What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

[Myst]

@Singu you know I've seen you entertain logical arguments without letting feelings get in the way, but this post of yours was incredibly biased and illogical. You simply have a preconception and then you ignore all facts that go against it.

1. There is no reason or fact that would support your statement that people are equal in their hardware for doing objective logic.

I know that's not a politically correct statement and for some reason you wanna be PC here. : p

But: when it's said that someone doesn't do objective (or formal) logic as much it doesn't mean that they cannot do other approaches to solve tasks... they can.

Like, with creativity, insight, visual thinking, using whatever other abstract conceptual ideas, I don't know. All that can work. Or even a simple physical approach, experientially based approaches or trial and error or even muscle memory can work just as much.

So consider that.


2. You didn't read it where I said that the brain structures do not depend on your biological sex per se, there is a correlation but no more than that.

Gay men being feminine doesn't support or prove your argument fully about the differences - that exist on *average* - between men and women being psychological only or brain structure being software.

There actually are hardware differences in the masculine vs feminine brain. How the fuck are *structural differences* purely software to you?

Go ahead with what you even mean by software really if you see it that way. Because right now you just use it in some incredibly undefined way.

But also. Please go look up the science on all this.


3. And the other thing you didn't read: I said that the socionics explanations don't hold up. Reread. And yes, socionics does try to explain beyond "what was observed will repeat again", it just doesn't hold up. But we were through this before. You do not want to see that part of socionics. But you don't need to bc it's bogus explanations anyway.

[Singu]

3. And the other thing you didn't read: I said that the socionics explanations don't hold up. Reread. And yes, socionics does try to explain beyond "what was observed will repeat again", it just doesn't hold up. But we were through this before. You do not want to see that part of socionics. But you don't need to bc it's bogus explanations anyway.

The problem with Socionics, as always, is that it's a classification/categorization system without explanations.

You can't explain things from classifications. For example, in biology, limited taxonomy, or even a lot of taxonomies, can't explain all of biology. Only the theory of evolution can explain all of biology. The theory of evolution is an explanation, not a classification.

In the same way, you can't explain human behavior from classifications. What is the ultimate explanation that can explain all of human behavior? We have found no such explanation yet. We need a new "Darwin" moment or "Newton" moment.

Socionics attempts to explain human behavior from classifications, or "Model A". But the fact is that you can't explain anything from Model A or any of the functions.

You can only make things fit to an already existing classification, which is basically what everybody is doing with Socionics.

[Myst]

The problem with Socionics, as always, is that it's a classification/categorization system without explanations.

There are explanations too, but it's fine if you skip them - I also skip them because they are bogus for the most part.

The classifications are also bogus too yeah. Someone else from the forum called it false categories, I found that a good phrase.

What is the ultimate explanation that can explain all of human behavior? We have found no such explanation yet. We need a new "Darwin" moment or "Newton" moment.

Except it's going to take more than a Darwin or Newton moment. More complex than that.

You can only make things fit to an already existing classification, which is basically what everybody is doing with Socionics.

That is not what I was doing with Socionics, hence I ended up refuting its explanations I guess. : p


PS: Not surprised you skipped on explaining what you meant by structural differences in the brain being purely software lol

[Singu]

There are explanations too, but it's fine if you skip them - I also skip them because they are bogus for the most part.

The classifications are also bogus too yeah. Someone else from the forum called it false categories, I found that a good phrase.

How do you explain from classifications?

I mean, there are literally no explanations in Model A, functions, types, quadras, Reinin dichotomies... they're all classifications.

Except it's going to take more than a Darwin or Newton moment. More complex than that.

When people were busy classifying all the different species into taxonomies in biology, they were quite confused and overwhelmed and thought that they could never make sense out of it all. But the theory of evolution was so succinctly simple and elegant that it could actually explain and make sense out it all. It even explained things outside of biology, which makes it an even more objective and universal explanation.

PS: Not surprised you skipped on explaining what you meant by structural differences in the brain being purely software lol

There's no real such thing as fundamentally different "structural differences" in computers, as all computers are based on elementary mathematical and logical principles, or the Turing principle. And since the computer can compute anything that the physical object can possibly compute (that's the theory), the brain is no different.

So what I mean is, the brain is the hardware, and everything that's running in it is the software. Things like consciousness, emotions are all software. So it looks like nature has been the programmer of our brain, programming things into our brain via evolution.

[Myst]

@Singu


1.
"Model A is a detailed model of human information metabolism named after Aushra Augustinavichiute who has created it by incorporating Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.

The Ego block is a socially demonstrative, creative block that forms the core of the TIM and is usually associated with an individual's ego - their inner "I". This is an area of conscious competence and individualism, as well as conscious and active observation and influence on the world. A person is usually the most confident, informed, and energetically active on their Ego block functions. On this block, we rarely experience feelings of remorse, doubt, and shame; neither does this block shift responsibilities or blame onto others."

I will not copypaste further, read the rest here: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Model_A

Do not try to claim that all this is just classifications lol.

I do want to emphasise OTOH that Socionics does get classifications wrong. (So it's barely a detailed model like it claims. But still a model, just a shitty one where people can easily take it and not even use it as a model anymore, which is its own separate problem BTW.) It oversimplifies, like, when many different classifications would be necessary and justified, it tries to use only two (say, a dichotomy, or an IE pairing, etc).



2.
I dunno about how taxonomies were created in the science of biology, but I highly doubt that people felt confused and highly overwhelmed while doing it LOL. Where the fuck do you get that from? Omfg...



3.
Yes there are structural/hardware differences for computers... for a simple example: nowadays some types of computers include very sophisticated GPUs. This will result in very different functioning for certain things. Like compute certain things better.

Or embedded CPUs are also very different structurally.

Supercomputers is an even simpler example of all this.

Or go back to early computers that worked on some different principles. (Mathematically not different but in hardware very different and that did result in different capabilities.)

You do have to understand that just because some elementary mathematical operations are shared on the low level, it does not mean whatsoever that on the high level there are no fundamental differences. By the time you get to the high level, there will be a lot of other elements and components added so yes there can be many fundamental differences on the high level. Compare a RTOS to Windows if you don't want to compare Linux with Windows. A real time OS would be fundamentally different enough for your liking too if Windows vs Linux is not a good enough example.

And possibly there are differences on the low level, in hardware as well, yes. Even for the RTOS vs Windows example there are.

[Singu]

1.
"Model A is a detailed model of human information metabolism named after Aushra Augustinavichiute who has created it by incorporating Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.

The Ego block is a socially demonstrative, creative block that forms the core of the TIM and is usually associated with an individual's ego - their inner "I". This is an area of conscious competence and individualism, as well as conscious and active observation and influence on the world. A person is usually the most confident, informed, and energetically active on their Ego block functions. On this block, we rarely experience feelings of remorse, doubt, and shame; neither does this block shift responsibilities or blame onto others."

I will not copypaste further, read the rest here: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Model_A

Do not try to claim that all this is just classifications lol.

I do want to emphasise OTOH that Socionics does get classifications wrong. (So it's barely a detailed model like it claims. But still a model, just a shitty one where people can easily take it and not even use it as a model anymore, which is its own separate problem BTW.) It oversimplifies, like, when many different classifications would be necessary and justified, it tries to use only two (say, a dichotomy, or an IE pairing, etc).

Okay, then say that the explanation is "This behavior is explained by Fi". What is this explaining?

Fi, as an Jungian function, is a classification of observations. Model A is just a particular way of organizing those classifications. It may say something like conscious or unconscious, but again, that's just a classification.

What we're really saying is, "This behavior fits into the Fi classification". Not that it's actually explaining anything. An explanation would be something outside of "Fi".

Say that those biologists were creating taxonomies. But no amount of taxonomies would have ever come up with Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was something completely outside of that. It could have potentially came from outside of biology.

[Myst]

Okay, then say that the explanation is "This behavior is explained by Fi". What is this explaining?

Fi, as an Jungian function, is a classification of observations. Model A is just a particular way of organizing those classifications. It may say something like conscious or unconscious, but again, that's just a classification.

What we're really saying is, "This behavior fits into the Fi classification". Not that it's actually explaining anything. An explanation would be something outside of "Fi".

Say that those biologists were creating taxonomies. But no amount of taxonomies would have ever come up with Darwin's theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was something completely outside of that. It could have potentially came from outside of biology.

Ah now I see where you got hung up before Yeah some people just categorise like that. But the model isn't about categorising like that. And not everyone sticks with just doing these simple classifications.

If you say that x observation is because Fi for the person is unconscious, that is a logical statement within the model that you can check for whether it really holds up in the way the model claims it will - and other statements can also be deduced from it within the model and then those other statements can be checked too to see if they lead to good predictions. All those do count as explanations that can be correct or incorrect.

That's how I worked through Socionics really and dropped its model in the end a while ago. By now I not only dropped the original model (which I did 1-2 years ago, I can't remember when) but I took the valid ideas and I use them in other understandings now. I originally tried to keep those parts of the model in a new model using ideas from Socionics, but I moved past that model too.... and so I don't even use IEs or whatever anymore.

Anyhow, if your issue is how most people who are NOT scientists think then well, sure keep bitching about it. But it won't lead anywhere. Basically. Don't expect everyone to do scientific research.

It sounds like your issue is that, rather than Socionics itself. Maybe accept that it's just how human beings work by default?

[Singu]

A phylogenetic tree is basically a diagram of relationships, something that comes from observation and making categories. Iow, from taxonomy patterns developed and were noticed which then became an explanation and theory later. And this is how things typically progress or have progressed in Biology. It's how things have progressed in Astronomy, Physics etc and so on as well. Humans are good at noticing patterns, and organizing those patterns into a system gives you a basis from which to work. Why does the sun rise northeast in the summer and southeast in the winter? You start asking why, and that's where theories are developed.

That sounds more like phenetics, which is a classification of organisms based on observable similarities. Which is also pretty much what Socionics is.

A phylogenetic tree is not necessarily based on observations, since it requires an interpretation of what the DNA means. Which is a theory, not an observation.

So yeah, a category isn't an explanation, and if your categories are wrong, your explanations are likely wrong as well. Imagine if frogs were lumped in with fish because they both can swim, and otters and diving ducks . . . the categories themselves would be so wrong that you couldn't make heads or tails of anything. Darwin's theory developed from taxonomy, not outside of it. It isn't something separate, but rather a natural evolution itself: patterns --> theory behind the patterns. You can't start with a theory, or idea to explain patterns if you don't know what the patterns are.

I think you have the cart before the horse. We make categories because we have explanations of some kind (which may only exist in our heads) in order to categorize them in a certain way. We may rely on observable similarities, or we may rely on non-observables, such as interpretations of what the DNA means. And those require theories to do so.

The point is that you couldn't possibly have come up with Darwin's theory of evolution by just categorizing similarities. No amount of categorizing would have come up with that. It required a completely new way of thinking that things gradually evolved into something different, as in, there are similarities, even though there are no immediate similarities between them. You'd have to take a guess and imagine how things were in the way back before time. This required a bold guess to make that giant leap.

It couldn't have been done with an observation, but it could be done with a theory. This is why Darwin made a guess, and not just recognize some patterns or categorize a bunch of organisms.