What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

[Singu]

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.

I don't think people categorize, Socionics does. People seek explanations.

People ask, "Why does he do this, why does she do that, what does that behavior/action mean?", etc.

The Socionics "explanation" is, "It's because of Fi" or "That's Fi-related behavior". But what they're really saying is, "That behavior fits in with Fi classification". They expect an explanation, and what they get instead is a classification.

Am I saying that classification is wrong? No, what I'm saying is that people are seeking explanations, and not just classifications.

[Myst]

I don't think people categorize, Socionics does. People seek explanations.

People ask, "Why does he do this, why does she do that, what does that behavior/action mean?", etc.

The Socionics "explanation" is, "It's because of Fi" or "That's Fi-related behavior". But what they're really saying is, "That behavior fits in with Fi classification". They expect an explanation, and what they get instead is a classification.

Am I saying that classification is wrong? No, what I'm saying is that people are seeking explanations, and not just classifications.

But you quoted from the people, not from the Socionics model.

These quotes: "It's because of Fi" or "That's Fi-related behavior".

So you are criticising the people, not the model.

[Singu]

But you quoted from the people, not from the Socionics model.

These quotes: "It's because of Fi" or "That's Fi-related behavior".

So you are criticising the people, not the model.

Well I'm criticizing the classification model.

And if Socionics claims to "predict" human behavior via ITR, then well, obviously you can't predict people by just classifying things. You're just expecting people to be overall consistent and predictable all the time, which is not true.

You obviously can't also claim to be able to classify an entire population and entire modes of cognition into just 16 types and 8 functions.

[Myst]

Well I'm criticizing the classification model.

And if Socionics claims to "predict" human behavior via ITR, then well, obviously you can't predict people by just classifying things. You're just expecting people to be overall consistent and predictable all the time, which is not true.

You obviously can't also claim to be able to classify an entire population and entire modes of cognition into just 16 types and 8 functions.

The model is not simply a "classification model" is my point... The examples you quoted are NOT the model. They are people's very simplified interpretations of the model or something. But not the model itself.

You can classify the entire population and cognition in various ways. That's not the problem. The problem is that the way it's done in the model is no good yeah. The only thing I am arguing with you about here is that it does have explanations and these can be checked in a scientific way (and yes I do think it would disprove the model pretty goddamn fast lol) while you think it's just categories...

[Singu]

You can classify the entire population and cognition in various ways. That's not the problem. The problem is that the way it's done in the model is no good yeah. The only thing I am arguing with you about here is that it does have explanations and these can be checked in a scientific way (and yes I do think it would disprove the model pretty goddamn fast lol) while you think it's just categories...

Okay, then show me where the explanations are, and show me how it can be tested in a scientific way.

When people think of making Socionics "objective" or "scientific", they just think, "Oh, we should just find a way to make typing objective!". But that's not the point.

That's like saying we should make taxonomies in biology objective. But if we were to do that, we'd need to analyze the DNA and things like that. And in order to do that, we'd need an explanation of the Darwinian theory of evolution. We'd need to understand that all organisms have a common ancestor, and that things gradually evolved over time, and each species diverged at some point by the pressures of the environment.

And Socionics... doesn't have that kind of theory or an explanation that makes classification possible or "objective".

[Myst]

Okay, then show me where the explanations are

Please reread my earlier post for reference to the explanations. This one: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1351032

and show me how it can be tested in a scientific way.

For example: after operationalising the definitions, have some people typed (according to operationalised criteria) and check interactions between people (again according to operationalised criteria) to see if there is any difference in the interactions between different types according to Socionics ITR predictions. We would not expect it to predict precisely, as many other factors will always be at play too, but we would expect to see significant enough differences. And so you can say if they are there or they are not there.....

Have these people typed independent of the above checking so there is no bias influencing anything.

I was originally also interested in conducting EEG or brain imaging experiments according to predictions of Socionics regarding cognition (this part isn't about ITR). I did devise some experiment design for EEG, I didn't try to do that though. And now I'm no longer interested in the original form... I am still very interested in doing the experiment in another form, i.e. a similar idea, without using any Socionics related model whatsoever, either the original Socionics one or mine or *anything* related whatsoever. I am past that.

When people think of making Socionics "objective" or "scientific", they just think, "Oh, we should just find a way to make typing objective!". But that's not the point.

Well Singu darling you are talking to someone who has done actual scientific experiments

That's like saying we should make taxonomies in biology objective. But if we were to do that, we'd need to analyze the DNA and things like that. And in order to do that, we'd need an explanation of the Darwinian theory of evolution. We'd need to understand that all organisms have a common ancestor, and that things gradually evolved over time, and each species diverged at some point by the pressures of the environment.

And Socionics... doesn't have that kind of theory or an explanation that makes classification possible or "objective".

Again, see my earlier post I linked to above.

By the way, evolution theory is way past the Darwinian version now.

[Singu]

Please reread my earlier post for reference to the explanations. This one: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1351032

Ok... and what is it explaining?

The entire point of "typologies" and "personality theories"... is that it's about classification of people...!

For example: after operationalising the definitions, have some people typed (according to operationalised criteria) and check interactions between people (again according to operationalised criteria) to see if there is any difference in the interactions between different types according to Socionics ITR predictions. We would not expect it to predict precisely, as many other factors will always be at play too, but we would expect to see significant enough differences. And so you can say if they are there or they are not there.....

Then that's just correlation, not causation. There's no way of knowing whether the interaction has to do with "types" or not.

I mean look, the Socionics ITR is basically just statistics, and making it more statistically rigorous isn't going to be the answer.

Have these people typed independent of the above checking so there is no bias influencing anything.

How do you know what's the "correct" way to type, or not?

Well Singu darling you are talking to someone who has done actual scientific experiments

Well no offense but you're not very good at it.

By the way, evolution theory is way past the Darwinian version now.

Yes I am aware of that.