What's wrong with modifications? People are obviously more complex than bunches of protons and electrons, but if a system can reduce things to being pretty close to that, then that's already amazing. You can just find definitions of Fe and Ti that can make statistically significant results for being able to get along, and you're good.Originally Posted by Singu
We're still explaining it in non-Socionics ways, anyhow, so that makes Socionics kinda irrelevant.
What are you talking about? Dual elements attracting is the entire basis of Socionics. You've realized and have mentioned on your own already that theories or hypotheses need to make sense in terms of other discoveries and knowledge in various scientific fields in order to be regarded as scientific. So do you not think it needs to have any link now, anymore? : )
Your theory just sucks @Singu .
There's no need to get into that since that's all subjective stuff anyway. You don't need tons of complex modifications, or any really. You just need to have the main rules that work consistently within some margin of error, and then connect those to existing knowledge. That's pretty much enough, if anyone can collect enough data and crunch the numbers right to figure out some objective repeatable trends that coincide with the socionics type descriptions and their respective ITR. Much of science relies on falling within some margin of error and not much is 100% consistent anyway.
Yeah, except that's not how science works, actually. If there are margins of error, then those errors need to be explained.
Say there is the Law of Conservation (or thermodynamics). No law or theory ever can violate this law. So far, it has been 100% consistent. If there's something that violates this law, then we're in deep trouble.
Science isn't just a bunch of statistics, you don't just collect a bunch of data and make a summarization of that. Yes a lot of people confuse that as "science", but it actually isn't. Yeah, and you're probably not going to believe it anyways, but whatever.
Lol you choose one of the few consistent ones as if it proves any point. Exactly why I said "not much". Especially not in complex sciences involving higher biological processes and human behavior. But try taking the margin of error out of testing for depression, or DNA replication. There's a simple explanation for socionics: life and people are complex. More complex than anything in hard science. For this level of analysis, if any system can account for a statistically significant amount of interactions, then that's fair enough.
Statistics is a required 100 or 200 level course if you study science lol. It is for psychology as well, btw. It's not everything, but it's a fundamentally important part of it.
I'm sure we'd both agree that science is about criticisms, or the so-called "peer-review". So how are you going to answer, if they say "Well that's just correlation, not causation"? We simply don't know if the correlation actually has anything to do with it, or not.
Smoking and alcoholism are correlated, but they're not caused by one another. Smoking and lung cancer are caused, because we have theories that can explain the causal mechanisms. We don't know whether "Fi" and certain behaviors are correlated or caused, because there is no such theory explaining its causal mechanisms.
Statistics are by definition, correlation. If you want causation, then you'd have to come up with explanatory theories.
1) The explanatory theory is Model A and the theory of dual elements attracting, related to physics and mathematics.
2) It's not theories alone that account for causation, but experimentation. With repeated, peer-reviewed results yes. And lo and behold, we have the operationalised types and repeatable methods ready for them at this point!
And I will eat my turds before I agree with you on anything like this here.
Look Singu, in North America we learn about how causation is 'identified' even in highschool. You need to run controlled experiments to isolate the independent variable. Hope you have a good explanation/theory for why you can't remember this or for the low info Ni shithole you came out from, yet are foaming out of the mouth/anus trying to argue with people in science-involving fields anyway.
2) I didn't say it was the other way around lol. And you left out the crucial part of there needing to be an experiment.
1) Bitch look 2 posts up. See the explanation of complex information and margin of error. It is relevant in this field.
Now shut up. I feel soul pain engaging with someone making a fool out of themselves, and by extension I feel like I'm drilling nails into my head making a fool out of myself talking to you @Singu . What a human embarassment.
Yeah, and there's also going to be a margin of error in correlation between smoking and alcoholism, lol. If you keep ignoring this error without coming up with an explanation for why that is the case, then you'd just keep following some pointless correlation that has nothing to do with each other.
Alright first of all, this causation and margin of error are separate issues.
Second, you would perform controlled experiments after or while testing for ITR correlations, ideally. You need to realize that statistical significance in controlled experiments themselves are relevant for determining causation.
...You're not going to magically come up with causation by doing more statistical analysis and "experiments".
How do you think we know that smoking causes lung cancer? Because we have a THEORY on smoking causing cancer.
The theory is this: smoke -> carcinogen -> damages cell -> damages DNA strands -> error in cell-reproduction -> uncontrollable cell-reproduction = cancer
That's the theory. We didn't "derive" that from statistical analysis or from the results of "experiments". It was a theory that somebody came up with. Yes, it's possible that somebody was inspired to come up with that theory from gathering a lot of data or doing statistical analysis, but it's still a theory that didn't magically get made from statistics. It was created from AN ACT OF CREATIVITY.
Some people think that they can just un-creatively come up with theories by just following the textbook procedures of statistical analysis, but it's not going to happen.
He "gets it" that Socionics is an explanation-less classification system. I believe he's coming up with some THEORY that attempts to explain the classification. That's what I've been telling people, if they want to make Socionics "scientific". You're not going to make it "scientific" by making it statistical. You're going to have to come up with THEORIES.
@Singu Big bang -> particles cooling & energetic polarization -> your dumb ass emerges and somehow survives the dinosaur era, and meets me on the internet -> error in brain cell reproduction = cancer
Seriously though... it's PERSONALITY and opposing strengths complementing each other. What amount of flow charting do you need to see to have that explained? It emerges from your head, well idk about in your case...
Another insight: 'conceited Ti' vs. 'my Ti': Let's see it for what it really is: Think 'pompous, arrogant, Ti-flat' vs. the 'compensatory kind' - 'Fi', if you wish... Right? Get it?
Last edited by jason_m; 08-29-2020 at 02:12 PM.
I wasn't clear: I was referring to the difference between a straight narcissist and a compensatory narcissist. The straight narcissist being pompous, arrogant, etc. i.e., 'better than everyone else' and the compensatory kind 'never good enough.' The straight narcissists intellectually then as 'straight Ti', and the compensatory kind as 'Fi', explaining why I never live up to some straight narcissist's definition of the function, why I am always 'Fi' in their eyes... When the truth is that it is just because they are just so conceited and I am so insecure that this is the case...
Well this has pretty much been what the conversation looks like...:
sbbds: Let's do some MORE statistical analysis, because that makes it look all scientific-y with all the neat graphs and numbers and stuff.
"But then you'll only come up with correlation and not causation. You'll need to come up with explanatory theories to come up with causation."
sbbds: Okay, then I have a theory: "OPPOSITES ATTRACT!!". Neat, right?
"But that doesn't explain when opposites repel each other... And that happens, right?"
sbbds: Yeah well, we can ignore that as a small margin of error, because reason.
"But that's not how science and experiments wo..."
sbbds: WOW stop being so NEGATIVE and CRITICAL!! If you don't like it, then just LEAVE!! You just HATE Socionics because you're so anti-Socionics!!! YOU'RE TERRIBLY BIASED!!! TREASON!!!
"...This is just plain idiocy..."
sbbds: Now, where were we? Oh that's right, back to some MORE finding correlation and not causation...
What it comes off like in reality
Myst, sbdds, everyone else trying to reason with Singu: *explains basic science 101 bit*
Singu: "but, but, but, I don't understand this because you don't explain anything properly"
Myst, sbdds, everyone else trying to reason with Singu: *explains basic science 101 bit again*
Singu: "but, but, but, I don't understand this because you don't explain anything and you are all wrong"
Myst, sbdds, everyone else trying to reason with Singu: *explains basic science 101 bit again*
Singu: "but, but, but, I don't understand this because you don't explain anything and you are all wrong and you all suck"
Myst: "please stop insulting or I won't have patience again with explaining to you"
Singu: "you're the one insulting me all the time and you suck because you don't ever want to explain anything to my hopeless brain!!"
Myst: *bye troll*
Also, yeah not feeding the troll further. : P But I had to add this to the above post. : P
No actually, it was more like this...:
Myst: Operationalization! Operationalization! Operationalization! Because operationalization is neat and that's what makes it science!
sbbds: No, statistics! Statistics is what makes it science!
Me: Well actually, statistics isn't what makes it science, because correlation does not imply causation. And science is about causation.
Me: As for operationalization, well in order to measure something, first you'll need a theory that can explain how that measurement works, what values it should reveal with what accuracy. So just like with statistics, we can't use operationalization to bypass having to come up with theories (for example, we'll need a "theory of typing").
Me: Now, so why don't we actually try coming up with some theories that expla...
Myst, sbbds: Shut up! You're an idiot! Idiot! Look, I can't come up with theories, it's too hard!
Me: ...Lunacy... lunacy I tell you...
lol
jason
Probably the key is not to go deeper within yourself. wink wink. Only by comparison of external entities can you calibrate your perception and judgement. The curve might by wonky n-dimensional nightmare with large margin of error but that how it should roughly work.
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
I think there is also some error in the theory: classically, it is supposed to be Fe: objective ethics e.g., 'the church' or what the 'community' believes, vs. subjective ethics Fi: *my* personal ethical views, regardless of what society believes. Something like this has been conflated with 'has some ethics' vs. 'doesn't', which I think is obviously wrong. WRT looking inside: I do it in *all* ways - emotionally, logically, and intuitively. That could be what's wrong with my self-typing...
Emotions are internal things though anyway, whether you want to call them "objective" or "subjective", tbh all emotion is subjective, in the sense it's not factual stuff and in the sense it relates to the personal self or subjective parts of people in some way.
Even Socionics acknowledges that, Fe is defined as stuff about internal processes, objective or not. "Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods." (From wikisocion)
PS: I think you referred to MBTI with part of definitions and the beliefs you quoted. Tho' I do say you're better off with frameworks that you can improve on more than Socionics's fixed little model where you can only reiterate the same limited stuff forever even with new models
Last edited by Myst; 09-04-2019 at 03:27 PM.
I don’t take objective ethics to mean rules laid down by an external authority, but rather observable and manifest information about human behavior. If it’s just rules created by someone else, you don’t need to have any perceptual abilities at all, just a good memory and a willingness to be an enforcer.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Observable and manifest like expressions and body language and word usage?
Quote from wikisocion "EIEs often hold strong views about governance and social custom, though their beliefs stem from the interests of their close emotional relationships."
Observable like, yes, expression in the moment, but also observation of patterns of human behavior. The problem with “governance and social custom” is that those are highly variant depending on culture and subculture.
Behaviors will fall somewhere on a continuum in terms of fitting any given situation. What is customary is not always most effective. If you understand what would be customary, you can choose not to do the customary thing based on what is needed, by yourself and by others.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Gotcha, so you personally don't relate to that wikisocion statement much then, I take it.
The problem with Socionics is that it's either/or. It can't explain when people can do both, when people can be both subjective and objective, both thinking and feeling, both get along and conflict, depending on situations and circumstances.
And why it doesn't do that is because Socionics doesn't explain observations. It's not about explaining why things are the way they are. It's about classifying certain observations in a certain way.
If we want to explain how people can both get along and conflict at the same time, how can be both subjective and objective at the same time, etc, then we'll need completely different models than what Socionics is offering.
For example, how are people able to be both subjective and objective? The Socionics' answer is that people are separated into either "subjective-thinkers" or "objective-thinkers", and there's little overlap or in-between.
The problem with this approach is that yes, at a certain point in observation, there's going to be a "subjective-thinker" that confirms this view. But it can't explain when at other times, the exact same person is an "objective-thinker". Again, it's about classifying, not explaining.
My view is that the ability to be subjective and objective arises from people's ability to think in virtually any kind of ways. It's just that being "objective" is simply one of the possibilities of infinite possible ways of thinking. This arises from the fact that infinite variations of information can be created from rearranging more basic, fundamental, elementary logic.
The explanatory model creates a completely different model than the classification model.
Well as I've said, the problem is that it's not explaining observations.
The common defense against this is "Well people are just misusing Socionics. The model is not supposed to do that, so it's working as intended".
If you argue that, then it just becomes a way to silence any criticisms against any theory. You can say that a totally useless theory is "useful in its uselessness". You end up with justifying a bunch of bogus theories.
So yes, the criteria of criticism is that it's not explaining observations. You might say that you don't need to explain things. But then that opens a whole new set of problems, such as that you don't know whether the correlation has anything to do with what it's being correlated with or not.
Needless to say, it can't explain when for instance, two best friends were getting along, and now they're suddenly conflicting. And if you can't explain that, then the model must be wrong and inadequate.
Identifying dogs in such a way is not a problem, because we can perfectly well explain dogs' behavior in that way. There has not been an observation that contradicts our common view of dogs. Our "model of dogs" is that they don't talk, because well, they don't have vocal cords or brains like humans or something like that. So that model works perfectly fine.
And anyway, this is still a classification model. We're saying "Let's classify dogs that bark at high frequency and low frequency accordingly, and perhaps make some correlations". But explanatory model says, "Well why do dogs bark at high/low frequency?". Then we might come up with models that say it's due to their vocal cords, it's a show of dominance, it has to do with level of testosterone, etc
Last edited by Singu; 09-04-2019 at 09:06 PM.
Heh it's true there's some weak points there.
Sure Socionics or any other model is not supposed to explain *everything*. Some of the issues Singu raised are moot because Socionics does introduce explanations for when x will happen and when x will not happen and why.It's not Socionics problem if theories aren't describing that dilemmas and anomalies. Socionics already have good boundaries to limit themselves about how to explain behavior that is common in some types but not in others. So even if you eager to really want socionics describes when people do both [insert any two opposites keywords here], I believe they will just accept your request but do nothing, as an ethics of theory boundaries due to scientific reason.
However I would disagree that the Socionics model has enough proper boundaries. It's a major problem with the model.
Sure it's in part "just" because socionists and actual researchers overall can't have the tools with the necessary understanding yet to investigate some of the claims in its explanations. We have some tools, but not enough for all that. Not enough for much of it beyond proving that there is "something" to investigate further - but socionists did not try to prove even this properly. And proving that there is a tendency that requires further investigation to check if the explanation offered by the model is actually any good (or falsify it), that's the point of all the stats, it's not just fancy numbers for their own sake. It's how the scientific way of more refined thinking works.
Then beyond just the idea of experiments finding tendencies for ITR for example, I did also find some claims about cognition that I thought can be checked by EEG or brain imaging experiments, and this would not simply be investigating tendencies but directly looking at how explanations hold up in experiments. I specifically considered experiment designs for EEG but I didn't go ahead with running any experiments because I figured out more on how those Socionics explanations I wanted to investigate likely do not hold up anyway.
So that is the other part, problems with the model itself.
Yeah the thing is I did investigate for myself if it explains all that well my own stuff internally or the mental facts for cognitive stuff that only I can observe for myself. Liked the idea of conscious vs not conscious processes, for example, but I ended up deciding that it was not consistent enough to have the explanations hold up in reality enough. For my own mental facts either, let alone other people's stuff that's even less easily observable without the tools available - we have some tools and some understanding sure, but not enough for all of it, again.I feel I already raised this issues some years ago, and I decided to not take it further. Singu, how you approach this theory isn't wrong or prohibited, but you just introducing a way of classifying that really not what Socionics approached into. Socionics aren't using Socio-traits, but Socio-types. I am bad to explain this (please for forumites whom having STEM background, help me ...) but types are having more discrete point of view to describe people behavior, rather than traits which having more continuous point of view. So, based on how Socionics theory do classification for people's types, you will not find the "fuzzy logic" explanation that will make type description's details become useless.
And, for the example with the mineral water vs clear soda, I would definitely want to show it's mineral water because it would be beneficial beyond just having my own little personal interest but no, since I figured it's not mineral water most likely.
You asked about the difference between types in Socionics vs just a plain traits based approach like Big 5 I guess. Yeah the difference is there is an explanatory model for the cognition of types. I would say types are discrete because of that, not because of having a binary dichotomous view instead of continuous dimensions for traits.
There obviously aren't any explanations for even the most basic things, such as why do the exact same people both get along, and conflict at different times?
Any psychological model is supposed to explain human behavior, human cognition, etc. It's supposed to explain whatever that it claims to explain. What exactly does Socionics explain, I don't know. It doesn't really explain anything, because it's a classification model and not a explanatory model. And people say "Well it's not supposed to explain... so that's a problem with people's expectations and not the model". Technically, that is correct. But a model that doesn't explain anything is just a correlational model. And some people may actually finally say, "Well Socionics is not supposed to be anything relating to the real world... it's supposed to be some fun model that we play around with, as fiction". At that point, I have no idea what to say, lol. At this point, people are simply invested in shielding Socionics (or some other theory) from any criticisms.
And there already are proposed explanations for things that Socionics can't explain.
Not gonna get into this again with you, and you know why. You better remember what I said about that lol.
Good thing you admit you don't know. : P Bc you never read about the model I suppose.Any psychological model is supposed to explain human behavior, human cognition, etc. It's supposed to explain whatever that it claims to explain. What exactly does Socionics explain, I don't know.
If someone thinks a model is not supposed to attempt to explain anything............ no comment.And people say "Well it's not supposed to explain... so that's a problem with people's expectations and not the model".
No, some people just play with it like they play with astrology. That's completely fine and more intellectually honest than what some "official socionists" do lolAnd some people may actually finally say, "Well Socionics is not supposed to be anything relating to the real world... it's supposed to be some fun model that we play around with, as fiction". At that point, I have no idea what to say, lol. At this point, people are simply invested in shielding Socionics (or some other theory) from any criticisms.
Exactly what I've been saying.And there already are proposed explanations for things that Socionics can't explain.
It attempts to explain, but other frameworks are better at it.
Eh the problem with Socionics is it promises magic lol and while the framework could be right in pointing out some tendencies (unproven so far though, right), i.e. that there really is "something", it is too easily used in a non-falsifiable way.
And while promising magic, it's been put together in a way that it tries to touch on a lot of stuff about the unconscious so it ends up playing the role of poor man's psychoanalysis too, which can be downright dangerous in some cases. It tries to play this role even more than MBTI, trying to touch on more unconscious stuff like that. Along with non-falsifiability too easily allowing for the "randomness" that's used in psychoanalysis too.
That's it in a nutshell.
Regardless of who posted this one, I want to comment in general (not addressing anyone in particular nah):
"Needless to say, it can't explain when for instance, two best friends were getting along, and now they're suddenly conflicting. And if you can't explain that, then the model must be wrong and inadequate."
The Socionics model doesn't make the claim that duals do not conflict on issues. It makes more refined claims than that. So this on its own wouldn't have to be a problem. Otoh I do think that its model is inadequate to explain much of interpersonal dynamics, even if you add it to other frameworks to explain. And, for the stuff it does point out that I do think does exist as real phenomena in reality, I found better frameworks than Socionics.
There are psychology models/frameworks about opposites in personalities/in the psyches of people that have nothing to do with Jung let alone Socionics, and can better explain stuff Jung and Socionics tried to cover. There are further psychology models/frameworks about interpersonal dynamics in general, that also add better explanations for some of the stuff.
Mind you, Jung was more intellectually honest than socionists nowadays, and he knew the limitations of his models and admitted to them just fine. Also, he had bigger frameworks to give better context than what Socionics tried to stuff everything into. He had good insights that have been dealt with better in the many decades since then - the guy was still a genius to note some stuff/ideas many decades earlier than others.
Well you know Myst, you say that Socionics is wrong and you've found a better framework in science, but you don't actually know why Socionics is wrong and science is right.
I don't simply take it in faith that whatever science says must be correct. Of course, a scientific theory could be wrong. I think that the current state of scientific psychology is pretty dismal or not very inspiring. But I simply take it as a problem if a theory can't adequately explain anything.
It's a simple fact that a mere classification model can't explain things. Does it explain anything if you classify dogs that bark at high/low frequency? Well, no, it doesn't explain anything. All it can say is that some dogs fit as high frequency barkers, and some dogs as low frequency barkers. And you might find that interesting or enlightening. But it doesn't explain things.
It's like saying, "Why do some dogs bark at low frequencies? Because it's a low frequency barking type." At this point, you'll need a non-classification based, explanatory model to explain it.
lol you asshole. For making bullshit claims about me just bc you feel like it.
Not that I expect anything better from you. I already know that you read incredibly selectively (making yourself sound ridiculous with it). So there's that.
It's inspiring to me with research in recent years. We are not gonna agree here lol...I don't simply take it in faith that whatever science says must be correct. Of course, a scientific theory could be wrong. I think that the current state of scientific psychology is pretty dismal or not very inspiring. But I simply take it as a problem if a theory can't adequately explain anything.
*yawn*It's a simple fact that a mere classification model can't explain things. Does it explain anything if you classify dogs that bark at high/low frequency? Well, no, it doesn't explain anything. All it can say is that some dogs fit as high frequency barkers, and some dogs as low frequency barkers. And you might find that interesting or enlightening. But it doesn't explain things.
Sounds like projection.
sbbds thinks that causality could be found from statistics. You think that operationalization, or accurately defining and measuring things would be enough.
They both play important parts, but neither comes up with theories that can explain causality (i.e. explanations are causality).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causationIn statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.
In science, we can say that we're trying to figure out how physical objects can cause a physical effect. We can say that causality is established if there's a link between A and B. You can only know that link from a theory, as causality is not directly observable.
In Socionics, if you say that "Behavior X is caused by Fi", then that's not causality, it's correlation (i.e. observed association). To establish causality, there must be an explanatory theory that connects the link between Behavior X and Fi. We don't know how that link is connected, because there has yet to be such a theory.
At best, what it's really saying is that "Behavior X is probably related to Fi". But reality doesn't work in term of "probably"s - it either is or isn't. What's the point of having the chance that it's 99.999% correct, if it's wrong? Statistics and probabilities are connected, and neither can establish causality.
It's simply not possible to establish causality under the Socionics model. The only way to come up with causality is by coming up with explanatory theories.
Look, idiot. I never said that it is "enough". Good luck finding any statement to that effect from me.
This is why I do not discuss with you anymore, this is why I can't take you seriously anymore. Because you put things into my mouth that I never said and never thought.
So there.
And correlation vs causation was scientific method 101 class at university for me quite a few years ago. Too basic. Scientific thinking is the most refined way of thinking that is about way way way more than this basic science 101 class. Thank-you.
So how does this help me become a better person and form better relationships???
It doesn't. Mental health services, therapy, etc. help do that.So how does this help me become a better person and form better relationships???
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote