder and also certain reactions which are painful. The qualitative difference among same species representatives is enough. Not sure if socionics was meant for so definite discrete states as it seems to be for someone. Dual nature of man just seems quite general although it makes too bold claims. When does YXI becomes XYE? Probably they just have very different outlook for life... I actually like the move away from atomized IM elements that Gulenko has done. Ah, the heresy...
Certain characteristics to look for. You like this and I like that. Sounds pretty normal everyday thingy.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
What I've read about astrology is far less coherent and accurate in terms of describing personality than socionics. Some have claimed that you need to go deeper into someone's chart to see it really working but I can't speak to that. On the surface it's even worse than MBTI.
Astrology is like, more complex and harder to understand.
If you could learn astrology with precision, it would be at least as good as socionics (plus divining the future)!
YupAstrology is like, more complex and harder to understand.
If you could learn astrology with precision, it would be at least as good as socionics (plus divining the future)!
Cosmic sympathy
Last edited by vesstheastralsilky; 12-20-2018 at 09:20 PM.
~* astralsilky
Each essence is a separate glass,
Through which Sun of Being’s Light is passed,
Each tinted fragment sparkles with the Sun,
A thousand colors, but the Light is One.
Jami, 15th c. Persian Poet
Post types & fully individuated before 2012 ...
As Socionics is meant to tell us what types are most compatible, so to is Astrology meant to tell us what signs are most compatible.
Well I already have a rough alternative to Socionics, which would be superior to it.
For example, instead of saying that this person and that person will either fundamentally get along or not get along (e.g. if you put ESE-LII together then they would get along, if you put SEE-LII together then they will conflict), we could instead have a "Theory of Identity", which would be the entire criteria in which how a person gets along with others or conflicts, how a person's likes and dislikes are determined, and so on, would be determined.
For example, if one identifies oneself as an "Intelligent person" or that he "should be intelligent", then he would be "offended" if somebody "insults his intelligence". And hence, he would not likely get along with such "offensive" persons. But if he does not, then his conception of his own identity is not threatened, and therefore is unaffected. So it all depends on what one identifies as.
Or if one identifies as a "liberal", then one expects to not get along with his "opposite", such as a "republican", which he will likely label him as an "enemy", and indeed may not actually get along with them. But then if this "republican" does not at all act in the way that he expects them to (e.g. with hostility), then he would be pleasantly surprised. Or he could believe that he does get along with his opposites.
And of course, this "Identity" is more or less sociologically constructed. It develops within a certain culture, and it develops along with other people, as an identity cannot grow in a vacuum. It's impossible to recognize something in yourself, such as your own identity, without having something to compare it to, such as other people.
And this approach would be superior to Socionics, because we are focusing on the abstraction of a person, and not the person itself as its own unit, as we are focusing on the psychology of their identity, which is an abstract idea.
Of course, this is just a rough example and a rough sketch, and I'm not even saying that this is correct. But it just goes to show how easily you can just come up with an alternative that would be much easier and can explain things so much more in detail than Socionics.
As for myself, I happen to believe that mind and matter are connected, both literally and symbolically. That’s it.
So are you a monist then? If so, you'd fit well in the East.
"All is mind."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
