Does this Thread Disprove Socoinics - And Maybe the MBTI?

[jason_m]

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/commen...at_annoys_you/

It doesn't seem to match up with either Model A or the MBTI model...

EDIT:

I think that link actually disproves the MBTI model more than socionics - but it could go against socionics as well.

Why? The basic claim in the MBTI is that (for example) INTPs are supposed to clash most with ESFJs, as they are essentially conflictor types. However, in the above link, this is not what we are seeing. We are seeing something like "I am an INTP and I clash with INFJs" ad nauseum.

That would appear to be a very big problem for that model.

The problem for socionics as well is that the two theories are supposed to be correlated. Therefore, in the above link we should often see "I am INTP and I clash with ESFJs (OR ESFPs)", but we are not seeing that either.

And that was my point - there appears to be a clear flaw in the MBTI model and maybe socionics as well - only 'maybe' for socionics because the two systems are not the same.

That was what I was trying to say (which was not clear in any way...).

[Alonzo]

lol Seriously? First off, in order for that random, lonely, singular ass thread to entirely disprove Socionics and MBTI, there'd have to be much more than a few bits of anecdotal evidence for why the systems don't work--though not as scientifically vetted as I wish both systems were, they are not completely without some empirical merit. Secondly, we'd have to assume those commenting were accurately typed and at the very least, I'm highly skeptical about that. Third, we'd also have to have an accounting for sub type, cognitive function development and extraneous factors like one's enneagram and instinctual stacking (if, in fact, these things exist independent of cognitive type) and one's environmental upbringing (socialization, culture, etc...), for example. That thread won't be the death of Socionics or MBTI. Just...no.

[Sol]

does not match with my long years experience

[FreelancePoliceman]

Socionics is unfalsifiable.

As has been noted already, MBTI has somewhat different type descriptions, particularly for introverts. Furthermore there's an enormous intuitive bias in MBTI -- sensors are seen as stupid, unimaginative, grubby Neanderthals, whatever you like, which is why everybody there types as an intuitive, and most people focus their hate onto sensor types. If ESTJs are described as boring, domineering, callous, stupid, etc., MBTI-ers will only perceive ESTJs who are those things as ESTJs -- the ESTJs who are intelligent, perceptive, caring/nice will rather be considered ENTJs.

Also, it's not constructive to generalize types too much -- seriously, that is. There's tremendous variation in a single Sociotype, so it's best to be skeptical of anyone who says they like/dislike an entire type as a whole. When people say shit like "[ESFJs are] narrow-minded/shallow: zero imagination, zero creativity, zero depth" they do have some point -- this is generally true of immature ESFJs. It's also true that, generally, ESFJs are warm, relatively giving/selfless, and intelligent, even when immature. But there are plenty of ESFJs who are more thoughtful, more creative, etc. than average, and there are plenty of ESFJs who are cruel, selfish, etc. And furthermore, as people mature, they (hopefully) become more well-rounded. This is true in regard to both Socionics and in general -- Socionikal thinkers become more sensitive toward others, feelers more pragmatic, sensors get a better grasp of abstract thinking, and intuitives become more grounded as they become more comfortable with their super-id block and absorb it into their "conscious" personality. And outside Socionics too, people (again hopefully) become more appreciative of ways of thought and ideas they aren't accustomed to.

So, when someone says ESFJs are "the most vomit-inducing type ever" this says nothing except that the speaker is shallow: either not capable of recognizing "good" ESFJs, or in an immature environment (e.g. a high school) and hasn't had real-world experience with mature ESFJs. Either way it's a childish attitude.

[jason_m]

would it matter?

There are several different sides of the coin here:

1. My quadra functions really add up, and I've been asking other people: their quadra functions generally add up based on the way I've been typing them. However, my main function is not a great fit.

2. There is that information I found on reddit, which flies in the face of everything we've studied.

3. There is Rick Delong's arguments against socionics, which I'm not sure I buy, because they seem like just his own personal issues with the theory.

4. There is maybe one thing wrong with Model A:

Maybe an 'LII's' functions are more like this?:

1. Ti
2. Ne
3. Se
4. Fi
5. Fe
6. Si
7. Ni
8. Te

That would make the model more symmetric, and explain a few things to me...

In any event, the theory could be right or wrong, I'm just 'playing out' some of the information I have found, to see if anyone has any good arguments against it...

[Bento]

@jason_m imo people are wired to construct coherent stories or in other words; they try really hard to make sense of the world.
we say "in hindsight I should have seen that coming" or "now everything makes sense" even when everything was coincidence. That's how we tick.

Socionics, mbti and personality types are an attempt at coherent stories. Personally I think they only exist in our minds. They can't be proven scientifically. And if socionics can't be proven I see no value in trying to disprove it either. Therefore, to me, it does not matter

[Dalek Caan]

lol Seriously? First off, in order for that random, lonely, singular ass thread to entirely disprove Socionics and MBTI, there'd have to be much more than a few bits of anecdotal evidence for why the systems don't work--though not as scientifically vetted as I wish both systems were, they are not completely without some empirical merit. Secondly, we'd have to assume those commenting were accurately typed and at the very least, I'm highly skeptical about that. Third, we'd also have to have an accounting for sub type, cognitive function development and extraneous factors like one's enneagram and instinctual stacking (if, in fact, these things exist independent of cognitive type) and one's environmental upbringing (socialization, culture, etc...), for example. That thread won't be the death of Socionics or MBTI. Just...no.

Yeah, and not to mention how unhealthy types can create problems relating with people of the same quadra or how disagreements can happen between types in the same quadra, etc.

[Not A Communist Shill]

First, a hypothesis (necessarily based on observation) has to be published in a Respectable scientific journal such as the Annual Review of Psychology. Otherwise, there is nothing to disprove.

[them]

yes it does you can stop now

[Singu]

First, a hypothesis (necessarily based on observation) has to be published in a Respectable scientific journal such as the Annual Review of Psychology. Otherwise, there is nothing to disprove.

This. (Although I would say that it's the experiments that are based on observation).

There's nothing to prove or disprove in Socionics or MBTI, because they're just perhaps agreed-upon observations by a couple of people who make up these things. In the same way, you can't "test" Socionics or MBTI because there's nothing to test. A "test" is simply to say "If X were true, then Y would happen". That's basically what a scientific theory is in a nutshell. An experiment would try to set up an environment in a way that Y would occur or not occur, by the condition of X.

Science isn't just a matter of agreed-upon observations; science is about theories and hypotheses.

Socionics "can't proven" not because it's so magical and it's beyond what science is capable of, but rather it's because there's nothing to test, there are no theories and hypotheses.

[Singu]

Some people might think (I did too), "Well ITR is testable. Let's test that".

Well actually no, because ITR is just a description of an observation. It's just writing down an observation and expecting the same thing to happen again.

I think this confuses people and make them think, "Well how is that different from scientific theories? Don't we expect the same thing to happen too?".

Well no, because scientific theories are not based on anything, other than previous theories. Scientific theories are not based on any previous observations.

Again this confuses people even more: "How is it possible for anything to be not based on observations?".

Well sure, we do get inspired by and have new ideas born out of observations, but they're also something that is totally new and something that we have never even seen before. Things like dragons and fairies; they may be inspired by real-life observations, but they're also something that's totally new and something that we've never seen before. So scientific theories are just like those fantasies, like the myths of dragons and fairies. Those theories are something that we have never even seen before and something that nobody had ever thought up before. They are born out of new ideas and creativity of the people.

Again, this tend to still confuse some people and not believe that science is basically about imagining things and making shit up, and then miraculously some of it turning out to be partially true. And that's exactly how we predict things in science.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Socionics in its current state is a claim, not an explanation.

[woofwoofl]

"i'm an ENTP and there's no other type that can really disgust me for being so damn lame as the ESFJ."

---

"I’m an ESFJ!

My least favorite type is INFP. I just find them to be very judgmental"

---

"ENTP here.

Cannot stand ESTJs. Or the ones I've come into contact with I should say, just so I'm not lumping every one of them together unfairly.

That being said, these egomaniacal, closed minded, overly tempermental, status loving, two faced, micromanaging, narcissistic, domineering drama queens are the bane of my existence."

---

"I don't know if I know any ENTJs personally but they seem like assholes based on their description."

---

"I’m an INFJ.

I can’t stand most INFPs or STJs.

INFPs because of that Fi. It’s selfish to me"

[jason_m]

I just reread what I posted, and I wasn't clear, so I'm going to explain. I think that link actually disproves the MBTI model more than socionics - but it could go against socionics as well.

Why? The basic claim in the MBTI is that (for example) INTPs are supposed to clash most with ESFJs, as they are essentially conflictor types. However, in the above link, this is not what we are seeing. We are seeing something like "I am an INTP and I clash with INFJs" ad nauseum.

That would appear to be a very big problem for that model.

The problem for socionics as well is that the two theories are supposed to be correlated. Therefore, in the above link we should often see "I am INTP and I clash with ESFJs (OR ESFPs)", but we are not seeing that either.

And that was my point - there appears to be a clear flaw in the MBTI model and maybe socionics as well - only 'maybe' for socionics because the two systems are not the same.

That was what I was trying to say (which was not clear in any way...).

[jason_m]

I think that link actually disproves the MBTI model more than socionics - but it could go against socionics as well.

Why? The basic claim in the MBTI is that (for example) INTPs are supposed to clash most with ESFPs, as they are essentially conflictor types. However, in the above link, this is not what we are seeing. We are seeing something like "I am an INTP and I clash with INFJs" ad nauseum.

That would appear to be a very big problem for that model.

The problem for socionics as well is that the two theories are supposed to be correlated. Therefore, in the above link we should often see "I am INTP and I clash with ESFJs (OR ESFPs)", but we are not seeing that either.

And that was my point - there appears to be a clear flaw in the MBTI model and maybe socionics as well - only 'maybe' for socionics because the two systems are not the same.

That was what I was trying to say (which was not clear in any way...).

Another stupid mistake! ESFPs should have been ESFJs.

[CR400AF]

Too many mistyping in the MBTI community. For instance MBTI tests keep saying that I'm INTJ (Ni-Te) which is the quasi-identical type of my real type. So it's very hard to predict intertype relationships with MBTI. It is broken.

[Sol]

Research of IR needs more objective data than self-reports of a little of random people which do doubtful typing, have doubtful opinion about own type and may have too small experience with different types.

One of ways to prove supplemental and opposing effects of some functions is to check a match between results of a test as MBTI and a test as my IR test. With correct enough and appropriate examples in IR test this should be quite possibly to notice a correlation above accidental. Some tens of people mb enough for this.

[qaz00]

Research of IR needs more objective data than self-reports of a little of random people which do doubtful typing, have doubtful opinion about own type and may have too small experience with different types.

One of ways to prove supplemental and opposing effects of some functions is to check a match between results of a test as MBTI and a test as my IR test. With correct enough and appropriate examples in IR test this should be quite possibly to notice a correlation above accidental. Some tens of people mb enough for this.

Individual self-reports aren't very useful but analyzing thousands of typings can give us valuable info. Socionics' texts are widely available and each person applies the theory in their own way. Some are more skilled than others, but when majority agrees about someone's type, it means there's a high probability of this person having that type. Different methods, same result.

I'm curious why you think you're not one of "random people which do doubtful typing". You mention importance of objective data first and then you make a subjective assumption about your typing skills and propose using your own test in research as it's some universal standard of typing. Not very logical of you, Sol mb F type .

[AWellArmedCat]

@jason_m lol you're revising a post you made two years ago?

Anyways, I don't see how this is supposed to mean anything for us. People can get along or not for a myriad of reasons that aren't at all type-related. Just because a couple of people from a different system who may or may not be typed correctly have had bad experiences with other people who they may or may not have typed correctly that doesn't mean anything. Most of the people in the MBTI Reddit just used an online test which only focuses on the MBTI dichotomies anyway, so the types they're referring to are very likely to be wildly off. I thought I was INFP (EII) in that system which was very very wrong lol

[Alomoes]

If people apply the theory in their own way, and individualized responses reign supreme, how do we know that the theory isn't just a thousand people guessing with the odds of being right being high enough that it seems to work out. Human relations is likely a random thing, and nobody seems to care about actually seriously studying that random aspect, preferring the theory that things are predestined by some mystical aspect of personality.