Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 131

Thread: Thread split: is Socionics a religion?

  1. #41
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well that's just a yet another amazing evasion of criticism against Socionics.
    Nice try at a straw-man, but I'm not an idiot.
    I've made my fair share of criticisms of socionics. I never said it was a good system or that it couldn't improve. In fact, I've talked about many of its flaws, and I've also recognized areas that I'm wrong. This is what I mean by personal modifications. I'm just assessing the reality of what it is and how people respond to it. It won't improve because people don't care enough to improve it. Your wanting it to improve is completely fine, but I think its a waste of your time since it'll never happen. Also, even if we can't type people, that doesn't matter because people can learn a lot about themselves in the process. A terrible system can still have its uses when the alternative is no structure at all.

    If this is "evading criticism of socionics", then you're deluded.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  2. #42
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    This is just cute postmodernism, to say that the point of all is to have power, and it's all just a matter of people having power over this or that, and there's no such thing as objective truth
    Not an argument.



    People often mistake Popperian epistemology, Fallibilism and Critical Rationalism as mere "skepticism" or even "nihilism". But actually, it's the complete opposite. Things can only be improved if we admit the possibility that they're wrong. So if we admit that everything is wrong and "We're all alike in our infinite ignorance" as Popper put it, then they can be continuously improved.

    It's the kind of attitude of trying to "prove" something and make it "irrefutable" as Augusta was trying to do, that is anti-knowledge, anti-growth and anti-progress. Because if something becomes irrefutable, then it is final and it can no longer be improved. And that may seem like heaven at first, but it's actually hell.
    I don't need to fellate any of the dead stuffed shirts you worship to know that I'll get quicker results from twisting a couple of arms in the name of my goal than sticking my thumb up my ass with my mouth wide open, failing to proceed with my plans because my 99% certainty that they can succeed isn't technically a guarantee.

    The ones who can do this will inevitably dominate those who cannot, and ignoring their impunity to do so will neither make them go away, nor allow you to ignore the effects of what they are doing to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

  3. #43
    coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    656
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Serious red flag, right there. She's trying to create a religion, not a genuine theory that is at heart forever tentative knowledge and never absolute.

    This is the root of all Sol-ism that is present in this community.

    No wonder that Socionics is so cult-like, because it has the tradition of trying to make it "completely proved and irrefutable". The end result is a kind of a religion or a cult that does not accept any criticisms, and therefore it cannot be improved.
    Yes, socionics is a religion and that's why it hasn't caught on in pop culture like MBTI. News at 11.

    (I know you don't believe in socionics, but this isn't going to change anyone's mind. Correction does much, but encouragement does more. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Since I've converted to from socionics to Jedism, I'm going to be Yoda when I grow up. JK, I haven't done that.)
    “Don't think money does everything or you are going to end up doing everything for money.” ― Voltaire

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarDraft View Post
    Meh. Socionics is inherently unfalsifiable and collective changes are difficult because people aren't in it for the science. So, the best we can do is personal modifications to our ideas, rejecting ideas that don't make sense or yield the system useless. Anything more is blatant idealism. Even if the communities aren't able to type people conclusively, it can note behavioural and cognitive traits of an individual and help them be more introspective. Honestly, that's what matters.
    You do know what Socionics is yes?

    The original model A and subsequent further models, if you follow them through all the way to the logical conclusion: they are a theory of everything that tries to organise everything about people on the highest level below which everything else is supposed to go.

    This is the case because the 8 IEs are defined in a way to cover every aspect of life and then the model A (and the other models e.g. Gulenko's stuff) organises these IEs in a general model.

    Now, the question is simply, is Socionics's model fit to take this place?

    My answer is: no.

    While the whole Socionics endeavour (along with Jung) definitely focuses on and investigates certain very interesting and important things of the psyche that no other psychological research that I'm aware of has ever tried to investigate in depth, Socionics is not fit to take that place.

    Jung also proves this: his theory of functions was a small part of his overall psychological theory of the entire psyche (or much of the psyche).

    The model(s) has (have) to be changed and made falsifiable to deal with the issues that it can be targeted at in a proper way, and not anything else.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I'm saying that you go with the best available theory that has survived all criticisms and experimental testings that has yet to have any alternative theories.
    This sentence of yours is correct.

    However.

    Your problem is staying open all the time. That's not rational. Scientific thinking is not open like this. Scientific thinking is far more rigorous than this.


    Inductive reasoning is reasoning based on past observations.

    "People may live up to 500 years" is not based on any observations of the past, because people have never lived that long. Instead, it's based on a theory (e.g. "if it's not forbidden by the laws of nature, then it's not impossible"). And theories are not based on any past observations. Theories are based on previous theories, and if we keep going back we'll eventually arrive at "background knowledge" kind of theories that have been generated by our brain, which is again not "based on" anything. They're just assumptions that we make about the world.
    "if it's not forbidden by the laws of nature, then it's not impossible" - Right now, our understanding of the laws of biology show that it's impossible. MAYBE, just maybe, we find a way to show that the laws of biology actually allow for changing some things to make this possible, but it is not rational to bet on a MAYBE unsubstantiated by any concrete evidence.

    You do not live in the moment, you keep living in the future of imagining possibilities coming true, but you can only make a rational decision in the moment here and now. That is the only way you can do closure, and have actually rigorous scientific thinking.

    Also, you are living in this world of assumptions where different assumptions that are logically irreconcilable with each other as is, coexist for you in your brain. Again, this is not rational. It is not rigorous scientific thinking.


    This is just cute postmodernism, to say that the point of all is to have power, and it's all just a matter of people having power over this or that, and there's no such thing as objective truth.
    You are the postmodernist one here...


    People often mistake Popperian epistemology, Fallibilism and Critical Rationalism as mere "skepticism" or even "nihilism". But actually, it's the complete opposite. Things can only be improved if we admit the possibility that they're wrong. So if we admit that everything is wrong and "We're all alike in our infinite ignorance" as Popper put it, then they can be continuously improved.

    It's the kind of attitude of trying to "prove" something and make it "irrefutable" as Augusta was trying to do, that is anti-knowledge, anti-growth and anti-progress. Because if something becomes irrefutable, then it is final and it can no longer be improved. And that may seem like heaven at first, but it's actually hell.
    No, right, Popper was not a nihilist at all. Yes we need to admit it if new CONCRETE evidence shows that a theory needs to be updated and fixed to take that into account. This is not the same as accepting all contradictory possibilities in our minds at once or getting fixated on one future possibility of the perfect theory that is nonexistent here and now.

  6. #46
    Jimmers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,339
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it a religion, although some of its adherents seem to be very cult-like. What it shares with religion is its dogmatism and refusal to change its understanding of claims based on evidence and intuitive understanding of how such evidence fits with the larger picture of reality.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Serious red flag, right there. She's trying to create a religion, not a genuine theory that is at heart forever tentative knowledge and never absolute.

    This is the root of all Sol-ism that is present in this community.

    No wonder that Socionics is so cult-like, because it has the tradition of trying to make it "completely proved and irrefutable". The end result is a kind of a religion or a cult that does not accept any criticisms, and therefore it cannot be improved.
    That btw is a red flag yeah but not because it talks about completely proving something. It's because it's about a psychological theory being completely proven with lack of tools. She should have been aware of how there are just not enough tools for that yet, still aren't, even less in her time.

  8. #48
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    You do know what Socionics is yes?

    The original model A and subsequent further models, if you follow them through all the way to the logical conclusion: they are a theory of everything that tries to organise everything about people on the highest level below which everything else is supposed to go.

    This is the case because the 8 IEs are defined in a way to cover every aspect of life and then the model A (and the other models e.g. Gulenko's stuff) organises these IEs in a general model.

    Now, the question is simply, is Socionics's model fit to take this place?

    My answer is: no.

    While the whole Socionics endeavour (along with Jung) definitely focuses on and investigates certain very interesting and important things of the psyche that no other psychological research that I'm aware of has ever tried to investigate in depth, Socionics is not fit to take that place.

    Jung also proves this: his theory of functions was a small part of his overall psychological theory of the entire psyche (or much of the psyche).

    The model(s) has (have) to be changed and made falsifiable to deal with the issues that it can be targeted at in a proper way, and not anything else.
    Note: I had to write this relatively quickly, so I apologize if there are logical holes or things that are blatantly obvious that I didn't consider. Also, making something falsifiable is essentially the same as making it rigorous, in this context.

    Besides the last sentence, I don't disagree with what you've written here. You're indeed correct that socionics is not fit to be a general theory of the psyche and that it looks at the same questions in different ways. I never said that it is such a theory. All that I've said is that it's unfalsifiable. I also think that it can't be made falsifiable while still preserving its essential structure, which is why I disagree with your last sentence. Let me explain.

    A falsifiable theory is, by definition, a theory that has the capacity to be proven wrong. We can construct some sort of hypothesis that should be a logical consequence of the theory and see if it's true or false. For example, if my theory is "all apples are red", the logical conclusion is that anything I deem to be an apple must also be red. However, this theory is false since there exist green and yellow fruits that we also label as "apple". This works because we defined the notion of "apple" in a precise way so as to encompass all fruits that fit some set of biological features, regardless of colour (at least I don't think we cover colour). If we discover something new that has many similarities to what we call an apple, then we should probably call that an apple as well, even if it is blue. It's this rigorous categorization and precision that allows theories to be falsifiable.

    I'm sure we all agree and know already that socionics isn't like this. There isn't a set of rigorous definitions that we must abide by to type people, so, naturally, the typings we give to people will differ depending on our interpretation of the system. The conclusion, then, is to construct a set of definitions that become the bedrock of the system. However, the question then becomes "by which means will we define these functions"? Conventional psychological techniques to create rigour include factor analysis, which is essentially where we have a large questionnaire administered to many individuals and determine correlations between how some questions are answered and how other questions are answered. We may think that there are N different variables at play, but these underlying correlations help us to narrow down precisely how many there are and what they are. This is, in fact, how the big 5 psychometric system was developed.

    The problem with using this method in socionics is that there isn't a consensus on what the most important thing is to measure. Will this quesionnaire be like thehotelambush's questionnaire, which asks questions about a person's life? Will it be like standard multiple choice psychometric tests? Will it be predominantly based on IR? How will VI be incorporated? Is it functions that are most important? What about dichotomies? And how do we know how much weight to put for each of these aspects of the theory?

    Let's say that we are able to solve all these problems and we construct a questionnaire that, when factor analysed, reveals the hidden truths of socionics. How do we know that these will even be remotely close to what we currently call the functions? In that regard, how do we know that it'll be close to anything we've developed so far? If it isn't, then can we even call it socionics anymore?

    My point is that even using the best method of developing rigour in psychological fields need not preserve the structure of socionics in the first place. So, we'd essentially be creating a completely new psychometric theory that probably wouldn't resemble socionics in the way we have it right now. And, this is assuming that we can overcome the practical hurdles of developing such a questionnaire in the first place. It would take a huge number of carefully crafted questions and a number of willing participants and data analytics experts to get this done. Most people aren't willing to do this, as I've said before, so I'm very skeptical that we can get this done.

    In conclusion, it's possible to make socionics rigorous, but I think that the likelihood of it resembling socionics as we currently know will be small, meaning that calling it socionics wouldn't be accurate.

    If someone can poke holes in this, then I'm all ears. It would be nice to make socionics rigorous while still being able to call it socionics, so if there is another method you can think of, respond to this.
    Last edited by FarDraft; 02-03-2019 at 09:18 PM. Reason: Precision of one sentence
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarDraft View Post
    Note: I had to write this relatively quickly, so I apologize if there are logical holes or things that are blatantly obvious that I didn't consider. Also, making something falsifiable is essentially the same as making it rigorous, in this context.

    Besides the last sentence, I don't disagree with what you've written here. You're indeed correct that socionics is not fit to be a general theory of the psyche and that it looks at the same questions in different ways. I never said that it is such a theory. All that I've said is that it's unfalsifiable. I also think that it can't be made falsifiable while still preserving its essential structure, which is why I disagree with your last sentence. Let me explain.
    Reread my post. My last sentence was NOT about preserving the model's essential structure at all. That structure as it is now is just wrong. It's wrong as it's a structure of a theory of everything. Which is what my whole post was explaining.


    A falsifiable theory is, by definition, a theory that has the capacity to be proven wrong. We can construct some sort of hypothesis that should be a logical consequence of the theory and see if it's true or false. For example, if my theory is "all apples are red", the logical conclusion is that anything I deem to be an apple must also be red. However, this theory is false since there exist green and yellow fruits that we also label as "apple". This works because we defined the notion of "apple" in a precise way so as to encompass all fruits that fit some set of biological features, regardless of colour (at least I don't think we cover colour). If we discover something new that has many similarities to what we call an apple, then we should probably call that an apple as well, even if it is blue. It's this rigorous categorization and precision that allows theories to be falsifiable.
    Yeah I know what falsifiability means


    I'm sure we all agree and know already that socionics isn't like this. There isn't a set of rigorous definitions that we must abide by to type people, so, naturally, the typings we give to people will differ depending on our interpretation of the system. The conclusion, then, is to construct a set of definitions that become the bedrock of the system. However, the question then becomes "by which means will we define these functions"? Conventional psychological techniques to create rigour include factor analysis, which is essentially where we have a large questionnaire administered to many individuals and determine correlations between how some questions are answered and how other questions are answered. We may think that there are N different variables at play, but these underlying correlations help us to narrow down precisely how many there are and what they are. This is, in fact, how the big 5 psychometric system was developed.
    I wouldn't say performing factor analysis on vague variables is anything rigorous. Please note I am coming at the whole thing from a cognitive neuroscientist's perspective. A bit "harder" science than Big 5.


    The problem with using this method in socionics is that there isn't a consensus on what the most important thing is to measure. Will this quesionnaire be like thehotelambush's questionnaire, which asks questions about a person's life? Will it be like standard multiple choice psychometric tests? Will it be predominantly based on IR? How will VI be incorporated? Is it functions that are most important? What about dichotomies? And how do we know how much weight to put for each of these aspects of the theory?

    Let's say that we are able to solve all these problems and we construct a questionnaire that, when factor analysed, reveals the hidden truths of socionics. How do we know that these will even be remotely close to what we currently call the functions? In that regard, how do we know that it'll be close to anything we've developed so far? If it isn't, then can we even call it socionics anymore?
    I'm not interested in creating questionnaires. I'm interested in a cognitive neuroscience approach instead. And yes there is a way to create hypotheses from Socionics ideas for such science... then who knows what the testing of them will result in.


    My point is that even using the best method of developing rigour in psychological fields need not preserve the structure of socionics in the first place. So, we'd essentially be creating a completely new psychometric theory that probably wouldn't resemble socionics in the way we have it right now. And, this is assuming that we can overcome the practical hurdles of developing such a questionnaire in the first place. It would take a huge number of carefully crafted questions and a number of willing participants and data analytics experts to get this done. Most people aren't willing to do this, as I've said before, so I'm very skeptical that we can get this done.

    In conclusion, it's possible to make socionics rigorous, but I think that the likelihood of it resembling socionics as we currently know will be small, meaning that calling it socionics wouldn't be accurate.

    If someone can poke holes in this, then I'm all ears. It would be nice to make socionics rigorous while still being able to call it socionics, so if there is another method you can think of, respond to this.
    Really just reread my post.

    EDIT: And yeah, I don't know if it could be called Socionics still, I'm not really interested in what it would be called though lol, just in the stuff that to me seems like valid ideas that hypotheses could be made from.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,546
    Mentioned
    496 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @FarDraft - one more thing. Why do you try and investigate a lot of stuff inside the framework of Socionics? What is your main reason for that?

    You were basically saying, earlier, that it's still a structure that you can use, but why? Just curious about your view on this.

    I.e. why not use another system with another structure that's out there?

    (Anyone else can also answer)

  11. #51
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Reread my post. My last sentence was NOT about preserving the model's essential structure at all. That structure as it is now is just wrong. It's wrong as it's a structure of a theory of everything. Which is what my whole post was explaining.




    Yeah I know what falsifiability means




    I wouldn't say performing factor analysis on vague variables is anything rigorous. Please note I am coming at the whole thing from a cognitive neuroscientist's perspective. A bit "harder" science than Big 5.




    I'm not interested in creating questionnaires. I'm interested in a cognitive neuroscience approach instead. And yes there is a way to create hypotheses from Socionics ideas for such science... then who knows what the testing of them will result in.




    Really just reread my post.

    EDIT: And yeah, I don't know if it could be called Socionics still, I'm not really interested in what it would be called though lol, just in the stuff that to me seems like valid ideas that hypotheses could be made from.
    I don't think I misinterpreted most of your original post. However, I will concede that I interpreted your last line differently than you had intended. I thought you wanted to make socionics falsifiable by modifying it rather than essentially "creating" a new system from socionics ideas. In your own words, "The model(s) has (have) to be changed and made falsifiable to deal with the issues that it can be targeted at in a proper way, and not anything else." I now understand that you want to do the latter, so I'm willing to listen to your cognitive neuroscience perspective. I am ignorant in that area, so if you can explain your ideas and methods in a response to this post, I'd really appreciate it.

    That being said, I don't think my original response falls in the case where we are trying to preserve its original structure. Let me know what you think of this.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  12. #52
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    @FarDraft - one more thing. Why do you try and investigate a lot of stuff inside the framework of Socionics? What is your main reason for that?
    I do this with any scientific or pseudoscientific theory. I think that there are a lot of implicit assumptions that go into creating a system for determining truth, and I want to see if I can spot those assumptions to see if they really matter. I also dislike the hive-mindedness or "absolutism" that goes on in a lot of established fields. No system is perfect and their flaws should be made known so that we don't delude ourselves into thinking something is "objectively true" or "irrefutable". That being said, I'm a pragmatist at heart, and so even if these holes are made known I don't really care about changing them since the system usually works well enough for our purposes. If it doesn't, then we just scrap it like we normally would. The only places this doesn't work are systems that rely on strict logical correctness to be useful i.e. math and philosophy.

    You were basically saying, earlier, that it's still a structure that you can use, but why? Just curious about your view on this.
    I.e. why not use another system with another structure that's out there?

    Here's my opinion. Socionics is a "theory of everything" because of our propensity to be confirmationally biased: we loosen our definitions of the functions to allow all real-world traits to be associated with some combination of the functions. However, it doesn't bother me that socionics is trying to be a universal system precisely because the labels we attach are essentially bags of traits that someone has irrespective of our categorization. We could turn socionics into a system that is so detailed to the point where every trait has its own subtype or something, but that's not useful for talking about who someone is in a simplistic manner. The high-level labels allow for that. Yes, it screws up nuance, but if we can minimize confirmation bias over time by modifying our ideas of the functions when a better one is told to us (this is what I was talking about in my responses to Singu), then we can build up that nuance since the system would only be able to categorize a finite number of things. So, it's essentially my goal to restrict what each cognitive function is so that the system can't actually categorize everything.

    The structure I'm talking about is the one that's inherently associated with having boxes around traits.

    The reason I don't use other, scientifically rigorous systems, is because they lack these boxes. Basically, if you can identify patterns between traits and then box somebody, then you can predict how they will behave in different circumstances. This is much more difficult to do when there aren't clearly established boxes.

    That being said, I'm generally against boxing things up because things are rarely ever so black and white. I merely do it out of its utility for living life.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  13. #53

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,538
    Mentioned
    258 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not religious per se, but it can be pretty cult like.

    Some of the members on here have reminded me a bit of creepy Scientology workers.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    This sentence of yours is correct.

    However.

    Your problem is staying open all the time. That's not rational. Scientific thinking is not open like this. Scientific thinking is far more rigorous than this.
    What's "scientific thinking"? It's only rigorous because it has been criticized over and over again, and that only creates more rigor.

    And being open to criticism is to be open to alternatives, because the criticisms are often something like "Why this and not that?". And in "science", no criticism is too minor or something to be ignored. It has to accept all sorts of criticisms, preferably the ones that can be tested. And of course that is what creates rigor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    "if it's not forbidden by the laws of nature, then it's not impossible" - Right now, our understanding of the laws of biology show that it's impossible. MAYBE, just maybe, we find a way to show that the laws of biology actually allow for changing some things to make this possible, but it is not rational to bet on a MAYBE unsubstantiated by any concrete evidence.
    It may or may not be possible, but the point is that any claim being made about the future is going to be baseless conjectures (other than being based on good theories), because we don't know the future and the future is going to be different from the past. Not just about the future, but practically about anything is going to be a baseless conjecture. Your thoughts about the world, in the here and now, are baseless conjectures generated by your brain.

    If all we want to do is to "prove" something, then that's going to be something based on the past, and expecting the future to be a repetition of the past. But that's not what the future actually is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    You do not live in the moment, you keep living in the future of imagining possibilities coming true, but you can only make a rational decision in the moment here and now. That is the only way you can do closure, and have actually rigorous scientific thinking.

    Also, you are living in this world of assumptions where different assumptions that are logically irreconcilable with each other as is, coexist for you in your brain. Again, this is not rational. It is not rigorous scientific thinking.
    This is also a theory of yours, which is not "based on" anything. Your assumptions about what is or what is not rigorous scientific thinking, or what it should be, or what is real and what is not real, are all theories and conjectures.


    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    No, right, Popper was not a nihilist at all. Yes we need to admit it if new CONCRETE evidence shows that a theory needs to be updated and fixed to take that into account. This is not the same as accepting all contradictory possibilities in our minds at once or getting fixated on one future possibility of the perfect theory that is nonexistent here and now.
    What if I came up with a theory that says, "A person will act in a way that is in any sort of logically possible behavior"? Then any possible CONCRETE evidence is going to fit that theory.

    Which is basically what Socionics is doing, because the Socionics descriptions are so vague and broad that it can fit into any CONCRETE evidence.

    So more "evidence" is not what is needed, but rather alternative theories are needed. And it also needs to solve some problems, because the ability to solve that problem is going to be the criteria in which the theory will be judged by.

    If all we want to do is to "prove" that there are 16 types, then you're going to find the "evidence" for that everywhere, because the entire premise is that there is or there ought to be 16 types of people. And that doesn't solve any problems, other than to say that some concrete problem can be solved by evoking that people can be categorized into 16 types. But it obviously doesn't, because there are plenty of alternative theories that doesn't use any sort of 16 types system, that can solve the problem better.

  15. #55
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Video is what OP sounds like.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

  16. #56
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,831
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes @Singu, you're correct, it's an established principle that you can't prove a theory true, you can only prove it false. And yes, that is a key part of scientific thinking.

  17. #57

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Yes @Singu, you're correct, it's an established principle that you can't prove a theory true, you can only prove it false. And yes, that is a key part of scientific thinking.
    How do you think that connects with Socionics? I don't necessarily think that this principle is limited to science, but it applies to all knowledge in general.

    But I think what's more slightly significant, is that people seem to be obsessed with finding "evidence", as if evidence would be the deciding factor in changing anything. Evidence is only as useful as what the theory is telling us to look for and the experiment that it is conducting.

    Should we look for the "evidence" that there are 16 types? But then the premise is already that there ought to be 16 types, so no amount of evidence would change anything. If we look for evidence that there are 16 types, then yes, there would be "evidence" for it everywhere (and I'm sure that there'd also be evidence for any other arbitrary numbers of types). And if we couldn't find any evidence, then we might just say that we're not trying hard enough to find it.

    So what actually is the role of evidence? It can only be the deciding factor when there are two or more rival theories attempting to solve some problem, and one correctly yields the result of what it's predicted to put out, and other does not, and hence one gets accepted and the other get rejected.

    So finding "evidence" is definitely not the main point, because you can easily make a theory that fits in with any kind of evidence, and hence the theory is proven to be correct or at least not falsified, but the theory may not be very useful in solving some problem. The criteria of a theory is always going to be based around whether it can solve the problem or not.

  18. #58
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,831
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Looking for evidence to support a hypothesis is just confirmation bias. If you want to test an idea, you look for ways to disprove it, to knock its legs out from underneath it. The better it stands up to whatever scrutiny you throw at it, the stronger the theory.
    Last edited by squark; 02-05-2019 at 01:22 PM. Reason: Removed an uneccessary sentence.

  19. #59
    Jimmers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,339
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Yes @Singu, you're correct, it's an established principle that you can't prove a theory true, you can only prove it false. And yes, that is a key part of scientific thinking.
    This is why socionics can never be a science. There is no physical connection between a specific cognitive function and brain structure. Linguistic barriers and lack of specificity make it impossible to define what a cognitive function is, what makes it unique and non-overlapping with other functions. They should exist in isolation, if they were the "atoms" of cognition. Why don't we see distinctly recognizable brain structures with corresponding patterns and predictable behaviors for each dominant function? You can never prove the theory wrong because you can always default to the person being typed wrong, science not being able to confirm it "yet", and always just self confirming personal biases of the meaning of the terms and how they apply, without any empirical data that has predictive powers.

    Socionics is more of a philosophy of Being, an ontology, than a science, which is more epistemological.

  20. #60
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,565
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Velvet View Post
    This is why socionics can never be a science. There is no physical connection between a specific cognitive function and brain structure. Linguistic barriers and lack of specificity make it impossible to define what a cognitive function is, what makes it unique and non-overlapping with other functions. They should exist in isolation, if they were the "atoms" of cognition. Why don't we see distinctly recognizable brain structures with corresponding patterns and predictable behaviors for each dominant function? You can never prove the theory wrong because you can always default to the person being typed wrong, science not being able to confirm it "yet", and always just self confirming personal biases of the meaning of the terms and how they apply, without any empirical data that has predictive powers.

    Socionics is more of a philosophy of Being, an ontology, than a science, which is more epistemological.
    I have this faint hope that one day in the future, Socionics will be proven by science and functions and types will be linked to parts of the brain or brain activity via MRIs with studies that are filled with lots of evidence. Another part of me thinks it's a futile endeavor and we will be chasing or hoping for this to happen endlessly:

    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  21. #61
    Jimmers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,339
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I have this faint hope that one day in the future, Socionics will be proven by science and functions and types will be linked to parts of the brain or brain activity via MRIs with studies that are filled with lots of evidence. Another part of me thinks it's a futile endeavor and we will be chasing or hoping for this to happen endlessly:

    Maybe someone will. It just seems .....very.....unlikely.

  22. #62
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The reason for the huge mental rift between what Sing is saying and what's reaching his audience is his willingness to do all these mental gymnastics to force us to focus on the points to care about, i.e. the already widely known fact that Socionics and Jungian psychology have no basis in reality; but an almost blind unwillingness to address his own tacit assumptions about when false information is harmful; if all religions or cults are inherently destructive to humanity and/or those who choose to participate; and that there is a moral imperative to convince people who are willingly exposing themselves to false beliefs, whether or not they acknowledge they are false, to discard them.



    He's been a chronic boorish piece of crap with his crusade because he has not only made zero attempts to open up a transparent dialogue about these beliefs, but seems to fail to give any respect to the fact of them being his own tacit beliefs at all, rather taking them as a universal assumption that everyone must share by default. Despite stretching words and his intellect to the limits of themselves and of all of our patience to get his point across, he lacks any concern for ingratiating his own values to us, because he either lacks the introspection to see they're values at all, or he's too arrogant to respect anyone who thinks differently.

    Either he's an idiot, or grotesquely dishonest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

  23. #63
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,565
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Velvet View Post
    Maybe someone will. It just seems .....very.....unlikely.
    That neuroscience thread with EEG scans ooo posted had the right idea, but being based on MBTI, a small sample size and a PHD that had nothing to do with neuroscience invalidated it.

    However, that is the direction we need to head towards if we want Socionics taken seriously. Introducing more theoretical works and dichotomies is just mental masturbation to be frank.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  24. #64
    Jimmers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,339
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    That neuroscience thread with EEG scans ooo posted had the right idea, but being based on MBTI, a small sample size and a PHD that had nothing to do with neuroscience invalidated it.

    However, that is the direction we need to head towards if we want Socionics taken seriously. Introducing more theoretical works and dichotomies is just mental masturbation to be frank.
    Those studies were horribly flawed, experimentally, and were designed with huge biases toward a fixation on 16 distinct personalities. One two dimensional slice of a three dimensional brain is not sufficient to make the conclusion. I often ask, why is it important to prove socionics scientifically true? Why not construct personalities based on the scans we have. Perhaps there are only 5 detectable types, maybe there are over 200. We ought to create a model that fits not only the data, but what also fits a broader understanding of the brain. I can find no objection to investigating the brain in such an open ended way.

    There is another problem with those studies. They are for MBTI cogntive functions, which aren't the same as socionics functions, which aren't the same as Jung's. It seems there are more cognitive function than can be confined with a 16 types model. Gulenko seems fixed on merging the two typologies into a single one, which is really just making MBTI types into Socionic types as if these are necessarily true, when it is not. I see this everywhere now, especially with youtubers. INTP MBTI is LII in socionics. It is treated as an irrefutable fact when they aren't even necessarily describing the same person. There is just as much justification that the INTP in MBTI is an LII, ILI, or ILE in socionics. It is becoming increasingly dogmatic.

  25. #65

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    The reason for the huge mental rift between what Sing is saying and what's reaching his audience is his willingness to do all these mental gymnastics to force us to focus on the points to care about, i.e. the already widely known fact that Socionics and Jungian psychology have no basis in reality; but an almost blind unwillingness to address his own tacit assumptions about when false information is harmful; if all religions or cults are inherently destructive to humanity and/or those who choose to participate; and that there is a moral imperative to convince people who are willingly exposing themselves to false beliefs, whether or not they acknowledge they are false, to discard them.

    He's been a chronic boorish piece of crap with his crusade because he has not only made zero attempts to open up a transparent dialogue about these beliefs, but seems to fail to give any respect to the fact of them being his own tacit beliefs at all, rather taking them as a universal assumption that everyone must share by default. Despite stretching words and his intellect to the limits of themselves and of all of our patience to get his point across, he lacks any concern for ingratiating his own values to us, because he either lacks the introspection to see they're values at all, or he's too arrogant to respect anyone who thinks differently.

    Either he's an idiot, or grotesquely dishonest.
    It's cute that you don't actually understand what I'm saying.

    For anyone who understands what I'm saying, you just come across as a massively clueless tool, which you are.

    You just need a kind of a shift in your thinking to get what I'm saying. I had to go through this phase as well. I wouldn't have understood the things that I'm saying before, and therefore might have had the same reaction as you're having right now. It's simply a reaction to the things that you don't understand.

    Anyway, I think that you're just a bundle of bad beliefs and bad thinking. You read some Malthusianism and you go on a hand-waving crusade about how the world is going to end due to overpopulation or food shortage or something like that. Talk about hypocrisy.

  26. #66

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I have this faint hope that one day in the future, Socionics will be proven by science and functions and types will be linked to parts of the brain or brain activity via MRIs with studies that are filled with lots of evidence. Another part of me thinks it's a futile endeavor and we will be chasing or hoping for this to happen endlessly:
    Well see the thing is, there already is correlation between functions and brain activity. Or there must be, because these observable behaviors and traits are true, and the best known theory would tell us that all of our cognition and behaviors are rooted in our brain.

    So things like Socionics tell us that there are these "entities" like functions that are supposedly capable of generating multitudes of behaviors. But what good is it saying that this "thing" is capable of generating a whole bunch of behaviors, and any of them are likely to be caused by this "thing"? You might as well say that the brain is capable of generating a multitude of behaviors, which is true, but that's not a very useful or enlightening information.

    One of the purposes of a theory is to predict what will happen if the theory were true. That would be about the only way to experimentally test a theory. And in order to do that, something must stay consistent over time and space. What good is testing "Fi", if a Fi person acts differently in different circumstances and situations, and say that they're all caused by Fi anyway? Or if this Fi person acts in a way that was not predicted by the theory? It says that Fi stays consistent, but it's also capable of generating a lot of behaviors, even the behaviors that are unknown to us. So we might as well say that any logically possible behavior or evidence would fit in with this "Fi".

    I think what's actually happening is that the brain is capable of creating any kind of logically possible behavior. A person may very well act in any kind of logically possible behavior, that's his/her prerogative It's not totally random or nonsensical, there is logic behind it, but finding the "logic" behind it is the key to finding the "laws of psychology", which we haven't discovered yet so we have no idea what they look like.

    And anyway, I think trying to find correlation between observable traits and behaviors and brain activity would be to wholly miss the point, and it's just reductionism. People think that's "science", but it's actually just ignoring the entire field of psychology.

  27. #67
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    What do you dislike about Popper's book?
    He is a linguist, not a scientist. Popper's work actually reminds me of e-prime. Some people don't realize that you can't judge things outside of their field, or that there are different fields to begin with. They don't operate by the same laws. It just doesn't work. You can't rate a cake by a mechanics standards. It's silly. A linguist writing a book on why Induction is useless to science is irrelevant. In context of his field and what he is knows, it may make sense. But as far as science is concerned, this guy is nothing but a troll, whether he knows it or not, and his book is worthless. I'm saying this after reading his book and finding nothing useful. I can't say I expected anything though. I only gave it a chance because I gave up on Singu making sense.

  28. #68
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It's cute that you don't actually understand what I'm saying.

    For anyone who understands what I'm saying, you just come across as a massively clueless tool, which you are.

    You just need a kind of a shift in your thinking to get what I'm saying. I had to go through this phase as well. I wouldn't have understood the things that I'm saying before, and therefore might have had the same reaction as you're having right now. It's simply a reaction to the things that you don't understand.

    Anyway, I think that you're just a bundle of bad beliefs and bad thinking. You read some Malthusianism and you go on a hand-waving crusade about how the world is going to end due to overpopulation or food shortage or something like that. Talk about hypocrisy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

  29. #69
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,283
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The pedantry continues.

  30. #70
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,565
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Velvet View Post
    Those studies were horribly flawed, experimentally, and were designed with huge biases toward a fixation on 16 distinct personalities. One two dimensional slice of a three dimensional brain is not sufficient to make the conclusion. I often ask, why is it important to prove socionics scientifically true? Why not construct personalities based on the scans we have. Perhaps there are only 5 detectable types, maybe there are over 200. We ought to create a model that fits not only the data, but what also fits a broader understanding of the brain. I can find no objection to investigating the brain in such an open ended way.
    You bring up a good point. In the end of the day, the goal is mapping out personalities that can be scientifically proven. So it can be done via Socionics, Jungism, another typology like the enneagram or a new one, there is more than one way to skin a cat. We know there are observable personalities in all human beings that is consistent across all ethnicities and cultural backgrounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Velvet View Post
    There is another problem with those studies. They are for MBTI cogntive functions, which aren't the same as socionics functions, which aren't the same as Jung's. It seems there are more cognitive function than can be confined with a 16 types model. Gulenko seems fixed on merging the two typologies into a single one, which is really just making MBTI types into Socionic types as if these are necessarily true, when it is not. I see this everywhere now, especially with youtubers. INTP MBTI is LII in socionics. It is treated as an irrefutable fact when they aren't even necessarily describing the same person. There is just as much justification that the INTP in MBTI is an LII, ILI, or ILE in socionics. It is becoming increasingly dogmatic.
    Yeah, I really despise MBTI because it warps Jung's original 8 functions. Basically, introverted perceivers have an introverted judgement function as their base and vice versa. That is an error that is illogical as it gets and yet people still take MBTI seriously despite this egregious error. I am not saying Socionics is the greatest thing ever, but at the very least, it stays logically consistent with Jung's work and keep introverted perceivers with an introverted perceiving function as their base and etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well see the thing is, there already is correlation between functions and brain activity. Or there must be, because these observable behaviors and traits are true, and the best known theory would tell us that all of our cognition and behaviors are rooted in our brain.

    So things like Socionics tell us that there are these "entities" like functions that are supposedly capable of generating multitudes of behaviors. But what good is it saying that this "thing" is capable of generating a whole bunch of behaviors, and any of them are likely to be caused by this "thing"? You might as well say that the brain is capable of generating a multitude of behaviors, which is true, but that's not a very useful or enlightening information.

    One of the purposes of a theory is to predict what will happen if the theory were true. That would be about the only way to experimentally test a theory. And in order to do that, something must stay consistent over time and space. What good is testing "Fi", if a Fi person acts differently in different circumstances and situations, and say that they're all caused by Fi anyway? Or if this Fi person acts in a way that was not predicted by the theory? It says that Fi stays consistent, but it's also capable of generating a lot of behaviors, even the behaviors that are unknown to us. So we might as well say that any logically possible behavior or evidence would fit in with this "Fi".

    I think what's actually happening is that the brain is capable of creating any kind of logically possible behavior. A person may very well act in any kind of logically possible behavior, that's his/her prerogative It's not totally random or nonsensical, there is logic behind it, but finding the "logic" behind it is the key to finding the "laws of psychology", which we haven't discovered yet so we have no idea what they look like.

    And anyway, I think trying to find correlation between observable traits and behaviors and brain activity would be to wholly miss the point, and it's just reductionism. People think that's "science", but it's actually just ignoring the entire field of psychology.
    The point of functions is to represent consistent observable personalities within the human population. They are merely symbolic, they don't represent how the personalities are in their entirety, but merely an aspect of them. If we remove Socionics from the equation and pretend it doesn't exist, it's still clear that people can share similar traits with others and have different traits from other people.

    The best way to describe Socionics is that it's a map that is only measuring a certain aspect of our personalities and leaving out a good chunk of it, which is fine because you can't expect any theory to explain everything about someone, that's unrealistic. So my question to you is if you reject Socionics, what else do you reject? Do you reject MBTI, enneagram and instinctual stackings too?

    How about the big 5? How about the DSM? So do personality disorders exist for you or not? Where do you draw the line for acceptable psychological theories and unacceptable? I also don't see what is so bad about trying to find observable traits and behaviors with brain activity. We need real hard evidence to back up a psychological theory when it's concerning personality theories or we're just leaning on speculation, which is nice and all, but can disproved without solid evidence.
    Last edited by Raver; 02-05-2019 at 11:58 PM.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  31. #71
    Jimmers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,339
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well see the thing is, there already is correlation between functions and brain activity. Or there must be, because these observable behaviors and traits are true, and the best known theory would tell us that all of our cognition and behaviors are rooted in our brain.

    So things like Socionics tell us that there are these "entities" like functions that are supposedly capable of generating multitudes of behaviors. But what good is it saying that this "thing" is capable of generating a whole bunch of behaviors, and any of them are likely to be caused by this "thing"? You might as well say that the brain is capable of generating a multitude of behaviors, which is true, but that's not a very useful or enlightening information.

    One of the purposes of a theory is to predict what will happen if the theory were true. That would be about the only way to experimentally test a theory. And in order to do that, something must stay consistent over time and space. What good is testing "Fi", if a Fi person acts differently in different circumstances and situations, and say that they're all caused by Fi anyway? Or if this Fi person acts in a way that was not predicted by the theory? It says that Fi stays consistent, but it's also capable of generating a lot of behaviors, even the behaviors that are unknown to us. So we might as well say that any logically possible behavior or evidence would fit in with this "Fi".

    I think what's actually happening is that the brain is capable of creating any kind of logically possible behavior. A person may very well act in any kind of logically possible behavior, that's his/her prerogative It's not totally random or nonsensical, there is logic behind it, but finding the "logic" behind it is the key to finding the "laws of psychology", which we haven't discovered yet so we have no idea what they look like.

    And anyway, I think trying to find correlation between observable traits and behaviors and brain activity would be to wholly miss the point, and it's just reductionism. People think that's "science", but it's actually just ignoring the entire field of psychology.
    I think a big issue for typology, especially online, is people are so concerned with what everyone else's "true type" is to such an extent that they miss the point of what it is intended to do, which is understand and study thought itself. While biologically it is reducible to neural activity, the emergent properties of consciousness isn't measurable in a useful way. This is because everyone stores thought differently in their brain. It is unique to the individual, unique to their life experiences. Sure the basic structure of the brain between most people is more similar than different than not; it's not like we have 16 different types of human brains. We find the MRI useful because we have looked at enough brains and correlated with brain function to know that most are the same. This is what makes it useful diagnostically. So far, medical doctors and neurologists, haven't looked at a brain and said, wholly shit, an ENTJ brain! This is because an ENTJ brain is the same as an ISFP and the same as an INTP, anatomically, and functionally. What we are referring to, or should be, when we describe a person's type, is not a unique brain structure, like one of sixteen, so much as a combination of genetics and life experience to create certain types of thinking patterns. Since people who are thinking about different things can be using the same regions of the brain as well as people thinking the same thing may be using different regions of the brain, we can safely conclude that brainscans aren't likely to solve the mysteries of cognition, although they can be useful tools.

    It is far more interesting to know how countless neurons create cognition imo, but surely different people have different cognition styles, but you won't find that in brain scans or by the squint, or lack thereof, in their eyes, but through studying the person, conversing with them, reading what they write, seeing how they interact with others. You may be able to predict what an individual may do in the future by understanding that particular person, but it is impossible to predict what another individual with a similar cognitive style will do, how they will behave. Sharing a cognition style(not referring to Gulenko's cognitive styles), doesn't tell you anything useful beyond the understanding that different people with different life experiences and family backgrounds think similarly.

    Of course, I think some people want socionics to be true and scientifically provable so they finally receive monetary compensation for a life chasing the gold at the end of a rainbow.

  32. #72

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    How about the big 5? How about the DSM? So do personality disorders exist for you or not? Where do you draw the line for acceptable psychological theories and unacceptable?
    DSM is a study of repetitive behavioral and cognitive patterns, that are seen to be maladaptive in some ways (though what is considered "maladaptive" is a subjective view of the psychologists). They don't know what's causing the pattern, other than that it might be a combination of many complex factors.

    Socionics says that a whole bunch of behaviors and cognition that might be loosely connected in some ways are caused by a single idea, such as "Fi". Actually Jung never said that there were caused by anything, he just observed a bunch of people and labeled them under various names such as "Introverted Feeling". I think that's where the whole confusion comes from, when people think that people's behaviors and cognition are caused by these functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I also don't see what is so bad about trying to find observable traits and behaviors with brain activity. We need real hard evidence to back up a psychological theory when it's concerning personality theories or we're just leaning on speculation, which is nice and all, but can disproved without solid evidence.
    Wouldn't any behavior be correlated with some kind of brain activity? Would we expect to see the brain activity of "Fi behavior" to be mostly concentrated in certain areas of the brain? Or if they're dispersed, then would that tell us anything about "Fi"? Would "Fi" types have larger brain activity than other types? Again, would that actually tell us anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    The point of functions is to represent consistent observable personalities within the human population. They are merely symbolic, they don't represent how the personalities are in their entirety, but merely an aspect of them. If we remove Socionics from the equation and pretend it doesn't exist, it's still clear that people can share similar traits with others and have different traits from other people.
    The problem is, do they stay consistent, or do they not? There are situations in which almost everyone will act in the same way, if we of course make them act that way. You might say that's silly, but it becomes one of the way for something to be consistent and therefore be able to predict people's behavior.

    One example is the theory of self-efficacy. This theory says that if we change people's beliefs, as in instill in them the belief of self-efficacy, then you can predict their behavior across many domains. So it's the belief that stays consistent, and therefore the behavior will too. You might say that's either obvious or silly, but hey, at least it's a start.

  33. #73
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,565
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    DSM is a study of repetitive behavioral and cognitive patterns, that are seen to be maladaptive in some ways (though what is considered "maladaptive" is a subjective view of the psychologists). They don't know what's causing the pattern, other than that it might be a combination of many complex factors.

    Socionics says that a whole bunch of behaviors and cognition that might be loosely connected in some ways are caused by a single idea, such as "Fi". Actually Jung never said that there were caused by anything, he just observed a bunch of people and labeled them under various names such as "Introverted Feeling". I think that's where the whole confusion comes from, when people think that people's behaviors and cognition are caused by these functions.
    Jung used eight symbolic representations to explain how people's primary mode of thinking was. Do these eight functions exist in reality as exactly how they are described? Of course not, but it's clear people have strengths and weaknesses based on how they view and perceive the world. Jung's eight functions don't do the best job of describing why people seem to be better or worse at different kinds of behavior and why there is people that tend to be more similar or different from each other, but at the moment there isn't anything else that does a better job of it except maybe enneagram. Also, Socionics is really the only psychological theory that explains why certain people get along better with others. Maybe people get along or dislike each other for reasons that have nothing to do with Socionics and I do think that is true to an extent, but I do think you can find reasons on why they get along based on their personality traits and nothing else other than Socionics does this. Also, you believe in psychological disorders existing, you don't believe in Jungism or MBTI, but what are your thoughts on the Enneagram, instinctual stackings and the Big 5?

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Wouldn't any behavior be correlated with some kind of brain activity? Would we expect to see the brain activity of "Fi behavior" to be mostly concentrated in certain areas of the brain? Or if they're dispersed, then would that tell us anything about "Fi"? Would "Fi" types have larger brain activity than other types? Again, would that actually tell us anything?
    If there is a consistency with brain activity in specific regions of the brain with specific personality types then it proves that these "Fi" types have something in common and that should be studied further. It doesn't literally prove that "Fi" exists as that's just a concept, the goal here is looking for consistency within these brain scans. The reason being if you scan a ton of people's brain with "Fi" as their dominant function and find no recognizable patterns and the same goes for other types then perhaps you may have a point that Socionics is make believe, but if you do find consistency then it proves that there is something about Socionics or simply the idea of people having consistent personality types regardless of the number of types that should be studied further scientifically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The problem is, do they stay consistent, or do they not? There are situations in which almost everyone will act in the same way, if we of course make them act that way. You might say that's silly, but it becomes one of the way for something to be consistent and therefore be able to predict people's behavior.

    One example is the theory of self-efficacy. This theory says that if we change people's beliefs, as in instill in them the belief of self-efficacy, then you can predict their behavior across many domains. So it's the belief that stays consistent, and therefore the behavior will too. You might say that's either obvious or silly, but hey, at least it's a start.
    Yes, but that's the exception rather than the rule so that's irrelevant. What matters is finding out if people are consistent in their behavior generally speaking and how they approach life. So a "Te" type will have a certain mindset or outlook on life that will drive his overall behavior that will be different than a "Fe" type and so on. You can argue that the "Te" type really isn't "Te", but something else entirely and perhaps you may be right on that, but the key point here is that Socionics is attempting to discern if humans have recognizable personalities that are consistent in behavior with other people that share the same personality and if these people get along better or worse with specific personalities. That's what really matters in the end, functions and personality types are just cognitive models that attempt to explain it, but these models can be different and more varied than Socionics and that is fine because what matters is if we can find these patterns within human behavior via how the brain functions and if we can prove that it exists in a consistent fashion.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  34. #74
    BabelFish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chile
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nah.
    Some people do love to be fundamentalist about typology systems, though, giving them "religious-like" characteristics; but I think various things, specially things that deal with how human beings act (or rather, should act) in society can be this way. Look at politics, for example. Myriads of movements share a deep sociological connection with religious institutions, but they are not the same, although you could easily argue the opposite. Some clear concepts and rituals distinguish them. there's no "divine" in socionics. there's no "spirituality" in socionics beyond, maaaybe "type compatibility" and the notion that, for pertaining to a certain type, you share inherent characteristics compatible with others, but this only if you choose to look at it this way.
    just my two cents.

  35. #75
    BabelFish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chile
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    A linguist writing a book on why Induction is useless to science is irrelevant. In the context of his field and what he knows, it may make sense. But as far as science is concerned, this guy is nothing but a troll, whether he knows it or not, and his book is worthless.
    Mind you, Popper is not a linguist, but a philosopher. Specifically focused on the philosophy of science. The distinction should be pretty obvious. Using descriptive linguistic methods to further an argument shouldn't be a surprise since it's what most modern philosophers do.
    Not that I'm defending whatever Popper is arguing for in his book. But the distinction needs to be made.
    Also, philosophy is way more relevant to science than what it might seem at a superficial level.

  36. #76

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol @ Popper being a linguist... The amount of ignorance Cool and Manly spouting is astounding, it really went beyond my expectations. His idiocy is on the level of Grendel's. I doubt that he actually read any of his books in just a few days, let alone understood it which again only adds to his idiocy.

  37. #77

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Also, Socionics is really the only psychological theory that explains why certain people get along better with others. Maybe people get along or dislike each other for reasons that have nothing to do with Socionics and I do think that is true to an extent, but I do think you can find reasons on why they get along based on their personality traits and nothing else other than Socionics does this.
    Well actually you can't explain it, because there's no explanation for why should Fi and Te get along and Fi and Ti conflict, other than that perhaps it has been observed before that they do. So these explanationless theories are a dime a dozen, like in astrology where say, Virgos and Scorpios get along, but there's no mechanistic explanation for why should the date of birth have anything to do with whether people get along or not, so they can be summarily rejected. Or at least, there's not going to be a functional reason for preferring one over the other. Why should we accept Socionics over astrology and vice versa? The reason why we prefer any good scientific theory over anything else is because they have better explanations. The fact that they're explanationless is why people tend to mix them up and see no conflict between them, even though they're both saying totally different things about the same phenomena.

    The fact is that one can easily come up with an explanation for why people get along or not that has nothing to do with Socionics. And how many discussions end with "NTR" or "non-Socionics related factors"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Also, you believe in psychological disorders existing, you don't believe in Jungism or MBTI, but what are your thoughts on the Enneagram, instinctual stackings and the Big 5?
    I don't doubt the existence of observable behaviors and traits, but I don't necessarily think that they have to do with functions and types.

    One of the problems with Socionics is that the theory is going to fit in with any kind of possible evidence. If they get along, then it must prove that Socionics is correct. If they don't, then it's due to some NTR factor. That might be useful in never being proven wrong, but it's not such useful information because it's not actually telling us anything.

    Functions cause a whole bunch of behavior, and whatever behavior that we observe, it must be caused by a certain function. This again fits in with any kind of possible evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Yes, but that's the exception rather than the rule so that's irrelevant. What matters is finding out if people are consistent in their behavior generally speaking and how they approach life.
    Well if they act differently depending on different situations, then that only proves that their behavior isn't consistent. Neither can you predict how they're going to act in different situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    So a "Te" type will have a certain mindset or outlook on life that will drive his overall behavior that will be different than a "Fe" type and so on.
    I think "certain mindset or outlook on life" obviously changes over time. I'm sure you have changed your outlook throughout your life. If a person's outlook has been influenced by a certain culture or environment that he's in, then that has nothing to do with "who he really was".

    So indeed people's certain mindset or outlook affect their behavior, but why should we care whether that's Te or Fe or whatever? Why can't we simply study that instead of referring to Te or Fe? I don't think that there's a such thing as "Te beliefs" or "Fe beliefs", as anyone is capable of having any kind of beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    You can argue that the "Te" type really isn't "Te", but something else entirely and perhaps you may be right on that, but the key point here is that Socionics is attempting to discern if humans have recognizable personalities that are consistent in behavior with other people that share the same personality and if these people get along better or worse with specific personalities. That's what really matters in the end, functions and personality types are just cognitive models that attempt to explain it, but these models can be different and more varied than Socionics and that is fine because what matters is if we can find these patterns within human behavior via how the brain functions and if we can prove that it exists in a consistent fashion.
    How many people are actually so alike that they act almost in the exact same way? They might be similar in some ways, but they're also going to be different in some other ways. And we're likely to only remember when they're similar, because we're looking for similarities.

    I'm thinking that if we were to group people by their shared traits and behaviors, then there must be millions of different personality types. And even then, they're quite fluid and malleable and they change over time. So I think trying to classify people by their personality is going to be a nightmare.

  38. #78
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    968
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BabelFish View Post
    Mind you, Popper is not a linguist, but a philosopher. Specifically focused on the philosophy of science. The distinction should be pretty obvious. Using descriptive linguistic methods to further an argument shouldn't be a surprise since it's what most modern philosophers do.
    Not that I'm defending whatever Popper is arguing for in his book. But the distinction needs to be made.
    Also, philosophy is way more relevant to science than what it might seem at a superficial level.
    Mind you, being a philosopher by itself doesn't prevent you from being a linguist. It's not even a slight against him. It's always amusing to me how certain people get hung up on words. Oh but of course he is a philosopher. Thus, his arguments are protected under the philosopher's protection act? Lol? That is not a good argument. You should know this if you have actually read Popper's book. Get in line, buddy. Your post is just attention seeking, nothing more, nothing less.

    I love it when people who advocate certain philosophies fail to practice them. I'm a god of philosophy. I just know the difference between philosophy and science is huge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    lol @ Popper being a linguist... The amount of ignorance Cool and Manly spouting is astounding, it really went beyond my expectations. His idiocy is on the level of Grendel's. I doubt that he actually read any of his books in just a few days, let alone understood it which again only adds to his idiocy.
    Don't compare me to mere noobs like you. I'm an accomplished person. I don't need to swim in shit to recognize it. May I remind you that you are still here whining about socionics, while trying to spread the word of your lord and savior Popper? This seems like a central theme of yours. You fall in love with ideas. Until you realize how misguided you are and have a change of heart. I don't expect anything from you. You are as dumb as a rock.

  39. #79

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,160
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well actually I'm not sure why you said Popper was a linguist, perhaps you are confusing him with Noam Chomsky, who actually is a linguist.

  40. #80
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,139
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lmao look at this guy recoiling and sputtering back into rage when we call him out on his bullshit.

    No one wants to hear it. You want an audience, you're burdened to keep your audience. You're nothing more than an annoyance if you're going to wave your fat preschool teacher finger at us for rejecting your arrogant theories of the world instead of actually convincing us in a way we'll welcome. You are the single most unhelpful person on the site right now.
    Last edited by Grendel; 02-06-2019 at 10:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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