On the Lack of Consensus in the Socionics Forum

[Alomoes]

Alright, well, a trait is:
a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person

The quality of a single person having or using a process is a? Finish the sentence.

I understand that it's nigh impossible for people to agree now. As such, the utility of this system is limited. FUN.

[SGF]

Why is this important tho? All of this is established and explained both in Filatova's and Gulenko's books, including the methodology of sociological diagnostics.

I'm under the impression that people just don't have access to information.. all ppl need to do is acquire the information.

[qaz00]

Why is this important tho? All of this is established and explained both in Filatova's and Gulenko's books, including the methodology of sociological diagnostics.

I'm under the impression that people just don't have access to information.. all ppl need to do is acquire the information.

Socionics is considered pseudoscience, there's no proof it works and there's also no proof that Gulenko's methods are better than these of other socionists or random people on this forum. People have access to info, just many don't see it as a fact, but rather a more or less probable explanation of personality differences and relationships. I was actually surprised that some people treat socionics so seriously here, like I got into a sect. I treat typology as a psychological playground where I can learn about and test promising personality theories, choose these parts of theory that make sense, have some proof or whatever other reason, do my own research. I guess some just want to find their own Bible in socionics books.

[SGF]

Socionics is considered pseudoscience, there's no proof it works and there's also no proof that Gulenko's methods are better than these of other socionists or random people on this forum. People have access to info, just many don't see it as a fact, but rather a more or less probable explanation of personality differences and relationships. I was actually surprised that some people treat socionics so seriously here, like I got into a sect. I treat typology as a psychological playground where I can learn about and test promising personality theories, choose these parts of theory that make sense, have some proof or whatever other reason, do my own research. I guess some just want to find their own Bible in socionics books.

so where is the problem? The fact that there is no consensus is irrelevant. When I say I'm LSI-H for example and I refer to Gulenko's system, that means I'm using that. The system is available to other people. The other person only has to think within the constraints of Gulenko's system to understand me as a person as described by the type Gulenko has defined LSI to be. He can refuse, and interpret me according to the system he is using if he wants to. I merely have to understand that other system and see if the interpretation matches my personality so we can be on the same page.

To me this just looks like one person is using imperial, the other metric to measure the same thing. The difference being that the mind belongs to the noumenal realm and we are making assumptions about how the mind works as qualia cannot be understood in terms of physical processes aka the brain = / = the mind, which means empirical evidence is hard to come by and we can't really measure things aka a pseudoscience.

e_e IF we are going to forever think that the mind = the brain, we are never going to get far... an option however exists in Dario Nardi's research. From what I know Gulenko is in touch with Nardi and least there were discussions between them through Ben Vaserlan last time I checked.

This is all very Ti and people with Te preference dislike dealing with this sort of thing. Subjectivist - Objectivist dichotomy. Alpha-Beta vs Gamma-Delta

[leckysupport]

To me this just looks like one person is using imperial, the other metric to measure the same thing. The difference being that the mind belongs to the noumenal realm and we are making assumptions about how the mind works as qualia cannot be understood in terms of physical processes aka the brain = / = the mind, which means empirical evidence is hard to come by and we can't really measure things aka a pseudoscience.

The imperial/metric example doesn't particular work. Distance is far less complex than personality as metric/imperial is directly interchangeable without having an effect on how physical distance is perceived, where as I can't say the same for socionics theories and typing of individuals.

I'm of the opinion that knowledge must be grounded by it's "source".

I.e martial arts by effectiveness in a real fight, measurement of distance (imperial/metric example) by physical space and programming knowledge by software performance and durability.

Socionics should follow the same example, but as of now it is not grounded.

[SGF]

The imperial/metric example doesn't particular work. Distance is far less complex than personality as metric/imperial is directly interchangeable without having an effect on how physical distance is perceived, where as I can't say the same for socionics theories and typing of individuals.

I'm of the opinion that knowledge must be grounded by it's "source".

I.e martial arts by effectiveness in a real fight, measurement of distance (imperial/metric example) by physical space and programming knowledge by software performance and durability.

Socionics should follow the same example, but as of now it is not grounded.

You are taking things out of context by quoting only part of what I said, which leads to misunderstandings. I was agreeing that it is a pseudoscience, and explaining why:

The difference being that the mind belongs to the noumenal realm and we are making assumptions about how the mind works as qualia cannot be understood in terms of physical processes aka the brain = / = the mind, which means empirical evidence is hard to come by and we can't really measure things aka a pseudoscience.

Consensus to me on the subject is irrelevant. I don't see why the value of socionics would be lessened due to it being a pseudoscience.

EDIT: for clarification, I merely used imperial and metric as a analogy to make a point.

[Chthonic Daydream]

You are taking things out of context by quoting only part of what I said, which leads to misunderstandings. I was agreeing that it is a pseudoscience, and explaining why:



Consensus to me on the subject is irrelevant. I don't see why the value of socionics would be lessened due to it being a pseudoscience.

Exactly. The modern world is fetishizing science to the point where it erases every other contribution. "Empirical evidence", "peer-reviewed" and "studies say" shouldn't become blind mantras. There doesn't have to be consensus. There has to be structure, and I think that is achievable without hard consensus.

But of course, man cannot resist pouting at the thought of having a guiding hand on the back of his neck because it feels just as restrictive as it is necessary. We want to have our cake and eat it too, in other words. We want to be held, but not too hard or it creates a panic akin to sexual frustration.

And if we can't, we just descend into discussions like these under the guise of 'productivity' and critical thinking.