Socionics Causes Pain

[Singu]

Are you familiar with Dario Nardi's work, if so what do you think about it?

I don't see much point in saying, "This area of brain lights up differently than other people's, and therefore it proves the differences between people".

You can correlate a behavior and an area of the brain "lighting up". You can scan the brain of a person performing a musical instrument, and then you see a certain area of the brain lighting up. Next, you scan the same brain while a person is thinking up of social situations. And you say that the same area of the brain is lighting up. And you say, well maybe we could call this "Fe" or something. And perhaps for some other people, there are some individual differences and different areas of the brain are lighting up. And you say, well that proves that there are different "types".

Sure. But that obviously does not at all predict how people are going to be acting in certain situations. You can say that this "Fe" is an all-purpose general function that produces many different behaviors, such as playing music or socializing. But how should we use that information at all to predict any kind of behavior?

If a person sees a chair for the first time in his/her life, they will think that all chair is identical or very similar to this one:

jokkmokk-chair-antique-stain__0475400_pe615581_s4.jpg


They could be confused or need an explanation when they see this chair or any other chair that doesn't resemble the first chair that they saw:

ewin-champion-series-ergonomic-computer-gaming-office-chair-with-pillows-cpb.jpg


Understanding and categorizing individuals despite their differences is much more harder, some data will not correlate as it is supposed to be, that's why it is natural that categories are made to be catch-all explanations. It is part of the learning. If this situation causes cognitive dissonance then we are exposed to cognitive dissonance when we learn to categorize something new. If that is the case, some level of cognitive dissonance is inevitable. According to my point of view, real cognitive dissonance occurs if a person defines/labels a chair as an apple or if a person says that chair do not exist while it exists. People type others differently, but noone is generally sure about differentiating different types as they are sure about differentiating chair from an apple. This is also natural because people are not sure about differentiating a chair from a sofa as they are sure about differentiating a chair from an apple. Can we say that a person is really suffering from cognitive dissonance if they label this chair as a sofa or vice versa? :

blake-grey-wash-lounge-chair-with-cushion.jpg

Let's say that I'm behaving in a way that is described as "Ne PoLR". You say that how I'm acting fits in to that description. So therefore, you'll conclude that since I'm that way, I'll always act like an "Ne PoLR" in the future as well.

But what if I act in a way that's not predicted by the description? What if I do something completely new and unexpected that's not in the description? Then either you can a) discard it as some minor anomaly to be ignored, or b) add the new behavior to the growing list of "bank" of the description of "Ne PoLR". But then what if I do something new again, and again, and again...? And this goes on for infinity for all of my future actions. You either keep discarding it some minor anomaly, or you'll just keep adding more and more data to the bank. And not just for how I will act in the future, but how I will act in different situations.

In short, it couldn't be said that how I'm acting actually had anything to do with this "Ne PoLR". Nor can this "Ne PoLR" be used as anything to predict my future behavior, or how I'm going to act in different situations that have not been observed before.

--

So the eternal question being asked by Socionics is: "Are types real? Do types exist? Is ITR real?". You can say that they "exist" insofar as they exist in present and past observations. But they don't say anything about how people are going to be acting in the future, or how people are going to be acting in different circumstances, in different situations, in different environments. And so in that sense, it can't be said that they're "real".