Socionics Causes Pain

[Singu]

That’s all unrelated to it being valid or not.

Well I just said that it was all about making observations and categorizations. If you try to "prove" that types exist or something, then all you're proving is that what you have observed so far is correct. But it won't ever tell you anything about what you will be seeing in the future. Or anything that is yet to be observed, which must include a whole chunk of human personality and interactions.

I very much doubt that Socionics has much predictive ability. It's always about explaining things after the fact. It says "this happened, which is explained by...". But you can explain anything after the fact. The whole point is to try and predict what you think would happen, if X were true.

The whole reason why we conjecture and hypothesize things, is because it could be correct. But it could also be one of the millions of possibilities where it's false. So how do we know that an explanation is the correct one? Well one of the ways to do it is to try and predict what would happen, if X were true. That's exactly what we do when we perform tests and experiments.

[Myst]

Well I just said that it was all about making observations and categorizations. If you try to "prove" that types exist or something, then all you're proving is that what you have observed so far is correct. But it won't ever tell you anything about what you will be seeing in the future. Or anything that is yet to be observed, which must include a whole chunk of human personality and interactions.

I very much doubt that Socionics has much predictive ability. It's always about explaining things after the fact. It says "this happened, which is explained by...". But you can explain anything after the fact. The whole point is to try and predict what you think would happen, if X were true.

The whole reason why we conjecture and hypothesize things, is because it could be correct. But it could also be one of the millions of possibilities where it's false. So how do we know that an explanation is the correct one? Well one of the ways to do it is to try and predict what would happen, if X were true. That's exactly what we do when we perform tests and experiments.

Socionics predictions are not supposed to be definitive because of the nature of the thing (humans).

Same for all psychology predictions too.

[Singu]

Where do you see a mystical language in Socionics? It's a quite technical language. It is actually funny how it tries to take "mystical" concepts like "duality" and make it all technical.

An example is Socionics tend to use "paradoxical" language. For instance, it might say "SLEs can be both strong and vulnerable", which might just as well be saying, "SLEs are capable of any logically possible behavior", which is true enough, since human beings are capable of a whole host of complex behavior.

Socionics predictions are not supposed to be definitive because of the nature of the thing (humans).

Same for all psychology predictions too.

Then you can't claim to have understood the mind, if you can't at least predict what would happen.

Psychology doesn't somehow have "immunity" from having low predictive ability, just because of the nature of human beings. The theories that can't even properly predict things are discarded.

[Myst]

An example is Socionics tend to use "paradoxical" language. For instance, it might say "SLEs can be both strong and vulnerable", which might just as well be saying, "SLEs are capable of any logically possible behavior", which is true enough, since human beings are capable of a whole host of complex behavior.

I haven't seen this type of paradoxical language in Socionics. What I do see is too much use of the "can" language for sure though lol.

Also, what do you see as mystical, this is left unclear.

Then you can't claim to have understood the mind, if you can't at least predict what would happen.

Did I claim to have understood it?

I also don't think Socionics understands it fully. Or any theory in psychology at this point.

Psychology doesn't somehow have "immunity" from having low predictive ability, just because of the nature of human beings. The theories that can't even properly predict things are discarded.

I did not talk about immunity. It's just how it is. A little correlation is already seen valuable and worth further research in psychology, and the whole science is still quite young.

No one can expect a theory that only covers certain factors (*not* enough factors) to predict in a definitive way beyond just some probabilities being higher or lower. This is what I meant by the nature of the thing.


PS: I clicked "constructive" accidentally. I did not mean to click it, as I don't particularly agree or disagree with your post significantly more than other ones.

[Singu]

Would improve if you improved upon the grammar and flow, and the semantics a bit.

Maybe.

I haven't seen this type of paradoxical language in Socionics. What I do see is too much use of the "can" language for sure though lol.

Also, what do you see as mystical, this is left unclear.

I'd say something is mystical, if it doesn't have any explanations or hypotheses for alleged phenomena, and then you claim to have a model of it which doesn't actually explain anything.

For example, there's no explanation for why should Duality or Conflictor get along or conflict, other than something based on an observation. Supposedly Fe and Ti get along and Fi and Ti conflict "just because" or "we've observed it", but there's no reason or explanation for that, as Fe and Ti can go both ways and can either get along or conflict, as it depends on many other factors.

You can also say "I have observed that Virgos and Capricorns get along well". But it's not clear whether the month that you were born has anything to do with it, or whether other factors are at play. There's simply no explanation for how that works.

So without explanations, it just doesn't "work", and it stays at a level that is something mystical.

Did I claim to have understood it?

I also don't think Socionics understands it fully. Or any theory in psychology at this point.

Maybe you don't, but Socionics and Socionists claim to. There have already been alternative psychological theories that can offer better explanations and predictions.

I did not talk about immunity. It's just how it is. A little correlation is already seen valuable and worth further research in psychology, and the whole science is still quite young.

No one can expect a theory that only covers certain factors (*not* enough factors) to predict in a definitive way beyond just some probabilities being higher or lower. This is what I meant by the nature of the thing.

I also think that fundamentally, much of human behavior is unpredictable, because of the ability of human beings to be creative and come up with something new. And how can you predict creativity? You just can't.

And yet still, there must be some sort of "laws of psychology" that must stay consistent over time. Otherwise, our minds and cognition would probably not be possible.

I don't think low correlation and predictive ability is worth much of anything, let alone little to no explanations. But still, you'd have to come up with better alternative theories.

[Metamorph]

I'd say something is mystical, if it doesn't have any explanations or hypotheses for alleged phenomena, and then you claim to have a model of it which doesn't actually explain anything.

For example, there's no explanation for why should Duality or Conflictor get along or conflict, other than something based on an observation. Supposedly Fe and Ti get along and Fi and Ti conflict "just because" or "we've observed it", but there's no reason or explanation for that, as Fe and Ti can go both ways and can either get along or conflict, as it depends on many other factors.

You can also say "I have observed that Virgos and Capricorns get along well". But it's not clear whether the month that you were born has anything to do with it, or whether other factors are at play. There's simply no explanation for how that works.

ITR is based on neo-Aristotelian philosophy, and also, astrology and mysticism and two different fields that should not be confused even though you can be like Dante and combine both if you like. I know mystical is supposed to be a slur, but it's a pre-existing and specific word with a fairly positive meaning used in any context besides "I'm a skeptic and I want to call someone intentionally vague" so it just reminds me of this: You Know What's Stupid? Everything I Don't Understand. Also, Virgo and Capricorn as signs are in a trine relation since they have the same element (Earth) and that's supposed to be considered harmonious due to the Thema Mundi or theme of the world which assigns a trine the nature of Jupiter and thus limitless expansion based on mathematical relationships between the planets, zodiac signs, and aspects (positions of planets relative to other planets) based on their distance from the ecliptic as the Earth completes its orbit. Trines are also interesting due to the fact that you have cardinal/fixed/mutable signs of one element with no other interfering signs so it's like a self-contained complete cycle of one element throughout all existence, with a beginning, middle, and end in an endless loop. This is all on Google and you could've learned it in the time you spend ranting. It's incredibly obscure and not very useful information, but still seems more enjoyable and useful than ranting about the same thing over and over again so you might as well.

[Myst]

I'd say something is mystical, if it doesn't have any explanations or hypotheses for alleged phenomena, and then you claim to have a model of it which doesn't actually explain anything.

For example, there's no explanation for why should Duality or Conflictor get along or conflict, other than something based on an observation. Supposedly Fe and Ti get along and Fi and Ti conflict "just because" or "we've observed it", but there's no reason or explanation for that, as Fe and Ti can go both ways and can either get along or conflict, as it depends on many other factors.

For the Ti vs Fe thing:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...does-this-work

The same phenomenon that there is "something" there has been observed and corroborated by many sources that have NOTHING to do with Socionics (nor Jung). And they do not use anything like the Socionics model. However Socionics is the only model that attempted to investigate deeper and explain further in a systematic way.

You can also say "I have observed that Virgos and Capricorns get along well". But it's not clear whether the month that you were born has anything to do with it, or whether other factors are at play. There's simply no explanation for how that works.

So without explanations, it just doesn't "work", and it stays at a level that is something mystical.

Socionics does try to relate it to something actually relevant. Not like astrology with birth date.

Maybe you don't, but Socionics and Socionists claim to. There have already been alternative psychological theories that can offer better explanations and predictions.

Don't make a generalisation about socionists claiming so because clearly it's not true.

Socionics itself also is not supposed to, but the model isn't restricted properly to avoid utilisation of it in that way, that's true and I said that before.

I agree that there are psychological theories that address a lot of things a lot better than Socionics if you were to try and use Socionics model to explain a lot of phenomena about people. But what Socionics is supposed to specifically target (beyond just being a "theory of everything"), that I have yet to see an alternative scientific theory for.

I also think that fundamentally, much of human behavior is unpredictable, because of the ability of human beings to be creative and come up with something new. And how can you predict creativity? You just can't.

So creativity is mystical to you like astrology and Socionics.

I think we can't predict it because we do not have all data and understanding and processing power at hand for it.

And yet still, there must be some sort of "laws of psychology" that must stay consistent over time. Otherwise, our minds and cognition would probably not be possible.

I don't think low correlation and predictive ability is worth much of anything, let alone little to no explanations. But still, you'd have to come up with better alternative theories.

Worth further research is what it is considered in psychology... as long as there is a statistically significant correlation even if low otherwise.