Socionics is suspicious because 16 is too symmetrical a number

[HolyKnowing]

Types in real life are never that symmetrical. Look at the periodic table of element or the standard model of elementary particles. They have patterns (periodic table has cosets, particle physics has duals and lie groups like SO3, U, etc...), but they don't have clean numbers like 16.

[Northstar]

Socionics is necessarily ”symmetrical” as in having an even number of types because it is expressed in binary (dichotomies). You either have a trait or not, there is no in between. It doesn’t make the theory suspect in itself. To represent infinite variation and a spectrum of types with more detail, you just add more dichotomies. It is like analog to digital conversion, adding more bits (dichotomies) enhances the resolution.

[Rebelondeck]

One could say that particle physics is somewhat suspect also. Hopefully, doubt will inspire a more scientific approach to Socionics; it's only at the there-seems-to-be-a-pattern stage - like dark energy.

a.k.a. I/O

[HolyKnowing]

Socionics is necessarily ”symmetrical” as in having an even number of types because it is expressed in binary (dichotomies). You either have a trait or not, there is no in between. It doesn’t make the theory suspect in itself. To represent infinite variation and a spectrum of types with more detail, you just add more dichotomies. It is like analog to digital conversion, adding more bits (dichotomies) enhances the resolution.

That's cool! So there could be 8bit, 16bit, 32bit, etc... versions of Socionics?

[Smilex]

Exactly. As long as you are aware of if the types in the dichotomy prefer the same quality or the opposite quality, the basic rules of socionics apply.

[Northstar]

That's cool! So there could be 8bit, 16bit, 32bit, etc... versions of Socionics?

Yeah, classic model A (or MBTI, for that matter) is 4-bit (2^4 = 16). The DCNH system adds 3 more dichotomies which would result in a 7-bit typology of 128 types, but because only half of the combinations are "allowed" or considered distinct subtypes, it becomes a 6-bit typology of 64 types.

The Reinin dichotomies are fully derived from the basic dichotomies and don't add any more information as every type only matches to one combination of Reinin dichotomies.

[Tallmo]

The human body is also almost totally symmetric on the y-axis. Is this suspicious too?

[The Reality Denialist]

The human body is also almost totally symmetric on the y-axis. Is this suspicious too?

Only the surface. Neurologically not true but there do exists near exceptions.

[Nobody]

It IS suspicious, if you don't really believe in duality of functions or think it's not that important most of the time.

[sbbds]

The human body is also almost totally symmetric on the y-axis. Is this suspicious too?

LOL. I was thinking this too. Does OP also find things like mirrors and starfish suspicious?

[Hope]

LOL. I was thinking this too. Does OP also find things like mirrors and starfish suspicious?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

People want symmetry, it's natural. People find symmetrical faces and things much more pleasing and attractive than asymmetry which causes disarray. It causes people to feel dizzy, "ugly" and disorientated. It literally is like being on a weird amusement park ride forever that doesn't let up and makes you vomit. It's not a good way of being. The brain is always trying to symmetrize things itself even because of this. The human body also has natural functions like homeostasis which tries to bring you to that point of symmetry. Your body likes to stay at average 97-98-ish degrees no matter what is going on outside.

The problem comes in relationships when people think being involved in somebody no good for them will bring them 'symmetry' but it really brings it's opposite.

I agree tho that life isn't a neat butterfly pattern of perfect yawn-ness. How boring! That is kind when 'symmetry' goes too far and pretty ribbon-y. Human beings are complex in that in the end we crave symmetry but we also wish to be broken apart out of it- because it's like the chaotic stir that causes orgasms. That is why subs and most people feel so empowered if somebody talks about them being cut up without being a loser emo overly empathetic dork about it, but would be rightfully horrified and offended if they actually did it.

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, I have worked with frameworks that dealt with scientific systems that had very broken regulaties. It was very patchy to get it working. You could call it b0rked. So basically it called for symmetrization for the end viewer. It works as long as it does not change out from the ordinary regularity and it could raise its ugly head unexpectedly. Kind of funny way to think if it is as a grand scheme of things. Well, I heard that introduction of breakage in symmetry in thermodynamics borked some of it immediately... so have a nice rest of the weekend thinking about the shaky grounds you stand on.