Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: The decline of internet Socionics content

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    LIE-ENTj 3w4 so/sx
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The decline of internet Socionics content

    We have all seen typology systems like the Myers-Briggs fall to shambles because of the way it's employed on the internet. Systems, when constructed, begin as wholes, and if the veracity of the systems is to be kept, definitions should exist to allow the systems to exist as wholes. Only with that set of anchoring definitions can systems be employed consistently and make the same predictions (hopefully to similar degrees of accuracy) in different contexts. The main problem that you see with "MBTI" variants online is that people are really disguising their own idiosyncratic variants of these systems as The System. Even when showcasing typings within their own systems to others, the pretence is that these typings are done under the "real MBTI" or the real system in general.

    Online Socionics communities that I have attended tend to have a similar problem these days, you see a similar splintering occur. People are employing overcomplicated, impractical and completely flawed (VI best falls under this category) metrics to type without sets of definitions against which typing can occur. In order to stop Socionics from regressing to systems like these "MBTI" variants, it is best to establish a baseline whereby which typings occur. Since the theory is fundamentally describing information metabolism (through IMEs) and intertype relations (through interactions b/t these IMEs), I suggest we stick strictly to Model A. Though anecdotes and personal methods are valuable for typing, ultimately, if they don't work within the system, the typings are not within the system. And this causes numerous problems, including erroneous and idiosyncratic function->behavior mappings (a direct product of this kind of typing).

    I myself am an LIE-ENTj. Thought I'd introduce myself because I am new here.
    Last edited by Exegesis; 07-06-2020 at 06:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,079
    Mentioned
    847 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default


  3. #3
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,382
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exegesis View Post
    We have all seen typology systems like the Myers-Briggs fall to shambles because of the way it's employed on the internet. Systems, when constructed, begin as wholes, and if the veracity of the systems is to be kept, definitions should exist to allow the systems to exist as wholes. Only with that set of anchoring definitions can systems be employed consistently and make the same predictions (hopefully to similar degrees of accuracy) in different contexts. The main problem that you see with "MBTI" variants online is that people are really disguising their own idiosyncratic variants of these systems as The System. Even when showcasing typings within their own systems to others, the pretence is that these typings are done under the "real MBTI" or the real system in general.

    Online Socionics communities that I have attended tend to have a similar problem these days, you see a similar splintering occur. People are employing overcomplicated, impractical and completely flawed (VI best falls under this category) metrics to type without sets of definitions against which typing can occur. In order to stop Socionics from regressing to systems like these "MBTI" variants, it is best to establish a baseline whereby which typings occur. Since the theory is fundamentally describing information metabolism (through IMEs) and intertype relations (through interactions b/t these IMEs), I suggest we stick strictly to Model A. Though anecdotes and personal methods are valuable for typing, ultimately, if they don't work within the system, the typings are not within the system. And this causes numerous problems, including erroneous and idiosyncratic function->behavior mappings (a direct product of this kind of typing).

    I myself am an LIE-ENTj. Thought I'd introduce myself because I am new here.

    This is music to my ears, but good luck fighting that uphill battle. It's been this way since before I even found out about Socionics.

  4. #4
    thework.com Kalinoche the Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    currently belgium
    TIM
    Fe Esfj
    Posts
    3,451
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not a closed,regulated community with exclusive membership. Anyone can drop by and spend some brainpower on this. That being said, it's nice to have theorists/boundary workers.
    Welcome.

    honest labor needs no master

    Nothing good is a miracle, nothing lovely is a dream.

    Επί πάντων μέμνησο τα έσχατά σου, και ου μη αμαρτήσης

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,931
    Mentioned
    1091 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    There were doubtful theory hypotheses and doubtful practice of their usage. This stays. The lack of objectivity is similar.

    What is changed with coming more people to Internet - more people publicly share their opinions.
    Some of them are low experienced and incompetent noobs, which read a little of good, typed and watched people with known types not significantly. This factor reduces the quality of info for those who take seriously opinions of those noobs.

    It's useful to note, that the ones without Russian language knowledge, having worse access to Socionics sources and lame translations, have a higher theoretical mess. Also they more use heresies which are better represented in English alike from Gulenko. So the quality of practical info on English sites may progress lesser with the experience of people there. Or even to reduce in overal, as lesser part of info stays from Russian sources based on more adequate theory.

    Meanwhile also.
    With more of Internet people which got access to typology texts and may share their opinions - the level of conformism has droped. This reduced the match with opinions which could be common earlier due to that conformism. The situation have reduced the conformism in general. Lower match with sources which are authotity for you does not mean it's lesser wrong, it may mean the opposite too - lesser conformism leaded to higher objectivity. The more of overal info means more of info which is correct too (not only more of incorrect info appears), what also may improve the quality.
    Also with more people, you may more often meet opinions from sources to which you have lower trust and conformism, and so lesser agree with them.
    Also with more time you may meet more of new heretical baseless theories, than before. Someones use it and this may reduce their practical correctness.

    If you reasonably will sort to who and what trust, the more of info in Internet will not reduce the quality of it. But may arise it with lower general conformism.
    For example.
    In typing themes you may meet opinions from anyone. There are votes for types from random people. If you'll take all that as equal opinions - the overal quality of info may be lesser than before. When it was produced by, in average, more experienced and knowledgable people, and when noobs copied their opinions and lesser produced own ones.
    In theories, you may ignore new theoretical heresies and to trust lesser to their users.

    > We have all seen typology systems like the Myers-Briggs

    MBTI related is not a special "system". It's Jung typology with a not bad test MBTI and correct theory of dichotomies which compatible with used in Socionics. It has additions, some baseless contradictions to Jung, expanded interpretations and serious mistakes.

    P.S.
    You think too much by systems and by categories to suppose yourself as base Te.
    Your type is not LIE with good chance. Your perception of typology related can be strongly distorted by this possible mistake in yourself.
    If you want to understand Socionics by quicker way, besides reading the recommended sources, it's useful to get opinions about your type by its users. This also may help with your correct type. My type is leading Te - LSE, while your thinking differs from me a lot. I suspect Ti type. Among close to LIE it can be LII or ILE, what you may miss taking MBTI texts mistake with its functions. When you'll read Socionics types descriptions mb you'll notice other types closer than LIE to you there.
    Last edited by Sol; 07-06-2020 at 08:22 PM.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    LIE-ENTj 3w4 so/sx
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    You think too much by systems and by categories to suppose yourself as base Te.
    Your type is not LIE with good chance. Your perception of typology related can be strongly distorted by this possible mistake in yourself.
    If you want to understand Socionics by quicker way, besides reading the recommended sources, it's useful to get opinions about your type by its users. This also may help with your correct type. My type is leading Te - LSE, while your thinking differs from me a lot. I suspect Ti type. Among close to LIE it can be LII or ILE, what you may miss taking MBTI texts mistake with its functions. When you'll read Socionics types descriptions mb you'll notice other types closer than LIE to you there.
    I've been typed by several Socionics practitioners who refer to many of the original sources you refer to (both in English and Russian), and most of them say either LIE or ILI for my type. Might just be that my approach to typology is more systemic because what I perceive as inadequacies regarding the viability of an empirical typology (I do not think traits of people which can be derived from many non-typological origins can be reduced to Jungian functions). However, I think I am a rational NT, so LII is possible yes. I agree with most of your points outlined here about the problems with typology.

  7. #7
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exegesis View Post
    We have all seen typology systems like the Myers-Briggs fall to shambles because of the way it's employed on the internet..
    I have strong Deja Vu's about this post. Not just one, but multiple.

    But you are wrong with the solution you provide to this perceived problem. There are 16 types in Socionics, and as such there are at least 16 different approaches to Socionics. E.g. if you are truly LIE (and I have as yet no reason to doubt it, nor is your type relevant to the dicussion at hand), you will never - and I repeat: NEVER!!- understand the anti-positivist approach towards Socionics that the average IEE applies. Neither will an IEE truly understand the approach an average LIE has towards Socionics.

    Trust me, if we are only allowed to do it in your petty little LIE way, there will be no reason for other types than LIEs and ESIs to stick around here.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    LIE-ENTj 3w4 so/sx
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    I have strong Deja Vu's about this post. Not just one, but multiple.

    There are 16 types in Socionics, and as such there are at least 16 different approaches to Socionics.
    If there are to be 16 different approaches to Socionics, how can you reconcile them into a cohesive, consistent typing that applies for the system as a whole? How do you translate?

  9. #9
    qaz00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    where seen
    TIM
    SLI-Te
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You fail to notice important thing about socionics. This system is highly speculative and unscientific. Model A is an artificial structure made to resemble individual differences in information processing. It can't be considered a fact because of this but it also means that other people can modify this theory to make it more fitting to reality, that's why other models and subtype systems developed. If you need a reliable system to stick to it I recommend neuroscience for cognitive side of human differences and big 5 for behavioral.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    LIE-ENTj 3w4 so/sx
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qaz00 View Post
    You fail to notice important thing about socionics. This system is highly speculative and unscientific. Model A is an artificial structure made to resemble individual differences in information processing. It can't be considered a fact because of this but it also means that other people can modify this theory to make it more fitting to reality, that's why other models and subtype systems developed. If you need a reliable system to stick to it I recommend neuroscience for cognitive side of human differences and big 5 for behavioral.
    Socionics being speculative and unscientific doesn't necessarily render it useless - it can still be applied to most (if not any) ends. It can only be accurately modified to better fit reality if this is done in an organized, corroborated and streamlined manner, but most people add their own perceptions in without attempting to change the system globally, and thus you still have the "multiple systems" problem. Anecdotes need to be integrated so that the model still stands as a unified, applicable whole - which is not what is happening right now online, and cannot happen until people agree on how to go about it. In the meantime (before accurate methodology is developed), application of the theory as it is seems most reasonable.

  11. #11
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exegesis View Post
    If there are to be 16 different approaches to Socionics, how can you reconcile them into a cohesive, consistent typing that applies for the system as a whole? How do you translate?
    The first question is: is there a need to reconcile them? To what purpose? If it is your aim to end up with a cohesive scientifically valid theory, by all means, go ahead, do the research and publish your findings. But I, for one, am not so much interested in the science behind Socionics, even though I do a lot of thinking relating it to insights from other behavioral and social sciences. I use it mainly in my day to day life, to decide how and when I am going to act in interaction with other people. I'm not just using Socionics, but with people of 'normal psychology' often Socionics suffices to decide who to interact with and how to interact with them. To me, all that I have learned about Socionics, which is undeniably an IEE appraoch to Socionics, helps me a lot in daily life. So I do not really have a need to reconcile my perspective on Socionics with those of other types. Of course you can always learn from other types, even your conflictor, but you will never quite fully get their approach to Socionics, simply because they are focusing on other aspects of reality, and thus end up with a different perspective on Socionics than yours.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  12. #12
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exegesis View Post
    Anecdotes need to be integrated so that the model still stands as a unified, applicable whole
    This might be the perspective of an LIE or an LII, who will want to integrate ideas into larger systems. In the world of logical analysis, this is known as the problem of induction: how can we go from the specific to the general? But this is not how the minds of ILEs and IEEs work, they have no need to arrive at a logical construct, because they simply perceive the essence in a phenomenon, which becomes the source to an anecdote. The only mistake ILEs and IEEs make is that they assume other people are capable of seeing this essence in that anecdote as well, which, of course, often isn't the case, either because the aencdote has been seperated from its source, or because other people lack the cognitive capability to recognize essence.

    Likewise, ILIs and IEIs are inclined to think other people can grasp the causality of events, and if they can't, these people must be stupid (especially in the case of ILIs).

    Likewise, EIIs and ESIs are inclined to think other people are as capable of integrity as they are, and if they aren't, they must be morons or uneducated.

    etc.etc.

    I hope my point is clear: what you are asking is that the whole Socionics community adapts itself to your approach towards Socionics. Who benefits by that?
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  13. #13
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    8,152
    Mentioned
    908 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    This might be the perspective of an LIE or an LII, who will want to integrate ideas into larger systems. In the world of logical analysis, this is known as the problem of induction: how can we go from the specific to the general? But this is not how the minds of ILEs and IEEs work, they have no need to arrive at a logical construct, because they simply perceive the essence in a phenomenon, which becomes the source to an anecdote. The only mistake ILEs and IEEs make is that they assume other people are capable of seeing this essence in that anecdote as well, which, of course, often isn't the case.

    Likewise, ILIs and IEIs are inclined to think other people can grasp the causality of events, and if they can't, these people must be stupid (especially in the case of ILIs).

    Likewise, EIIs and ESIs are inclined to think other people are as capable of integrity as they are, and if they aren't, they must be morons or uneducated.

    etc.etc.

    I hope my point is clear: what you are asking is that the whole Socionics community adapts itself to your approach towards Socionics. Who benefits by that?
    Insisting on complete consistency in a theory seems more Ti than Te to me. Personally, I only care about what works right here, right now, for this particular purpose, and if gravity reverses tomorrow, I don't have any cognitive problem with that. I'd just deal with it.

    Nevertheless, the goal of finding a consistent set of rules or laws for Socionics is incredibly admirable. As a self-described Te-user and LIE, I don't think I'm capable of doing that, but I respect and admire the people who can. I would never have come up with the Periodic Table, either, and that has proven to be a huge advance over alchemy.

  14. #14
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Insisting on complete consistency in a theory seems more Ti than Te to me. Personally, I only care about what works right here, right now, for this particular purpose.
    In my first post I said: "I have as yet no reason to doubt [your LIE typing]", but meanwhile I do: the insistence on integrating it into a system, to make the anecdotes fit the system, is suspicious at least. Like I said in one of my blog posts:

    "The Ne in IEEs and ILEs perceives reality as a multiverse of universes, where each universe stands for a phenomenon that exists in its own right and in comparative freedom from other phenomena. For EIIs and LIIs, with their emphasis on Fi and Ti respectively, there is only one universe, which is made up of interrelated phenomena. Thus, for Ne-base types, an Ne-possibility is a self-realization of a phenomenon, whereas for Ne-creatives, an Ne-possibility boils down to an optimal adjustment to the system."
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ILI-C 5w4 so/sp
    Posts
    41
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    I hope my point is clear: what you are asking is that the whole Socionics community adapts itself to your approach towards Socionics. Who benefits by that?
    He is not exactly asking people to adapt the minutiae of their methods to adapt to his. Rather, what he is asking for is consistency in sharing these perceptions with each other (to make sure everybody is referring to the same "Socionics" when speaking of it so there is minimal confusion or loss when translating), which is made most efficient when there is a consistent set of rules as an intermediary towards this end. And though many people do simply use it to explain day-to-day observations in their lives (like you say), many people also want what he is saying - the ability to test it scientifically and validate it outside anecdotes, which necessitates consistency for those of us that want it to this end. Indeed, while it's true that not everything cannot be encompassed under a system like Socionics, the least that can be done is to at the very miminum try to fulfill its potential in terms of how it can be employed.

  16. #16
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,079
    Mentioned
    847 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    When somebody says "my mom is IEE" it should be comparable in shared comprehension to the statement, "my mom likes eggs," or even as broad as "my mom sometimes eats," and shouldn't be comparable to a statement like, "my mom is sggghhrt" that everybody interprets in their own way (some think it means she wears halter tops, others think it means she cleans a lot). I would be more partial to socionics if everybody spoke the same language and if that means I value Ti, that's cool, let's switch shit up, yo. @xerxe is right that this is a tale as old as time, though.

  17. #17
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,815
    Mentioned
    269 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    “These days”. I don’t think things were better before with less information out there. Welcome though.

  18. #18
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,382
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Disagreements over MBTI/Socionics stuff was so bad that forums got hacked over it. Things may even be better now than they used to be.

  19. #19
    mindless Aeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    nowhere important
    TIM
    heartless
    Posts
    459
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a nice dream, but it's rarely how it turns out.
    Reality is everyone sees things from their own perspective, it all has been molded upon what they have encountered up until now: MBTI, weird heretic bs, russian authors, Jung, what was written on some obscure internet source... there's never much consensus possible on abstract stuff, what one considers arrogant the other sees as confident, and someone else thinks it's insignificant to judge someone on this. How one judges others can give insight in what kind of type they are... or not.
    It can be interesting to see how people form their own understanding of socionics, that's what I prefer actually. I like to see how people go from point A to point B, but then all those concepts lose meaning because they are stretched over contradictions, so I go back to the source and call it a day... but what is the source? that also differs from person to person.
    That's part of why I don't talk self-typing publicaly, there's no public consensus over what is what. It can't be.
    We know what we know and we generaly can't even imagine what we do not know.
    Then someday we look back thinking we were so stupid for not knowing, ha. How cute are we.

  20. #20
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    ESI?
    Posts
    1,785
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Decline" -> "Socionics is progressing in a way I don't like, so I'm going to complain that there's something wrong with it, and the way to fix it is for it to be the way I want it."

    Fuck the marketplace of ideas I guess. Let's all follow Exegesis. He's right about everything. All hail!

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,931
    Mentioned
    1091 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Besides "declines" may be said about some improvements. Among significant improvements since 2005 in English "content" :
    - 8-functional tests based on Socionics functions descriptions (which are better developed than in other sources). For example, Talanov's test translation. Unfortunally, some of such tests may use Reinins traits what to reduce their accuracy.
    - Near-classical theory book by Filatova, - seems, the only normal Socionics book in English until now. Filatova's books are among best for novices in Russian language. To study Socionics by books is better than by chaotic reading of texts on sites, as books give systematic description of the typology and should be not badly translated what helps to correct understanding. Also books are mainly written by authors which have the experience of lectures about types, experience in types usage - what helps to explain the theory correctly.
    - Should be arised typing accuracy due to more weight of VI in typing of people and famouses. As videos became usual, while photos are significantly worse for VI. Besides that nonverbal behavior is a part of useful info, it has lesser distortions than what people say. Public info is filtered and limited ; what say people, which want be typed, can be filtered by what they think or wish about own types beforehand. While logical analysis has comparable speculativity. There was experimentally proved (socioforum, 2015) that nonverbal VI is useful and gives average typing matches 15-20%, what is close to results of SRT-99 - the experiment which used IRL interview. It's about real matches, without a conformism - when typers did not know external opinions before saying own ones.
    - More of translated to English texts. Though the quality and correctness of many translations is questionable. And what is translated can be not Socionics but doubtful hypotheses by different authors. Socionics is ideas of Jung and Augustinavichiute only. To add something new to "Socionics" needs good objective basis, what lacks.
    - More and better examples of types to study the typology. Now can be used more common people as bloggers, videos of typing interviews. Unlike actors on the perception of the personality of which strong influence their roles, unlike politicians which significantly "show" an image, unlike different famouses about which is known not much and an info can be strongly filtered (especially when they lived long ago). Also with bloggers we may even to talk, to give them tests - to check the types.
    - More of people comes, especially after Internet became cheap and fast since of 2000s end. Where someones (<20%) take types seriously (but not as another theme for talking on forums), study better sources as books, trust more to theory which has better basis, think more independently. Than when were studed by IRL courses of the past or when communicated with smaller groups of people. This allows them to be more critical to theory and practice and with potentially with higher objectivity to achieve better results, with developing their skills and understanding by the experience.

    My improvement.
    I'm making IR test since end of 2010s. It's new and may work. It's on early stage and maybe will work better. Filatova used photos as IR test. In Internet and on regular basis - I can be first who tries this, at least by videos. After I've experimentally proved nonverbal VI as useful, such test got the objective sense.
    I plan to achieve the accuracy of the test up to the degree to experimentally prove the effect of complimentary functions. For example, by the match of results with a common 8-functional test above statistical accidental. It's needed for all functions pairs: Te/Fi, Ti/Fe, Se/Ni, Si/Ne. Which have Te in ego should prefer Fi types, etc.
    After this Socionics with its IR theory can get the interest of "science", good studing and mass usage. At now it's in a state near astrology, without objective proof of the basics.
    My resources are limited and I may not get the needed results. Same can be done by anyone, but not sure it will be. Nonverbal VI principles were described in classical texts since 1980s, it was used among common methods by manyones. But never was done a simple experiment to prove VI as a useful method until I did this. Partly because the technical side became easy recently only - when videos of random people could be used. But was other reason too. There were (and can be met still) assertions about VI as useless method because intuitive approach looks as not "scientifical" and it's impossibly to describe the typing process to convince another typed noob by speculative "smart words". But to evaluate statistically results of _any_ method is possibly: by the match between typers above random, by the match with other methods to which you trust, by the match with different traits and behavior of people and of their relations. It still needs to accept VI openly to prove IR theory by easy way and is among obstacles to be done by others.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    TIM
    LIE-ENTj 3w4 so/sx
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    My improvement.
    I'm making IR test since end of 2010s. It's new and may work. It's on early stage and maybe will work better. Filatova used photos as IR test. In Internet and on regular basis - I can be first who tries this, at least by videos. After I've experimentally proved nonverbal VI as useful, such test got the objective sense.
    I plan to achieve the accuracy of the test up to the degree to experimentally prove the effect of complimentary functions. For example, by the match of results with a common 8-functional test above statistical accidental. It's needed for all functions pairs: Te/Fi, Ti/Fe, Se/Ni, Si/Ne. Which have Te in ego should prefer Fi types, etc.
    After this Socionics with its IR theory can get the interest of "science", good studing and mass usage. At now it's in a state near astrology, without objective proof of the basics.
    My resources are limited and I may not get the needed results. Same can be done by anyone, but not sure it will be. Nonverbal VI principles were described in classical texts since 1980s, it was used among common methods by manyones. But never was done a simple experiment to prove VI as a useful method until I did this. Partly because the technical side became easy recently only - when videos of random people could be used. But was other reason too. There were (and can be met still) assertions about VI as useless method because intuitive approach looks as not "scientifical" and it's impossibly to describe the typing process to convince another typed noob by speculative "smart words". But to evaluate statistically results of _any_ method is possibly: by the match between typers above random, by the match with other methods to which you trust, by the match with different traits and behavior of people and of their relations. It still needs to accept VI openly to prove IR theory by easy way and is among obstacles to be done by others.
    It just seems a little bit of a leap to me to base your entire method on IR to arrive at conclusive types when really it is best to test each part of the theory as a hypothesis in its own right. So we start out by attempting to prove the hypotheses on information metabolism, then those on IR, then those on VI (which are harder to create scientifically falsifiable methods out of, but you addressed this quite well in your point above), and so on so forth. From the most fundamental aspects of the theory to those that are extraneous, moving alongside descriptive / predictive power. I see it as great that all these advancements you mention are being made, indeed I think that not only Socionics but typology as a whole has had many conceptual breakthroughs. However, I also see it as harmful if these advancements are made without corroboration to established theory / empirical observations, because lack of organization when inserting concepts leads to a more difficult time testing concepts and coming to employable and useful conclusions.

  23. #23
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    AYOYOYO
    TIM
    WOLOLO
    Posts
    1,767
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    "Decline" -> "Socionics is progressing in a way I don't like, so I'm going to complain that there's something wrong with it, and the way to fix it is for it to be the way I want it."

    Fuck the marketplace of ideas I guess. Let's all follow Exegesis. He's right about everything. All hail!
    "tHe DecLInE aNd FaLl oF MarVeL mOviES" *drones on for ten hours in a voice that's too slow and slobbery and nasal*

  24. #24
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,824
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics is already a variant of mbti/jung. For those wbo think it isnt get yo head outta ur ass
    ~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ ESTp ~ Self-Pres 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire Element ~ Aries Sign ~ Beta Quadra ~ Gryffindor House ~ Summer Season ~ SLUEN ~

  25. #25
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,815
    Mentioned
    269 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    Socionics is already a variant of mbti/jung. For those wbo think it isnt get yo head outta ur ass
    It’s a little surprising to remember that MBTI actually came first before socionics, since the MBTI is so branded and gimmicky.

  26. #26
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,824
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    It’s a little surprising to remember that MBTI actually came first before socionics, since the MBTI is so branded and gimmicky.
    Its the same fukin thing. Its like saying christianity is better than judaism. Its the same shit
    ~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ ESTp ~ Self-Pres 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire Element ~ Aries Sign ~ Beta Quadra ~ Gryffindor House ~ Summer Season ~ SLUEN ~

  27. #27

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,116
    Mentioned
    310 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The model already works as you say it works and it would be nice if people just developed a more cool and level-headed approach to it. I think people like @squark have a good understanding of this type of thing. But idk, it's also kinda like asking humans to be more like Vulcans even though Vulcans are technically 'better.'

    And the root cause of the negative thing you are describing is Fi getting too out of whack and people wanting things to mean what they want it to mean instead of what it really is based on personal griveances. It's not even necessarily a huge negative thing because often the Fi valuer doing it, you can often see where they are coming from even though it's illogical as all get out. (unless the Fi valuer is a complete sociopath a**hole but that's not really often the case) So I am really sympathetic to a point because I have four dimensional Fi myself I mean- not that valued but it's like, when the Fi is molested it really blinds you.

    Not to pick on Gammas, but I have noticed Gammas in general are guilty the most of what you criticized in your thread so maybe your type is the best to teach other people in your quadra to chill out with that type of stuff. (Just like I'm supposed to talk down a SLE male from doing something criminal and stupid I guess)

    I know it might sound very hypocritical and silly for an IEI to tell people 'you are letting your feelings get involved too much here' but most of the time socionics misunderstandings come down to that to me, people can't look at what the theory is really saying because they need to pervert it for some personal Fi reason so that A can fit in with X instead of being next to B where it really belongs. And you are essentially advocating for more coherent Ti you know, even if you don't 'value it.' That's what you logically are asking for- but that's exactly what I mean about taking socionics to heart too much. If you are Gamma LIE people might think 'why would you want that?' cuz people have such emotional attachment to that sort of stuff. But you want coherent Ti just like I want coherent Fi.

  28. #28
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BandD View Post
    The model already works as you say it works and it would be nice if people just developed a more cool and level-headed approach to it. I think people like @squark have a good understanding of this type of thing. But idk, it's also kinda like asking humans to be more like Vulcans even though Vulcans are technically 'better.'

    And the root cause of the negative thing you are describing is Fi getting too out of whack and people wanting things to mean what they want it to mean instead of what it really is based on personal griveances. It's not even necessarily a huge negative thing because often the Fi valuer doing it, you can often see where they are coming from even though it's illogical as all get out. (unless the Fi valuer is a complete sociopath a**hole but that's not really often the case) So I am really sympathetic to a point because I have four dimensional Fi myself I mean- not that valued but it's like, when the Fi is molested it really blinds you.

    Not to pick on Gammas, but I have noticed Gammas in general are guilty the most of what you criticized in your thread so maybe your type is the best to teach other people in your quadra to chill out with that type of stuff. (Just like I'm supposed to talk down a SLE male from doing something criminal and stupid I guess)

    I know it might sound very hypocritical and silly for an IEI to tell people 'you are letting your feelings get involved too much here' but most of the time socionics misunderstandings come down to that to me, people can't look at what the theory is really saying because they need to pervert it for some personal Fi reason so that A can fit in with X instead of being next to B where it really belongs. And you are essentially advocating for more coherent Ti you know, even if you don't 'value it.' That's what you logically are asking for- but that's exactly what I mean about taking socionics to heart too much. If you are Gamma LIE people might think 'why would you want that?' cuz people have such emotional attachment to that sort of stuff. But you want coherent Ti just like I want coherent Fi.
    WTF are you talking about here? Either you have been drinking or the weed I have been vaping 5 days ago hasn't left my body yet...
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  29. #29
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,416
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    If most socionics grievances come down to personal Fi reasons, this is because of the intertype relations aspect of the theory.

    I feel people approach the IR aspect of the theory wrong. People want relations with types. You don't get relations with types though. You only have relations with individuals, who have types. And IR is only one aspect of relations between individuals! People need to stop thinking in terms of good and bad ITR and more in terms of improving their relations with those that matter in their lives.

    In other words, stop thinking of intertype relations as a value judgement. When people say, "conflicting relations" it almost sounds like a value judgement. Yes, some relations have higher compatibility, in theory. But the point is that since we don't have relations with types, it's best to look at the people in our lives and say "how can socionics help me to improve my relation with this person?" There are two aspects to this, in my experience, the first is to understand why another functions the way they do and if this is type related - if it is, then you have gained a clearer picture of them in your mind which can help improve relations. The second aspect is the relation itself, which can be improved by understanding the potential pitfalls in the type of relationship in question.

    I'll give an example from my life. In getting to know an ILE recently, alot of her behaviors puzzled me. I looked at the type descriptions, read them to people I knew who also where aware of some of her behaviors, and we all agreed the behaviors which puzzled me (not maintaining consistent psychological distance or not wanting to apologize) were simply just common flaws of her type (she has alot qualities too, don't get me wrong, but those don't stand in the way). Also, when reading about quasi-identical relations, including people's experiences of quasi-identical relations on wikisocion, and author's descriptions, also collected on wikisocion, I realized all of it hit really close to home, both the good and bad.

    And this is how I found socionics useful in my recent experiences. Not by deciding I needed a dual no matter what, or by deciding any relation outside my quadra was off limits, but using it to get a clearer picture of the other person and the relation itself.

    Primum vivere.


  30. #30
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    8,152
    Mentioned
    908 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    If most socionics grievances come down to personal Fi reasons, this is because of the intertype relations aspect of the theory.

    I feel people approach the IR aspect of the theory wrong. People want relations with types. You don't get relations with types though. You only have relations with individuals, who have types. And IR is only one aspect of relations between individuals! People need to stop thinking in terms of good and bad ITR and more in terms of improving their relations with those that matter in their lives.

    In other words, stop thinking of intertype relations as a value judgement. When people say, "conflicting relations" it almost sounds like a value judgement. Yes, some relations have higher compatibility, in theory. But the point is that since we don't have relations with types, it's best to look at the people in our lives and say "how can socionics help me to improve my relation with this person?" There are two aspects to this, in my experience, the first is to understand why another functions the way they do and if this is type related - if it is, then you have gained a clearer picture of them in your mind which can help improve relations. The second aspect is the relation itself, which can be improved by understanding the potential pitfalls in the type of relationship in question.

    I'll give an example from my life. In getting to know an ILE recently, alot of her behaviors puzzled me. I looked at the type descriptions, read them to people I knew who also where aware of some of her behaviors, and we all agreed the behaviors which puzzled me (not maintaining consistent psychological distance or not wanting to apologize) were simply just common flaws of her type (she has alot qualities too, don't get me wrong, but those don't stand in the way). Also, when reading about quasi-identical relations, including people's experiences of quasi-identical relations on wikisocion, and author's descriptions, also collected on wikisocion, I realized all of it hit really close to home, both the good and bad.

    And this is how I found socionics useful in my recent experiences. Not by deciding I needed a dual no matter what, or by deciding any relation outside my quadra was off limits, but using it to get a clearer picture of the other person and the relation itself.

    Primum vivere.
    Maybe those other things will come in time.

    I'm not saying they are desirable, just that they might be a progression.

  31. #31
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    183 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    I feel people approach the IR aspect of the theory wrong. People want relations with types. You don't get relations with types though. You only have relations with individuals, who have types. And IR is only one aspect of relations between individuals! People need to stop thinking in terms of good and bad ITR and more in terms of improving their relations with those that matter in their lives.

    In other words, stop thinking of intertype relations as a value judgement. When people say, "conflicting relations" it almost sounds like a value judgement. Yes, some relations have higher compatibility, in theory. But the point is that since we don't have relations with types, it's best to look at the people in our lives and say "how can socionics help me to improve my relation with this person?" There are two aspects to this, in my experience, the first is to understand why another functions the way they do and if this is type related - if it is, then you have gained a clearer picture of them in your mind which can help improve relations. The second aspect is the relation itself, which can be improved by understanding the potential pitfalls in the type of relationship in question.
    It's true that we have relations between individuals and not just types. But the type is still a major factor in the real relation. So I would still claim that there is justified value judgement in ITR. Because some type relations will simply have less satisfaction, less closeness, more trouble etc. That doesn't mean that you can't improve them through work, but imo there are pretty obvious limitations to improvement.

    You mentioned quasi-identity. It's one thing to understand the relation, and another thing to actually make an intimate quasi-identity relationship work. Have you tried that? In my opinion it is not worth the trouble.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  32. #32
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,416
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    It's true that we have relations between individuals and not just types. But the type is still a major factor in the real relation. So I would still claim that there is justified value judgement in ITR. Because some type relations will simply have less satisfaction, less closeness, more trouble etc. That doesn't mean that you can't improve them through work, but imo there are pretty obvious limitations to improvement.

    You mentioned quasi-identity. It's one thing to understand the relation, and another thing to actually make an intimate quasi-identity relationship work. Have you tried that? In my opinion it is not worth the trouble.
    Is it ok if I PM you about this? Not sure how self-revealing I will have to get while writing my answer to your question.


  33. #33
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    183 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Is it ok if I PM you about this? .
    Of course.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  34. #34
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Both Socionics and MBTI can't decline because no one has yet figured out what information processing structures might cause the observations. Rather than defining a system, everyone is still arguing over the classifications and properties. The models are nothing more than different ways of rearranging the same old information that Jung had pointed out. On a positive note, there's a lot for someone with true insight to discover. When Einstein came along, it was amazing how the models changed in physics.

    a.k.a. I/O

  35. #35
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,604
    Mentioned
    183 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics has been able to spell things out to the point that we can check these things for ourselves. The ITR etc. This is the baseline that is so badly needed in order to be able to understand Jung's typology.

    Jung started with extroversion/introversion. Later he worked out the categories S, N, F, T. Then came Socionics with an even more detailed system that gave ordinary people what they need to actually be able to learn this without being a genius. Now we have additional models, like DCNH that make the chaos of personality even more spelled out and systematized.

    MBTI is different because it lacks the foundation that Socionics has. It's hard to check what works and what doesn't. It's only with the help of Socionics and Jung that one can see where MBTI goes wrong. The risk of mistake also exists in Socionics because these things can be hard to observe correctly, but here you can always go back and check things for yourself. You have enough points for orientation to get things right in the long run.

    But ultimately this is expert knowledge. The people who develop typology further will probably be LIIs with a Creative subtype, like Jung or Gulenko.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

Posting Permissions

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