?
Model A is true
Duality is true
VI is bullshit
Gulenko is God
Gulenko is mb heretic
Socionics is not a cult
Socionics is pseudoscience
Socionics qualifies as a hypothesis
ESEs only exist in theory
Only a Critic could make this thread
Skeptic was right
It has some evidence going for it
I can prove it mathematically
It hasn’t got any evidence going for it
It’s probably mostly bullshit
It’s probably all bullshit
Otter
Capybara
Other
To what extent do you regard Socionics as true? (select all that apply)
?
I doubted until noticed how good it described my experience with people by IR theory.
It's possibly to fool yourself about your and other people "strong" traits/functions. But when you identify types and then that somehow fits to IR theory - it should not be accidental. That made me a "believer". Then I've paid more of the attention to this and notice types as a factor of behavior, relations, mind contents which is useful to know. I trust to what notice as clearly and good fiting to my experience.
I agree with: 4 dichotomies, 8 functions, Jung's approach about strong(conscious)/weak(unconscious) functions, Augustinavichiute's ideas about general 8 functional model, her valued/nonvalued functions and linked with this pairs of supplementing/opposing functions.
Other parts of theory of these 2 people I perceive with more doubts. Or reject, especially where Augustinavichiute contradicts to Jung without good basis - as what function she supposed as weakest, her acceptive/productive kind of functions, Reinin's traits, etc.
New theories about Jung types of people besides these 2 - is not Socionics to discuss here and I tend to reject that fantasies until those will be proved objectively, or mb would fit good to my experience sometimes.
> Model A is true
has correct, wrong and doubtful parts. you may use only parts which are correct
> Duality is true
as one of factors for a sympathy and friendship relations
> VI is bullshit
In 2015 in socioforum's experiment I've proved objectively that intuitive-nonverbal VI is useful method. It gave average typing match of 15-17% what is clearly higher than accidental case of 1/16 (~6%). So this kind of data may be used for typing. With better skills the accuracy will be higher. In the experiment took part random people of that forum.
> Gulenko is God
Gulenko is mb heretic
is heretic. not "mb"
> Socionics is not a cult
As it's still is not proved objectively in main parts, so people trust significanly irrationally. In this degree it's a cult. In the same time it's psychology hypothesis too.
> Socionics is pseudoscience
Not is. May become if there will appear disproof of all its basic theories. Alike nonexistent of supplementing functions effect. Doubtful to be disproved, as besides subjective observations there is objective basis. Should exist Jung types, as people objectively notice their traits what allows to get higher than accidental typing matches.
Supplementing functions effect may be proved if something alike my IR test will show higher than accidental match with some typing method, for example a common test. Or by % of good IR compared to bad IR in good/bad relations, divorces, emotional status.
> Socionics qualifies as a hypothesis
it's mainly hypothetical still
> ESEs only exist in theory
Only a Critic could make this thread
Skeptic was right
It has some evidence going for it
has some objective numbers mentioned above, besides subjective experience
> I can prove it mathematically
there is good chance to prove some basic theory in experiments. this is done with the usage of statistical methods/mathematics. an example was experimental proof of VI usage
> It hasn’t got any evidence going for it
It’s probably mostly bullshit
It’s probably all bullshit
if to type with hard mistakes. and never check what is done in typology on today
P.S.
Socionics has a basis and hope to be accepted by psychology practice. It needs experiments done sucessfully, by diplomed psychologists and publicated. Then may pass a time to process new data and break a possible resistance. Check how not long ago "easily" was accepted by medics the idea that bacterias from their hands lead to diseases and deathes, that they need to clean hands better.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
Socionics is only 1/3 of the relationship experience. Therefor putting too much emphasis on it can be misleading sometimes. Instincts and tendencies have a big influence whether you get along with someone.
VI is possible if you know enough types. Saying that VI is bullshit is an indicator you are still a beginner
I regard it as true through simple application. I apply the theory to reality and it works effectively so to me it's true. Probably one of the least BS theories of psychology to me. VI in terms of physical structure is BS but in terms of body language and appearances, how one carries and expresses theirselves, it's legit. Duality is overrated as hell but true. God I wish ESE's existed only in theory, they torment me.
I answered based on the view that I am don't think that there is anything going for Socionics that could be explained adequately by other means. I couldn't think of anything regarded as "key" to Socionics other than Model A and duality, otherwise I would have included them. I don't mean to troll when I vote that "It’s probably all bullshit".
I think part of the reason (probably a lesser reason) that I linger on the forum is that I'm not aware of a comparable community that is interested in measures to determine compatible relationships. Although I'm dismayed that there appears to be little drive to complement or even replace Socionics tenets.
Socionics is extremely accurate if understood correctly. A true revolution in psychology and cognitive science, far ahead of its time.
Duality is true as a unique chemistry and fullfilling compensation. As I've said before I dont really belive it's the best relationship anymore. But I agree on the basic facts about duality.
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
I didn't choose "I can prove it mathematically", but I have defined/constructed certain aspects of the model mathematically in a way that makes sense and corresponds with how the theory is actually used. I described part of it here:
https://wholesocionics.blogspot.com/...thematics.html
There are 7.8 billion people on this world. So there is a chance, a slim chance that EII e8w7 might exist but the existence of ESEs is just mambo jambo.
You don’t believe it’s the best relationship? Why is that? I have been wondering myself recently how much ‘better’ it actually is.Originally Posted by Tallmo
I think there's something to socionics; it definitely seems to fill in the gaps of the question: "Why are people the way they are?"
For me, this question feels similar to the question, "Does God exist?" It's like I intuitively know (regardless of "sufficient data"), deep down inside, that God / socionics exists, that these forces and fields invisible to the eye, exist. The pieces and clues are scattered around, it's just a matter of logically putting things together and coming to the logical truth/conclusion that it does exist.
There's a lot of fancy terms, names, and labels- "Socionics" "Model A" "Model G" IMO it doesn't really matter what the outside label is or what we call it. We can call soccer "football" or we can call football "soccer" at the end we're all trying to kick the ball into the net to win the game. And sure, the different models are trying to be the most "accurate" but at the end of the day again we're just trying to explain, "Why are we the way we are?"
I think a lot of people tend to be skeptical of socionics because:
With that being said, if you observe yourself and your interactions closely enough, you'll no doubt notice patterns; some aspects of your psyche not changing since birth, noticing certain informational aspects you clash with, some that open you up, informational strengths/weaknesses/blind spots etc. You'll notice that with certain people, no matter how hard you try, you can't fully "get." Then you'll notice there are others that you CAN understand without saying a word. ( Lol, Spooky!!)1. they often confuse persona for type; they don't dig deep enough to see nuances and patterns that seemingly fit together; you have to strip down all the layers of one's persona until you reach "the core" or "type" of a person.
2. it's not an easy process; just look at all the forumites fighting over each other's types, and all the confusion and dismay when it comes to everything typing.
3. the lack of standardization; I only wish (for the sake of "the masses") there was more empirical/concrete data and more practical applications of the theory. Right now, there's a lot of theoretical information available out there but the problem comes in interpreting/applying the theory - it's still highly subjective and open to interpretation, at least here in the US/on these forums.
These are undeniable patterns that keep repeating throughout our experience.
Last edited by DrDonkeyBallz; 12-11-2020 at 02:26 AM.
Even if Socionics were true, I don't think that it's wise to let it influence your self-image and relationships. The power of suggestion is very strong, and it's common to see people modifying their behaviour in order to squeeze themselves into type descriptions, often written by distant psychologists from a completely different culture. This is understandable, because Socionics is such an intriguing theory with great explanatory power, but one does get the impression that people are too ready to espouse it totally and uncritically.
Even if it were 100% the word of God and etched into the fabric of the universe, who's to say that Socionics is any more proper than basing your personality and relationships around a cultural, political, or self-invented identity? There's this political commentator named Dave Rubin who is probably my dual sociotype. I don't agree with almost any of Dave Rubin's professed political views, and I have strong suspicions that his political transformation has been less than credible. It would be inauthentic for me to associate with that man in any capacity that wasn't neutral, at best.
Last edited by xerxe; 12-11-2020 at 04:55 AM.
Well, it IS the best, if you want to live in bliss and "paradise". It's just that you outsource your weak side to your dual and and that blocks self-development. If you want to develop and integrate your weak side you need to get exposed to difficulties and suffer.
I also know some dual couples who are old now and they have been together for like 50 years, but there's something stagnated about them.
Check out the book "Lectures on Jung's typology" for more info. Here is the paragraph where they criticize duality, (even though it is not called "duality", rather "the opposite type", but they're referring to the same thing)
But duality can be a great experience so I am not saying that one should avoid it. But there are always alternative perspectives. There's no perfect relationship, but as a general rule, one should stick to the same quadra for marriage.
Last edited by Tallmo; 12-11-2020 at 02:43 PM.
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
Thanks..haha I think I just find it hard to really imagine being that happy..but I have been around duals so I guess I can imagine it a little..to me it sounds a bit like feeling like a child again.
I'm not sure why I'm suddenly questioning this atm but I guess you have to at some point. I guess it really is a difficult thing to accept deep down- that some people randomly stumble on true love and happiness..and others don't get to experience that. One more injustice in this already vastly unjust world. Although I guess at least it can happen to anyone, and it's nice to think of ordinary, otherwise unprivileged people experiencing this type of happiness, especially if they've had difficult lives before finding it.
However, the IEI in me has to believe that there isn't only one type of happy ending..that 'true love' is something more powerful than biology and that it's something that more than one set of types can achieve together. We only get one life after all, and two people helping each other through it, reminding each other they exist, are alive and have a purpose to love and be loved as a human being..has got to be something we can do for each other whether in a dual couple or not. I guess we have evolved in a way that this is possible..and in any loving relationship, duality or not, it will be things like commitment, getting to know each other better over time, and shared memories which make it truly loving in the end. Perhaps this is, like you say, an 'alternative perspective'. Bit tired as I'm writing so hope it makes sense.
Last edited by BethanyR; 12-12-2020 at 01:34 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote