On the Lack of Consensus in the Socionics Forum

[Alomoes]

Alright, so there's a lack of consensus here that makes it incredibly hard to understand and get better with socionics.

My suggestion is that everyone sits down and hammers out basic definitions that are to be followed and refered to as a rule. Until then, all I'm gonna learn is how divided everyone is. Basically create a stickied thread that links to accepted definitions for basic socionics theory. Anything that deviates from those definitions should be in viewpoints.

I believe this would be a start. It'll address the differences people have in interpretation.

[Subteigh]

The Hexaco-PI-R (which now seems to be the gold standard model of personality, replacing the Big Five), has a well-defined inventory. I'm not optimistic that something comparable could be achieved for Socionics. Could Socionists describe how the trait of "Extraversion" is similar and different to the trait of "Extraversion" in the Hexaco-PI-R?

http://hexaco.org/

For the NEO-PI-R, based on one study, and assuming some correlations, I created some charts: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1134000

But aside from making assumptions, it may mean that some types as defined have more than their fair share of undesirable characteristics. This isn't necessarily problematic if it is the reality, but it is important to ensure that a model of personality covers as much of personality as possible.

[two]

I actually was frustrated with that, but if you just focus on the socionists' texts and the people you think are correct here, you'll see the light

I realized what @Sol was talking about regarding Ti-Fe and Te-Fi. It seems common to mistakenly interchange them. It would also be useful to notice traits of the people you interact with irl - that includes how they talk, how they act, how they put their points across. There are people you just won't jive with when it comes to values, and that can give you a lot of information. One of the main things that really helped me realize the types of the people I know is by contemplating about my previous interactions with them, and realizing when it failed and when it succeeded.

Anyway when it comes down to it, the texts are correct but the people's interpretation of it can be wrong. So just focus on the definitions by the leading socionists and try it irl.

-
If you are having problems knowing your type, I think the most effective ways to get unadulterated data are these two:
- Share/write down random thoughts when they come up without filtering them
- Ask people who know you for a very long time how you come across to them and see common patterns

[xerx]

Alright, so there's a lack of consensus here that makes it incredibly hard to understand and get better with socionics.

You won't win that uphill battle; it's been like this since Socionics was first introduced.

It's exactly like this in Eastern Europe too. Deep ideological splits don't just exist on forums, but also between established, for-profit schools which engage in bitter rivalries over the fundamentals of the theory. A good number of professional socionists even attach their own beliefs (like creationism) to their version of Socionics, and use the theory to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, claiming that their critics must belong to an opposing quadra.

In some ways, Western Socionics (which is mostly confined to this forum, Sergei Ganin's website, discord, and Facebook, afaik) has gotten better. This forum was actually hacked once by a rival school of Socionics. There was even a psychology student who threatened to stab people that stood in his way (he was one of three users here who threatened to kill me). There is speculation that he had mental issues (schizophrenia or schizotypal), but the dude was kind of a mystery and no one knows for sure. He was a very strange and perplexing person, and so were his theories.

[xerx]

There was even a psychology student who threatened to stab people that stood in his way (he was one of three users here who threatened to kill me). There is speculation that he had mental issues (schizophrenia or schizotypal), but the dude was kind of a mystery and no one knows for sure.

The really, really creepy part is that he looks exactly like the main character (a serial killer) from this film. He even has the same name.





^ Seems like an interesting film, actually.

[Sanguine Miasma]

So, behavior, character, habits, experiences vs cognition.
The left side better left to psyche yoga, enneagram, oldham Big 5. Psyche yoga is mechanistic formulation akin to socionics, big 5 is like overarching collection of personal thingys, oldham is pathological, enneagram is about looking at geometric shapes and thinking about yourself in contrast to others like oldham.

I rest my longcase.

[Sol]

The main it needs to say about real typing match. Real, not after conformistic factor when people know opinions of others before saying own opinions.
There is average low typing match as <20% in known experiments. The problem of low match is not among noobs on forums (99% there) only. Experienced typers have it too, mb some lesser as <50% what is rather low anyway.

Then it needs to point on the theory. There is Socionics - Jung and Augustinavichiute hypotheses. To add there new, as a part of Socionics, needs good objective basis.
Also there is a problem that different ideas of these 2 authors deserve different trust, different possibility of to be wrong. If you use more doubtful ideas - you'll have higher chance to mistake and to such of geting a disagreement.
If you are using new ideas about types of other authors without good objective basis for those ideas - the same, higher chance of mistakes.
It's rare situation when a hypothesis in muddy psychology region appear to be correct on practice. It will be kind of mirracle if Jung types + Augustunavichiute's functions complementation will give a practical use in objective experiments, as for example will help to make happier and more stable pairs. It's a hypothesis still.
The more of different hypotheses you are using, the more hypotheses are secondary conclusions based on more core hypotheses - the more chances you have mistakes in the theory. It's not a game - for correct result needs to use correct and trusty ideas.

Other part of the problem is speculativity of typing methods when on the same data can be given different opinions. Besides the theory, it's important how you are using it. Your efforts, skills, quality and quantity of the data you used may lead to other opinions about what is someone's type.
In Internet on typology sites you see a lot of people who had no good typing experience and often use doubtful data for deciding about types. You may see when assured opinions about someone's type are said by random noobs and by a questionnaire only, sometimes too simple questionnaire and often answered by people who know types theory to be able to filter any words there (as it's common when those people think to have some of types would be better). What theory mess those typing noobs and more experined ones may use is additional fun.

[Subteigh]

@Singu

[Subteigh]

Bottom Up Construction of a Personality Taxonomy

[Aramas]

So, behavior, character, habits, experiences vs cognition.
The left side better left to psyche yoga, enneagram, oldham Big 5. Psyche yoga is mechanistic formulation akin to socionics, big 5 is like overarching collection of personal thingys, oldham is pathological, enneagram is about looking at geometric shapes and thinking about yourself in contrast to others like oldham.

I rest my longcase.

Big 5 is trait based instead of process based. That's the big difference between that and jungian stuff.

[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 DarkAngelFireWolf69'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 DarkAngelFireWolf69'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 DarkAngelFireWolf69'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 DarkAngelFireWolf69'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 DarkAngelFireWolf69'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 DarkAngelFireWolf69's system to understand me as a person as described by the type DarkAngelFireWolf69 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 DarkAngelFireWolf69 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.

[Wavebury]

I haven't read the whole thread, but in response to the OP, I think it's best to see different schools of socionics as slightly different typology systems and not as different yet erroneous attempts at describing one thing.

[mfckrz]

Alright, so there's a lack of consensus here that makes it incredibly hard to understand and get better with socionics.

My suggestion is that everyone sits down and hammers out basic definitions that are to be followed and refered to as a rule. Until then, all I'm gonna learn is how divided everyone is. Basically create a stickied thread that links to accepted definitions for basic socionics theory. Anything that deviates from those definitions should be in viewpoints.

I believe this would be a start. It'll address the differences people have in interpretation.

Most of the basics people endlessly quibble over in typology were already reasonably defined long ago. Jung and Aushra wrote plenty of material which hardly anyone in these communities actually reads.

This gets especially confusing in the West given the aping of WSS, DarkAngelFireWolf69ism, etc… 'schools' that've diverged so far from the theoretical foundations of Socionics that I don't think they're talking about the same thing anymore, yet present their viewpoints as canonical anyhow. The situation is so deteriorated in this sphere that Westerners are barely even using intertypes now, which was the central purpose of Socionics to begin with.

[Shazaam]

You want some stern in stone set of rules about socionics but as they say, 'rules were made to be broken'. Also "rules" tend to be very flexible and convoluted with many legal loopholes that a good Jew lawyer weaves in and out of.

I don't even really see naturally that much conflict between what the functional definitions mean or anything- maybe not like you do at any rate. People like to argue regardless. Even when both people are essentially saying the same thing, people will still argue or debate about something because it can be fun or logically interesting or something.

Socionics... really isn't that hard to figure out. Like at all. It's not really that complicated but I'm sure people love to make it complicated to make it more 'interesting.' Fe is gay shit and colorful entertainment shit- and Te is dry and serious logical str8 man business-y shit. Te is ... often about a certain kind of institutional authority, although an overload of Ti can also be like that- it's usually considered to be more Te I think though because Te is external and "more naturally forceful" - It's also an extroverted function, not an introverted one. Extroverts are more naturally abrasive in a sense and force their own will upon the world more whereas introverts are more aloof; wall-flower-ish. Shiny silverwear is shiny.

When you're learning about something, you don't forget to call a spade a spade and just be real. Much of socionics is as simple and affectionate as an ESTp male reading the Highlights comic book. Using pretentious words doesn't make a person smart or intelligent either, or more to be taken seriously but people here can have low self-esteem issues and follow a person around too much just cuz they use those pretty Te/Fi valuing words. I understand this is just my Fe valuing bias though.

Fe likes making everybody happy more or less, like reading the room and trying to mitigate its own impulses and feelings to be accomodating to as much people as possible. It's essentially a 'good host'. Everybody complements me on my ability to host them well, because my Fe is pretty strong and also valued. Also I'm a stereotypical gay man and I like to make people feel loved or cared for. I probably want to just be a gay waiter at some fancy restaurant really...

Light Fe is strong AoE healing spells and Light Fi is strong single target healing spells. Dark Fe is also mass mind control manipulation and Dark Fi is sadistically destroying something that repulses you with in a kind of Game of Thrones-y way. Just high intense wtf Single-Target damage. Dark Fe is sociopathic, and Dark Fi is sadistic. Gammas/Deltas are usually much more sadistic whereas Alphas/Betas are more about sociopathy. Neither Fe or Fi is 'more moral' than the other or even related to morals as those are often so personal and private - but of course you naturally think the function(s) you value are more 'moral' than the other non-valued ones - and that's okay! That's just normal...

Actually a lot of the extroverted functions are quite similiar to their introverted counterparts with maybe the exception of Ne & Ni- I think those two are kinda different although both are about narcissistic 'streams of consciousness' type things. It's not some ultra neat overlap by any means but there is gonna be some common similarities.

[Exodus]

You are not the first to lament the lack of consensus. The trouble is that you cannot actually enforce a consensus in this way, or at least not outside the confines of your forum that you run as a tyrant who controls what people can and cannot say. Also, it doesn't guarantee that your interpretation is the right one either.

To have a consensus which is correct, you need to be able to prove it. Socionics is not really accessible to empirical proof at the moment so this leaves mathematics (/ logic). If you can explain why Model A is the way it is, including the semantics, then you can have a solid basis for claiming that your interpretation is the right one. I've given some examples of definitions that can go towards this program. Some of the questions that a model should be able to answer are why the elements have the relations they do with each other, why the basic dichotomies exist and what they mean, etc. I've made some progress on these questions, and the result looks a bit different from what Augusta or DarkAngelFireWolf69 or the other Eastern schools have been working with. I do think that the "School of Western Socionics" (SWS which is what WSS is one part of) is a lot more advanced than the Eastern schools which don't seem to have come up with much new insight for maybe 20-30 years.

[Singu]

Model A is basically chemistry before Mendeleev's Periodic Table, where there were many competing models that categorized the known and observed chemical elements, but they didn't categorize the unobserved elements, hence they were wrong. Reality must be a sum of both the observed and the unobserved.

Mendeleev's predictions

In 1870, he first tried to characterize the yet undiscovered elements, and he gave detailed predictions for three elements, which he termed eka-boron, eka-aluminium, and eka-silicium, as well as more briefly noted a few other expectations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...periodic_table

Mendeleev's model was the first (probably) to deduce the undiscovered elements, and hence he could predict them. And we know that the Mendeleev's model is accurate, because he had correctly predicted the properties of those undiscovered elements. The newly discovered elements were almost as exactly as Mendeleev had deduced.

The Periodic Table is arranged the way that it is, because that's how the atoms and electrons, etc, actually work. The transition of properties of elements occur in periods due to the configuration of electron shells. So Mendeleev had figured out the periodic properties or principles of chemical elements before we knew anything about atoms. And only from the accuracy of the periodic table can correctly predict the unobserved elements.

The reason why Mendeleev could categorize unobserved elements such as Gallium ("eka-aluminium"), is because he had used deductive reasoning instead of inductive reasoning. He came up with a rule that lays out all the possible elements first, instead of the other way around which makes an observation first, then come up with a rule according to the observation.

Model A and ITR on the other hand cannot and does not categorize the unobserved human thoughts and behaviors. In reality, they do not make any real predictions. They simply expect the past observations to repeat again.

If you could ever come up with a "comprehensive model of human thoughts and behaviors" (if there's such a thing), then you must first come up with a rule that makes it possible for all the subsequent thoughts and behaviors to occur. Otherwise... you're just arranging current observations into a certain way. And that may have some use or give hints to future developments. But it's still likely to be wrong as a comprehensive or an all-encompassing model that it claims to be.

Another way is to come up with an accurate theoretical explanation of how human consciousness actually works in a fundamental way, in the same way that knowing how atoms actually work could easily come up with the Periodic Table. It's just that Mendeleev had correctly guessed it before we knew anything about atoms.

Conclusion: what people should be cautious of all typologies is that it can never be a comprehensive model of human thoughts and behaviors. There will always be something about a person that you may not know about. The future thoughts and behaviors of a person may surprise you in unexpected ways, because you couldn't predict them or you didn't know about them. The same could be said about your own personality and self-development. Your future self may surprise your current self.

[two]

In order to make Socionics a widely-accepted and proper system, you need to construct a good test which has no vague results. For example, try to test all PoLRs. If you don’t meet the criteria for Si-PoLR, then you aren’t xIE. The hard part is knowing the right questions to ask, and removing the previously believed aspects of Socionics according to what you see in reality.

But going back to the original point of this thread again regarding consensus, there is consensus. Just read the texts, convoluted or not they all just talk about the same thing just in a different way. The only thing that makes things complicated is the introduction of additional systems (DCNH, Subtypes).

[SGF]

In order to make Socionics a widely-accepted and proper system, you need to construct a good test which has no vague results. For example, try to test all PoLRs. If you don’t meet the criteria for Si-PoLR, then you aren’t xIE. The hard part is knowing the right questions to ask, and removing the previously believed aspects of Socionics according to what you see in reality.

Testing relies on people being self aware and honest with themselves. A lot of people aren't self aware enough, myself included and many of us myself included often just answer what we aspire to be rather than what we really are. I learned that the hard way when I typed in the enenagram. All of this distorts the results which makes self report testing almost always unreliable

[two]

Testing relies on people being self aware and honest with themselves. A lot of people aren't self aware enough, myself included and many of us myself included often just answer what we aspire to be rather than what we really are. I learned that the hard way when I typed in the enenagram. All of this distorts the results which makes self report testing almost always unreliable

I’m actually thinking of a test that people won’t be able to lie about. Like if you are Ne 4D you must be able to do X thing right off the bat without any help.

[SGF]

I’m actually thinking of a test that people won’t be able to lie about. Like if you are Ne 4D you must be able to do X thing right off the bat without any help.

oh, so kinda like an IQ test to probe for IME strength?
Yeah that could work to narrow down the type to max 2-4 possibilities.

[two]

oh, so kinda like an IQ test to probe for IME strength?
Yeah that could work to narrow down the type to max 2-4 possibilities.

Yes, because if we just type based on impressions/behavior like what we do now there’s a lot of leeway for subjectivity. That’s where the consensus breaks down, lots of different perceptions

[Exodus]

In order to make Socionics a widely-accepted and proper system, you need to construct a good test which has no vague results. For example, try to test all PoLRs. If you don’t meet the criteria for Si-PoLR, then you aren’t xIE. The hard part is knowing the right questions to ask, and removing the previously believed aspects of Socionics according to what you see in reality.

I don't get this "PoLR" fascination. Why do people assign so much importance to it? It's the one that's the least visible.

Is it just because it's easier to write?

[two]

I don't get this "PoLR" fascination. Why do people assign so much importance to it? It's the one that's the least visible.

Is it just because it's easier to write?

I don't know about the PoLR fascination, I just used it as an example. You can also make it Creative, Leading or whatever.

[Kill4Me]

difference between them and me is I can back my typings up with the only valid VI templates for each socionics type and subtype.

www.pinterest.com/socionics

a lot of them don't use VI...they're just building castles in the sky and cobbling together arguments like lawyers. anybody who self-types but their self-type doesn't fit my VI template for that type isnt using their true type. i don't give a shit what their quiz answers say. Self-typing tests are notoriously inaccurate because they rely on self-reporting, and descriptions about types don't equal distinctions between types...

My VI templates buried the antiquated, outdated and now irrelevant VI templates over at socionics.com. Bert tried challenging the foundation of my VI templates years ago with his lawyer sophistry. I buried him in debate and then the paranoiac from the black panther thread niffer sympathy sniffer fake-SLE called for the moderators to intervene (sles never run to the moderators for intervention). I also demolished the Awful 28's leader Soupman when he tried to debate me on Trump's type using that lawyer sophistry crap.

the only way to break down every socionics type and subtype using VI is the way I have had it since I first unveiled it to the typology communities. trying to rearrange it winds up in glaring logical, conceptual, structural flaws. (pinterest.com/sociothieves i'll call 'em copied my phrase "vi templates" and then tried switching my VI templates around which turned into an epic failure...see the pinned pinterest thread for my more comprehensive annihilation of said pinterest pretender)

[CR400AF]

In order to make Socionics a widely-accepted and proper system, you need to construct a good test which has no vague results. For example, try to test all PoLRs. If you don’t meet the criteria for Si-PoLR, then you aren’t xIE. The hard part is knowing the right questions to ask, and removing the previously believed aspects of Socionics according to what you see in reality.

But going back to the original point of this thread again regarding consensus, there is consensus. Just read the texts, convoluted or not they all just talk about the same thing just in a different way. The only thing that makes things complicated is the introduction of additional systems (DCNH, Subtypes).

As far as I'm concerned no such test could be created. Human beings are way more complex than what a test could define

[Baqer]

I buried him in debate and then the paranoiac from the black panther thread niffer sympathy sniffer fake-SLE called for the moderators to intervene

Wow, uhhh, that'll really convince people. I mean I can see you're an SLE and all but you're acting less human and more living stereotype.