Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: How can the foundations of Socionics be tested?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    VA
    TIM
    IEE- ENFp 9w1 soc/sx
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How can the foundations of Socionics be tested?

    People always talk about Socionics becoming a science but before that even happens, the actual foundations of socionics must be tested

    Aushra borrowed from many people:
    Jung- 16 types, the functions
    Freud- the idea of the ego, superego, id
    Kepinski- the theory of information metabolism


    All of these people she’s taken from have theories that are not falsifiable as is.

    Most people don’t know this but Aushra doesn’t even claim that Socionics is neurological. Functions aren’t “metabolized” in the brain , but in the BODY through “meridians” aka energy channels.
    By Aushra your vulnerable function shows not only your psychological weak point but it’s connected to health problems of that meridian

    The original descriptions of the functions are also inherently metaphysical “space” “potential energy” “kinetic energy” , it’s very woo

    My question is, how can anything that came after it’s problematic foundations every be empirical or scientific ?



    Table 1.
    A dimension Name of the quality of the human psyche or the element of IM, through which people receive information about this aspect of the world Aspect of the world and a symbol of the corresponding element
    Potential energy Extravert intuition I
    The transformation of potential into kinetic Extravert ethics E
    Kinetic energy Extravert sensory F
    Using the kinetic energy Extravert logic P
    Space Introverted sensing S
    Time Introverted Intuition T
    The relationships Introverted logic L
    Attraction-repulsion Introverted Ethics R


    Dualized psyche affects on human health, because every element of them not only reflects certain aspects of objective reality, but also controls the body. For each element of the IM are certain meridians and manages system. Systems that are behind the most advanced, leading elements of the IM, the least vulnerable to the disease. First of all get sick of those who are leading a co-player.

    According to our hypotheses, the elements are aligned with the meridians of IM as follows:
    - Posterior median meridian;
    - The meridians of the stomach and pancreas;
    - The meridians of the bladder and kidneys;
    - The meridians of the gallbladder and liver;
    - The front middle meridian;
    - The meridian of the heart and small intestine;
    - Pericardium meridian and three parts of the body;
    - The meridians of the lungs and colon.

    Our observations confirm this hypothesis. For example, the logical extraverts and indeed often suffer from heart, and ethical extroverts - the kidneys, and intuitive extravert - stomach, pancreas, liver.



    source of quotes:
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...gustinaviciute


  2. #2
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,536
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's very woo~

  3. #3
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    788
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO the functions correspond to areas of the brain, and also to certain body parts. I've made threads about this on the viewpoints section.

  4. #4
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,009
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The body health cxns meh, no. But I like Table 1. And I like the aspect definitions as well - "internal statics of objects" etc which are an expansion on that Table. The external aspects have been tested and measured in people in mainstream psychology studies btw - they end up showing that model A is garbage (not purposely since socionics is never even mentioned - that's just the conclusion you can draw from the results) but also demonstrate an either/or quality to the use of the introvert and extrovert aspects.

  5. #5
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,186
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brothamanben View Post
    The relationships Introverted logic L
    Attraction-repulsion Introverted Ethics R


    What's the difference?

  6. #6
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    What's the difference?
    [/COLOR]
    "The relationships" = external relations, like the classification of people based on height, weight, race, etc.

    "Attraction-repulsion" = internal relations, like comparing the strength of a father-son relationship vs. a relationship with a random stranger.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    VA
    TIM
    IEE- ENFp 9w1 soc/sx
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    The body health cxns meh, no. But I like Table 1. And I like the aspect definitions as well - "internal statics of objects" etc which are an expansion on that Table. The external aspects have been tested and measured in people in mainstream psychology studies btw - they end up showing that model A is garbage (not purposely since socionics is never even mentioned - that's just the conclusion you can draw from the results) but also demonstrate an either/or quality to the use of the introvert and extrovert aspects.
    What do they show that debunks model A?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,243
    Mentioned
    1017 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    To proof complementation function effects and types existence is enough a testing where people will sort types examples according to IR theory with the probability higher than accidental.
    Also types of people in pairs mb identified hidenly and then to look how often those pairs break and how happy people are there after years. To proof the same on closer to practice experiment.

    Would be good, but there is no need to proof any word. It should just work _as whole_ theory on practice with some use. And to check this is not hard. Then can be checked any "words" inside the theory, to rise the overal efficiency of the practical usage and mb to do wider applications.

    All those meridians are not a part of the Socionics and are doubtful to be used to proof.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  9. #9
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,009
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brothamanben View Post
    What do they show that debunks model A?
    That strong Te/Se means much weaker Ti/Si and strong Ti/Si means much weaker Te/Se so the creative really can't be all that strong of a fxn in practical use, at best you could have mediocre creative and mediocre lead, neither one actually strong. This is because object-processing and spatial-processing (objects vs fields or extroverted vs introverted elements) operate along different pathways with an effect of increasing one decreases the other. While this could be shown as an affirmative of model A on one level, the problem comes when nobody so far tested has been very good at both objects and fields, and the stronger a person is at one, so far they've all shown a reciprocal weakness in the other. In other words, someone very strong in Se will test as very weak in Ti. One is objects, the other is fields. So to have the creative be a high-dimensional and strong fxn doesn't really apply in real people thus far tested. Which isn't to say that maybe it is true for some people, and they just haven't tested those people yet. . .

    BUT to be clear, I'm only talking about the elements. Descriptions are generally based off of real people and the elements are kind of modded to fit - what ends up happening imo is the temperament effect. You factor in statics/dynamics and lead and you get different pictures. So take an SLE and an LSE - you either have Se focus and EP temperament the static element accentuated, or you have in the LSE a Te focus and EJ temperament. Just because both are using Se and Te doesn't mean they're using them in the same way. Same with LSI and SLI, the IP temperament and Si focus is quite different from a Ti focus and IJ temperament. The descriptions and so on rewrite this is as (Te with Si) vs (Se with Ti) when it's not really quite like that if you know what I mean. And the element/aspect kind of descriptions also get altered a bit when we're talking real examples - kind of simplified down into different sorts of categorization. So Te starts meaning something a little different, and same with Se and Ti and Si. They all start meaning something a little more in line with the temperaments of the people rather than the actual element definitions. So, Model A isn't actually real or "true" but people have still created a system that divides people into categories in such a way that it means something.

    At some point I'm thinking maybe I'll really dig into this and put something together. . . but I kind of don't even want to say that as it's just as possible I'll never get around to it. Other things tend to pop up and take precedence. Also, don't 100% take my word for it - I do have sources and so on saved, but it's been awhile and I'm speaking from memory. I didn't verify before speaking, so if I misrepresented anything it was unintentional.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,513
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics can't be tested, because it's a classification system. And you can't exactly test classifications.

    So the question often becomes, "How do we know that this whole thing is real, and not just our crazy imagination?".

    Classfication depends on the systematic logic behind the classification. So the Socionics' classification is based on the Jung's idea that observed behaviors of people are separated into T-F, S-N, I-E axis, and how that creates a total of 8 functions and 16 types.

    Well fine, but that's a rather arbitrary distinction. Personally, I don't think that T-F, and I-E are actual distinctions. There's no real separation between "thinking" and "feeling", and "subjective" and "objective", and they're not contradictory.

    So the point isn't really "How do we know that our observations are real?", but rather, "What rational sense does the logic behind the classification makes sense?". For instance, you have the position of the electrons inside of an atom that would make the classification of the elements in the Periodic Table possible. That is the most rational explanation that we have so far of why the Periodic Table is classified the way that it is.

    Is the Periodic Table objective? Well... yes, because they're referring to actual physical positions of the electrons that actually exist in the physical world (at least, we think that they do). But they're also a convenient systematization made for human beings to easily distinguish things.

    In the end, it is simply possible for a human being to have all F, T, S, N, and then some more, because we are universal-thinkers, not subjective-thinkers, objective-thinkers, abstract-thinkers or concrete-thinkers. We are in fact all of them. That has basically proven by the Turing principle.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,816
    Mentioned
    272 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Huh, Augusta wrote that chart? Was Augusta Te/Fi valuing because her Te/Fi/Ne descriptions are quite good objectively speaking, but her Fe/Si description is awful. Si is space lmao- how moronic and thoughtless. That says nothing really. Her Ni description is also mediocre as fuck. She nailed Ne, Te and Fi, but seemed confused on other stuff.

    She has that gamma stern face so was she ESI or something. And has a Fi valuing constipated face. I don't think she was Si valuing much at all... she probably understands Ne well though if it's her PolR and she's an introverted type.

  12. #12
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,536
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    That strong Te/Se means much weaker Ti/Si and strong Ti/Si means much weaker Te/Se so the creative really can't be all that strong of a fxn in practical use, at best you could have mediocre creative and mediocre lead, neither one actually strong. This is because object-processing and spatial-processing (objects vs fields or extroverted vs introverted elements) operate along different pathways with an effect of increasing one decreases the other.
    encouraging for model G

  13. #13
    do we proceed ItsHimTheAnomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    TIM
    yes
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    model A is useless for empirical verification. very woo indeed. intertype relations, however, are stated in the form of a well testable hypothesis.

    to test the parts of socionics that are worth a damn (i.e. non-speculative), the intertype relations should be tested under a consistent, non-subjective, repeatable typing method.

  14. #14
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,536
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    if you can't confirm the model A how can you confirm its subsequent theories? blah

  15. #15
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sol's emo club
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,789
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think my left pinky toe possesses 9th IME.
    Measuring you right now

  16. #16
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,210
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    First of all, one should ask oneself is Socionics is to be understood as a theory in the sense of a hypothesis, or a system in the sense of Ideal Types.

    At the current stage of knowledge, both in Socionics itself as well as mainstream behavioral, social and neurological sciences, there is not enough knowledge available yet to test Socionics in a Positivist way as an hypothesis. But Socionics can be used as a theory of Ideal Types and applied in an anti-positivist way, and as such can be very fruitfully applied IMHO, especially if one is more experienced and one is capable of embedding Socionics in a larger framework of understanding behavioral and social sciences. Embedding Socionics in this larger framework allows one to falsify insights (thus not so much the theory itself) to some extent.
    Last edited by consentingadult; 10-06-2019 at 02:03 PM.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  17. #17
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,210
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    She has that gamma stern face so was she ESI or something. And has a Fi valuing constipated face. I don't think she was Si valuing much at all... she probably understands Ne well though if it's her PolR and she's an introverted type.
    Unfortunately I can find only one photo of a younger Augusta, which is taken from the side which makes typing more difficult, but I do think that photo has enough clues to point towards a Gamma introvert indeed.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •