Thema Mundi

[sbbds]

Basics of socionics are a thing, but no one has rigorously empirically tested socionics to know what those are.

???

[Metamorph]

???

Duality and ITR are much less empirical than other aspects of socionics. The ordering of socionics functions are much more theoretically rigorous and therefore falsifiable than MBTI or other similar adaptations of Jung's typology, but besides Olga Tangemann, no one has gotten close to actually empirically testing them. Questionnaires are valid but also have limited validity in applications. ITR would be best tracked through case studies and to a lesser extent controlled experiments, after the participants are typed individually, though double blind experiments with personalities seems extremely difficult to say the least.

[Singu]

Duality and ITR are much less empirical than other aspects of socionics. The ordering of socionics functions are much more theoretically rigorous and therefore falsifiable than MBTI or other similar adaptations of Jung's typology, but besides Olga Tangemann, no one has gotten close to actually empirically testing them. Questionnaires are valid but also have limited validity in applications. ITR would be best tracked through case studies and to a lesser extent controlled experiments, after the participants are typed individually, though double blind experiments with personalities seems extremely difficult to say the least.

A bunch of meaningless buzzwords.

Whoopee, there's nothing "theoretically sound" about being able to categorize people into 16 types, nor you can even "empirically test" that (what is there to test?).

[Metamorph]

A bunch of meaningless buzzwords.

Whoopee, there's nothing "theoretically sound" about being able to categorize people into 16 types, nor you can even "empirically test" that (what is there to test?).

None of these are buzzwords. People's behavior and even thoughts are empirical whether they like it or not. And socionics is much more developed than any other Jungian-based system from a strictly theoretical viewpoint.

[Singu]

None of these are buzzwords. People's behavior and even thoughts are empirical whether they like it or not. And socionics is much more developed than any other Jungian-based system from a strictly theoretical viewpoint.

Maybe they're "standard procedure" in psychology. Which is why the entire field has less than 40% replication rate...

People's behavior and even thoughts are empirical whether they like it or not.

That they are, but we can't possibly empirically observe all of people's behaviors and thoughts in all situations and all contexts. So we're only studying a minuscule portion of people's behaviors and thoughts.

So it's best to enter the realm of possibilities, and what kind of behaviors and thoughts are possible, not just to study what we have empirically observed so far. THAT, we can test.

[Metamorph]

Maybe they're "standard procedure" in psychology. Which is why the entire field has less than 40% replication rate...



That they are, but we can't possibly empirically observe all of people's behaviors and thoughts in all situations and all contexts. So we're only studying a minuscule portion of people's behaviors and thoughts.

So it's best to enter the realm of possibilities, and what kind of behaviors and thoughts are possible, not just to study what we have empirically observed so far. THAT, we can test.

Are you talking or are you farting? Because all of this sounds like it's from your ass.

[Singu]

Are you talking or are you farting? Because all of this sounds like it's from your ass.

Well you must be projecting because that’s what you sound like most of the time.

Why don’t you actually bother making rational retorts or arguments? You fall back to sophism too often.

[sbbds]

Duality and ITR are much less empirical than other aspects of socionics. The ordering of socionics functions are much more theoretically rigorous and therefore falsifiable than MBTI or other similar adaptations of Jung's typology, but besides Olga Tangemann, no one has gotten close to actually empirically testing them. Questionnaires are valid but also have limited validity in applications. ITR would be best tracked through case studies and to a lesser extent controlled experiments, after the participants are typed individually, though double blind experiments with personalities seems extremely difficult to say the least.

The wording was strange in your post before this. If you believe something to be a thing, you should know “what” it is to some extent, even if not in a perfectly complete way empirically. It’s foreign to me at least that people might believe in something they can’t “see” empirically to some degree.