Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 132

Thread: Socionics isn’t real

  1. #41
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    Yeah so her “your business stops where the other person’s nose begins “ means nothing to me.
    So you'd be OK with someone getting up close and personal with you? Have you been in many fistfights?

    Just because you disagree with a person doesn't mean that you can't learn from them.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finaplex View Post
    Science can only know what it tests and what it can infer/ deduce.

    Not everything can be tested, but lots can be known without science. You reveal your indoctrinations when you state things that can’t be tested and can’t be measured can’t be known.

    If it was so wrong then dash it upon the rocks and run away as fast as you can now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Finaplex View Post
    See I think it would be a ton more interesting for everyone to instead of arguing socionics is not real, which has been explored at great length, to instead wonder :

    that socionics is very, very real. That the Russian psycologist from the 1970s got it accurate, and the reason its not popular here in the west is that it has implications far to disturbing for the current paradigms in society. To be known so intimately by such a oblique system of thought that has its roots in the transpersonal and intuitive frame work of Jung, along with a suggestion that core types of people exist in a pattern and that those patterns make up a community, is an affront to the specialness and uniqueness world view people currently live within.

    The trouble, if any, lies in identification and attatchement, as it always has, which is why the sages said this, in so many ways, again and again over the centuries..

    The more I let go from needing, wanting, or catagorizing my type, the easier it became to play the socionics game without the inevitable hangups that come with attatchement.
    Socionics is just a system of categorization, it's nothing new. You have that in mainstream psychology like the DSM.

    But what even mainstream psychology tend to ignore is finding the abstract laws and rules that must govern our mind and our psychology, and what must make them possible to come into existence. Perhaps our psychology will be revealed as if like a programming source code in a computer software. Nobody would deny that the codes in a computer program are real or something, even though they're completely based on abstract laws of logic and abstract laws of mathematics... which make something physically happen in the real world.

    So Socionics doesn't have anything beyond categorizations of observations. It's actually not that interesting and it's not at all revolutionary.

  3. #43
    Chakram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    339
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everybody settle down. Can't you see that OP is just trying to turn us against each other?

    I only see one solution here: Burn the non-conformer, blood for the Blood God.

  4. #44
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    Just being an EII

    INFj [+] and [-]

    If your type is Ethical-Intuitive Intratim - INFj(The Empath):

    Your strongest virtue is a very good understanding of other people's real feelings and relationships. You aspire to attain warm and friendly relations with others. You cannot stand rudeness and violence. You are delicate, kind and full of attention to others. You try to show your compassion for others with actions as well as with words. Your understanding of people and life experiences always help you to find your place in society. You are prepared to spend time, energy and effort helping people with real needs. Your aim is to create peaceful, harmonious, conflict free surroundings, in which others feel comfortable expressing their talents. You are an effective counsellor and peacemaker. You forgive others for negative behaviour, instead appealing to people's conscience where ethical situations are concerned.

    You over-analyse everything that concerns you or your surroundings. The results of this are often not so satisfying, leaving you feeling depressed and pessimistic, especially if this envelops unethical behaviour in others. Your sense of compassion is often stronger than your sense of justice. You often lack resolution, initiative and the ability to firmly make your point. You are afraid to appear interfering and your modesty could be over the top. You often hesitate to react to provocation, preferring to bottle your feelings inside. You are often squeamish and punctilious. You pay too much attention to details and quality in your work.

    aha... really? 'cause by the bold sentences you're nothing like that.. at least on here.

  5. #45
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,404
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    Yeah so her “your business stops where the other person’s nose begins “ means nothing to me.
    Yea thats why u got 7 warnings and i got 2

  6. #46
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I got 0, suck my D

  7. #47
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    So you'd be OK with someone getting up close and personal with you? Have you been in many fistfights?

    Just because you disagree with a person doesn't mean that you can't learn from them.
    You have a lot of self restraint letting someone burn your mom like that. I commend you on taking the high road.


    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,024
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is no more or less 'real' than anything else.

  9. #49
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    You have a lot of self restraint letting someone burn your mom like that. I commend you on taking the high road.

    Beautiful sky was factually correct in (what I assume to be) her assessment of my mother. My mother was smart and we related on a Te-level, but she had some personal problems unrelated to type, although it is hard for me to viscerally separate that out, since it was embedded before I had the tools to understand what was happening.
    I didn't have to exercise any restrain whatsoever, since I didn't feel offended in the slightest by her assessment.

    I'm more concerned with maintaining civil discourse with freedom of expression that stops only at the other person's nose.

    The thing I said about modes of criticism is important, because it has consequences for individuals and for society. If you discriminate by behavior, then that behavior can be changed, but if you discriminate by race, color, or assigned traits that can't be changed, then you create a person who will never fit into the system because they can't affect your trait assignments, and if they can't fit in, then they have no reason to be involved in that system or maintain it.

    Societies which discriminate based on assigned traits rather than changeable behavior are going to exclude a lot of talented individuals, and are going to lose the race of history. Even aside from being crappy and dangerous places to live, since where does the assignment of bad traits stop? "First they came for the socialists..."

  10. #50
    Tearsofaclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    New York
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone with knowledge of the history and philosophy of psychology knows that most of Socionics has been refuted by real professionals. It does not fit in with what we know about brain. I mean, do you really think guys like Piaget and Skinner didn't study things like this. Lol. They just somehow missed it. The entire subject can easily be waved away with William James's psychology fallacy. As James said, when there are two men in a room there are really six. Each man as he sees himself, each man as seen by other and each man as he really is. Socionics claims all 6 points of reference.
    "And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

  11. #51
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Beautiful sky was factually correct in (what I assume to be) her assessment of my mother. My mother was smart and we related on a Te-level, but she had some personal problems unrelated to type, although it is hard for me to viscerally separate that out, since it was embedded before I had the tools to understand what was happening.
    I didn't have to exercise any restrain whatsoever, since I didn't feel offended in the slightest by her assessment.

    I'm more concerned with maintaining civil discourse with freedom of expression that stops only at the other person's nose.

    The thing I said about modes of criticism is important, because it has consequences for individuals and for society. If you discriminate by behavior, then that behavior can be changed, but if you discriminate by race, color, or assigned traits that can't be changed, then you create a person who will never fit into the system because they can't affect your trait assignments, and if they can't fit in, then they have no reason to be involved in that system or maintain it.

    Societies which discriminate based on assigned traits rather than changeable behavior are going to exclude a lot of talented individuals, and are going to lose the race of history. Even aside from being crappy and dangerous places to live, since where does the assignment of bad traits stop? "First they came for the socialists..."
    It wasn't an assessment, it was a reaction. She was rebuking you but I guess you missed that.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  12. #52
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My usual stance is: nothing is real.

    Unless:


    you take this quantum mechanistic approach.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  13. #53
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImOutThere View Post
    This isn’t empirical, there’s no evidence for it. If there is then you should be recording it because industries would be glad to finally used a verifiable repeatable personality typing system and you would become a famous psychologist.There is no uniformity to this system everyone has a different interpretation.

    Visual typing is pseudoscience and based on purely anecdotal evidence ie my cousin looks a lot like you, you cross your arms like my mom etc. If you think that people have traits they are born with that influence personality then why not just take a picture of them and measure the length of their nose or the angle of their eyes and you’d learn everything about them? If you think personality affects personal ticks and eye movement and all that then how much is that really saying? What if type someone who acts nothing like the visual type they have been given? Should they just shrug their shoulders and try to be more the type they look like? What are you measuring if they don’t act the part but they look the part?

    The typical argument defense is to say it doesn’t have to be empirical it’s about thought processes blah blah blah. If it can’t be verified then it’s just conjecture, and speculating on nonsense like what your “path of least resistance” is is mental masterbation. What is it? What does it look like? If it can’t be clearly identified then how much does it matter? how clear is this system where no direct answer can be given? Why do you have so much invested in a system where even it’s most basic premisses evade any valid scientific analysis?

    Again if you claim all this is very clear and easy to identify then where’s your data? Submit it and become famous for your ground breaking research. But you have none because it’s not.

    Stop being taken in by this chicanery, busy yourself with something productive I’m sure you’re all smart capable people. Make the world better.
    Something is real if it can be consistently experienced by following certain steps. What is this real of which you speak?

    Just because something doesn't meet your criteria for scientific truth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

  14. #54
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImOutThere View Post
    This isn’t empirical, there’s no evidence for it. If there is then you should be recording it because industries would be glad to finally used a verifiable repeatable personality typing system and you would become a famous psychologist.There is no uniformity to this system everyone has a different interpretation.

    Visual typing is pseudoscience and based on purely anecdotal evidence ie my cousin looks a lot like you, you cross your arms like my mom etc. If you think that people have traits they are born with that influence personality then why not just take a picture of them and measure the length of their nose or the angle of their eyes and you’d learn everything about them? If you think personality affects personal ticks and eye movement and all that then how much is that really saying? What if type someone who acts nothing like the visual type they have been given? Should they just shrug their shoulders and try to be more the type they look like? What are you measuring if they don’t act the part but they look the part?

    The typical argument defense is to say it doesn’t have to be empirical it’s about thought processes blah blah blah. If it can’t be verified then it’s just conjecture, and speculating on nonsense like what your “path of least resistance” is is mental masterbation. What is it? What does it look like? If it can’t be clearly identified then how much does it matter? how clear is this system where no direct answer can be given? Why do you have so much invested in a system where even it’s most basic premisses evade any valid scientific analysis?

    Again if you claim all this is very clear and easy to identify then where’s your data? Submit it and become famous for your ground breaking research. But you have none because it’s not.

    Stop being taken in by this chicanery, busy yourself with something productive I’m sure you’re all smart capable people. Make the world better.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  15. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    871
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    My usual stance is: nothing is real.

    Unless:


    you take this quantum mechanistic approach.
    Its quadratics Bitch.

  16. #56
    mindless Aeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    nowhere important
    TIM
    heartless
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Coming to this thread, my thoughts keep going to unicorns.
    Unicorns are real in the sense people think of them, give them shape as dust gathering decorations no one needs. That's why I keep coming on this forum, I wonder what shape people's unicorn take.

  17. #57
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can people not make basic observations like
    He's emotional and She's super calm
    He's diligently works at his goals for a long time; she can't keep a job and gets into new ventures all the time
    He has to go out and get attention; She would rather not have attention
    He is well dressed; she is unkempt
    She seeks status; He doesn't care for status
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    871
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Socionics is just a system of categorization, it's nothing new. You have that in mainstream psychology like the DSM.

    But what even mainstream psychology tend to ignore is finding the abstract laws and rules that must govern our mind and our psychology, and what must make them possible to come into existence. Perhaps our psychology will be revealed as if like a programming source code in a computer software. Nobody would deny that the codes in a computer program are real or something, even though they're completely based on abstract laws of logic and abstract laws of mathematics... which make something physically happen in the real world.

    So Socionics doesn't have anything beyond categorizations of observations. It's actually not that interesting and it's not at all revolutionary.
    At this point for me socionics is just one more point of synthesis. So many systems out there...I've been casually reading up on alchemy and Gnosticism these days.

    Socionics is real though, real enough.

    I'm the kind of guy that accepts the abstract as the same thing as non-abstract, they just lie on a spectrum, from real to not real. Much like the electro magnetic spectrum has visible light energy and non visible light energy. I've come full circle again coming out of this winter season, in the sense that I think its okay to point back to materialism and that all things eventually come back to the material, and then travel back outwards into the abstract. It makes no sense if you are a reductionist thinker, though. The clockwork unfolding of the Universe conceptualizations is a trick of our own failings as a species. Reductionism will evolve eventually as it has come up against places it cannot go. Neo-reductionism.

  19. #59

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    871
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    How can people not make basic observations like
    He's emotional and She's super calm
    He's diligently works at his goals for a long time; she can't keep a job and gets into new ventures all the time
    He has to go out and get attention; She would rather not have attention
    He is well dressed; she is unkempt
    She seeks status; He doesn't care for status
    Its a bit of denial showing, yup. People have always been in denial about socionics and its because being categorized is trouble-some for the ego complex. I am this.... causes stress and confusion.

  20. #60

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    871
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    INTj/ISTj af

  21. #61
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonderland View Post
    Coming to this thread, my thoughts keep going to unicorns.
    Unicorns are real in the sense people think of them, give them shape as dust gathering decorations no one needs. That's why I keep coming on this forum, I wonder what shape people's unicorn take.


    *Actual photo of my unicorn and me.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  22. #62
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,404
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    aha... really? 'cause by the bold sentences you're nothing like that.. at least on here.
    I know right lmao. Dense as hell

  23. #63
    mindless Aeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    nowhere important
    TIM
    heartless
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post


    *Actual photo of my unicorn and me.
    Are you mocking me or just trying to be funny?

  24. #64
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonderland View Post
    Are you mocking me or just trying to be funny?
    I wasn't mocking you.

    I wasn't trying to be funny either. (actual pic comment was for fun though)

    The quote in the image came to mind when I read your post so I searched the pale horse quote + unicorn and that was the result.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  25. #65
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” Dumbledore


  26. #66
    mindless Aeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    nowhere important
    TIM
    heartless
    Posts
    481
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    I wasn't mocking you.

    I wasn't trying to be funny either. (actual pic comment was for fun though)

    The quote in the image came to mind when I read your post so I searched the pale horse quote + unicorn and that was the result.
    Okay, I'm not always sure what to make of such things, so that helps when people explains. Thanks.

  27. #67

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    How can people not make basic observations like
    He's emotional and She's super calm
    He's diligently works at his goals for a long time; she can't keep a job and gets into new ventures all the time
    He has to go out and get attention; She would rather not have attention
    He is well dressed; she is unkempt
    She seeks status; He doesn't care for status
    How can people not make basic observations like

    He's both emotional and super calm at the same time, just at different times.

    It's wrong to assume that just because you observed something at a certain point, it must be true at all times.

    A person can be both super emotional and super calm, depending on circumstances. Those are mere possibilities.

    The fact is that the people's ability to adapt to different environments, and the fact that people have the ability to self-learn and change themselves is what makes psychology hell of a lot more complicated than merely making some simplistic categorizations of observations.

    Imagine that there was a computer program that could change and rewrite itself, and it keeps adapting to changing environments. How the heck would you categorize that as?

    If there was such a program, then you'd think, "This program is out of control! I can't control it!". Well that's exactly what a human being is, you can't control it because it wants to keep changing itself and it wants to be free. It wants to seek new and unknown things.

  28. #68
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    SLE-C; E864 SX-SO
    Posts
    1,088
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My takeaway from the OP (and most others with a similar premise) is that he/she/it doesn't know his/her/its own type, is 3 weeks old garbage juice at typing others, and therefore discredits an entire system due to his/her/its incompetence and/or lack of experience.

    Has Socionics been proven “empirically?” Nope, but the existence of personality and personality traits that represent a pattern of reasoning, sentiments, socialization, and behaviors consistently demonstrated over time that strongly prompts one's assumptions, self-perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes have well been studied and verified (i.e., Big 5 Model, DSM/abnormal/clinical psychology, etc...), and that’s a good fucking start in the right direction. I mean, as far back as Galen (the Four Temperaments) and Hippocrates (Four Humours), people have been trying to stuff each other into categorical bins for thousands of years because a fair amount of us have fucking eyes capable of simple observation and brains inclined towards “neat” classifications (usually based on gender, phenotype, class, etc...) that help us navigate each other and the world more effectively. Without a doubt, personality and personality traits are real--personality types are just a logical extension of this.

    Does Socionics, like many other personality typology systems, traffic in “oversimplified” categories? Yes, because humans are irritatingly complicated, too much to do anything but categorize them “big tent” style, as humans are wont to do; it's frustrating when people fall outside of these categories but that doesn’t mean that the categories are no longer useful, and particularly when we can decide upon them objectively, with as much consensus as possible. I wish folks *ahem* particularly Ti valuers *ahem* would understand that the system doesn’t have to be pitch perfect, in order for it to still work with a moderate to high amount of accuracy. Idealistically, the goal should be to make the system encompass everyone/all manner of diversity, but failing to do so does not invalidate the entire thing. Moreover, that’s why we can’t give up–it really grinds my gears when, because of complexity, some want to throw the baby out with the bath water, as opposed to become more rigorous in the quest for answers to overarching patterns and connections we know exist--forgoing this is the death of progress and innovation.

    What I do know for a fact is that I'm learned af with advanced degrees [centered around human behavior] from the best institutions (read: I'm no fool) and have lived in 18 countries & traveled to 82; interacted with hundreds of mofos per year[x15]; across Finance, Medicine, Academia (humanities, social sciences, etc...), NPOs and HR departments worldwide; (read: I been around) and for the most part, Jung and works based on his work (MBTI, Socionics, etc...) closely match up with my own research and experience of people and our differences, which I have used exhaustively to "make the world better." Therefore, consider me unfazed and unbothered by the opinions of those who, at the end of the day, in all likelihood don’t possess the wherewithal to give one.

    tldr: Socionics ain't real, in that it isn't empirically backed, but it ain't off the mark from systems that are empirically backed, and becoming more so, with more time and more science.

  29. #69
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    How can people not make basic observations like

    He's both emotional and super calm at the same time, just at different times.

    It's wrong to assume that just because you observed something at a certain point, it must be true at all times.

    A person can be both super emotional and super calm, depending on circumstances. Those are mere possibilities.

    The fact is that the people's ability to adapt to different environments, and the fact that people have the ability to self-learn and change themselves is what makes psychology hell of a lot more complicated than merely making some simplistic categorizations of observations.

    Imagine that there was a computer program that could change and rewrite itself, and it keeps adapting to changing environments. How the heck would you categorize that as?

    If there was such a program, then you'd think, "This program is out of control! I can't control it!". Well that's exactly what a human being is, you can't control it because it wants to keep changing itself and it wants to be free. It wants to seek new and unknown things.
    If you observe people long enough you will have that general sense.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  30. #70

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    If you observe people long enough you will have that general sense.
    You still don't know what he's going to do next, how he's going to be affected by unknown environments, what kind of experiences he will have in the future, or even how he might suddenly randomly think up of a new thing.

    How often do you see people changing their minds? How often do you see people saying the exact opposite of what he was just saying before?

    You might say that yes, some people are very emotional, and some people are less so. But that says little about what kind of opinions that he's likely to have.

  31. #71
    Smilex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearsofaclown View Post
    Anyone with knowledge of the history and philosophy of psychology knows that most of Socionics has been refuted by real professionals. It does not fit in with what we know about brain. I mean, do you really think guys like Piaget and Skinner didn't study things like this. Lol. They just somehow missed it. The entire subject can easily be waved away with William James's psychology fallacy. As James said, when there are two men in a room there are really six. Each man as he sees himself, each man as seen by other and each man as he really is. Socionics claims all 6 points of reference.
    The position that socionics has roots in brain functions is silly. The concepts work much better if one considers socionics a branch of game theory, business arts and maybe linguistics.

    On a side note, I find the spellchecker of the forum flagging socionics funny.

  32. #72
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearsofaclown View Post
    Anyone with knowledge of the history and philosophy of psychology knows that most of Socionics has been refuted by real professionals. It does not fit in with what we know about brain. I mean, do you really think guys like Piaget and Skinner didn't study things like this. Lol. They just somehow missed it. The entire subject can easily be waved away with William James's psychology fallacy. As James said, when there are two men in a room there are really six. Each man as he sees himself, each man as seen by other and each man as he really is. Socionics claims all 6 points of reference.
    Theoretically, yes. But in actuality, Socionics is really that other person in the room who sees you through their own subjectivity and claims it's objective. It is like being in a room with a dozen people, with each of them seeing you in a different way and each claiming their perspective is the correct one.

  33. #73
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chakram View Post
    Everybody settle down. Can't you see that OP is just trying to turn us against each other?

    I only see one solution here: Burn the non-conformer, blood for the Blood God.
    I think members are more likely to kill each other while on the front lines of the Type Wars. Only 16 winners allowed.

  34. #74
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everyone join us in Etar’s Thread where we can show you how LSE search for concrete facts then tell me if Socionics isn’t real
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  35. #75

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmers View Post
    Theoretically, yes. But in actuality, Socionics is really that other person in the room who sees you through their own subjectivity and claims it's objective. It is like being in a room with a dozen people, with each of them seeing you in a different way and each claiming their perspective is the correct one.
    It would also depend on what kind of a theory he has.

    If say, a person from the future with a very advanced theory of psychology viewed a person, then his view of the person will be more or less be objective.

    Just as if someone with the correct theory of physics viewed an object, then he will accurately surmise how that object will behave at any given moment. But if he had the wrong theory of physics, then his knowledge will be subjective and wrong.

    Currently, the theoretical status of psychology is pretty abysmal, because nobody had quite came up with a promising theory of psychology yet. We have yet to find any universal laws of psychology.

  36. #76
    Dauphin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    North Carolina
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    946
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Personality" is amorphic by nature, thus why it is possible to have many personality theories with a great degree of variance but of seemingly equal accuracy. I don't give a damn for empirical evidence when it comes to these sorts of things as it clearly lies outside the epistemological scope of the senses. Regardless of their exact factual nature Socionics, Enneagram, MBTI, etc. remain helpful rubrics for observing human nature.

  37. #77
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,404
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carolus View Post
    "Personality" is amorphic by nature, thus why it is possible to have many personality theories with a great degree of variance but of seemingly equal accuracy. I don't give a damn for empirical evidence when it comes to these sorts of things as it clearly lies outside the epistemological scope of the senses. Regardless of their exact factual nature Socionics, Enneagram, MBTI, etc. remain helpful rubrics for observing human nature.
    Wow complicated words you must be smart

  38. #78
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,404
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    Everyone join us in Etar’s Thread where we can show you how LSE search for concrete facts then tell me if Socionics isn’t real
    How can socionics be real when our eyes arent real

  39. #79

    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    43
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    How can socionics be real when our eyes arent real
    My actual laptop background
    https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.n...letterbox=true

  40. #80
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chakram View Post
    Everybody settle down. Can't you see that OP is just trying to turn us against each other?

    I only see one solution here: Burn the non-conformer, blood for the Blood God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmers View Post
    I think members are more likely to kill each other while on the front lines of the Type Wars. Only 16 winners allowed.
    It has been awhile since I had a reason to post this very catchy tune. <3


    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

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
  •