Experiments

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Why?

Probably because it involves theory and people.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Probably because it involves theory and people.

Economics involves theory and people, would that be an NF dominated field as well?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Economics involves theory and people, would that be an NF dominated field as well?

That isn't what the data indicates. Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.

[myresearch]

That isn't what the data indicates. Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.

However, in these experiments, people are observed and treated as systems, one can find these experiments immoral.

This is not exactly the approach of a psychologist but a scientist.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

However, in these experiments, people are observed and treated as systems, one can find these experiments immoral.

This is not exactly the approach of a psychologist but a scientist.

OK. But to become a psychology professor, you presumably have a natural interest in the subject.

[myresearch]

OK. But to become a psychology professor, you presumably have a natural interest in the subject.

T people can get into people and F people can get into making money.

Otherwise, typology and psychology forums would be filled with NF only.

The distinction between T and F can be detected by understanding their approach to it.

Not every strategy in economics have been made by T types.

These kind of experiments clearly must have been made by T types.

You can find data that says NF types are into psychology. However, there are different branches of it, you cannot find NF domination in every branch.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

T people can get into people and F people can get into making money.

Otherwise, typology and psychology forums would be filled with NF only.

The distinction between T and F can be detected by understanding their approach to it.

Not every strategy in economics have been made by T types.

These kind of experiments clearly must have been made by T types.

You can find data that says NF types are into psychology. However, there are different branches of it, you cannot find NF domination in every branch.

I'm not saying that psychology is exclusive a NF sphere - only that it is a NF sphere. I don't know what types these researchers had in these specific experiments, but I still think they are most likely NF types. I think it is only after the fact that they were considered questionable - the researchers could not have predicted that things could have ended up that way, although they could have handled them better. Variants of the experiments are still done today.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

That isn't what the data indicates. Economics has more of a focus on data - people are more of a secondary focus, if at all, and in a more detached, general way.

This is what I was getting at, there is an assumption that in sociology and psychology you just have these hunches and opinions and they don't need to be studied or statistically justified. While there is that, it is an academic field that requires a certain intellectual rigor that I don't think many NFs would have the patience to complete. Of course there can be NFs in social sciences as a whole, I see no reason in believing the assumption that since it's people oriented NFs must be doing it.

Economics does not consider people of secondary importance since people drive market forces.

The Gamestop situation is a good example.

Economics is a social science just as psychology and sociology and they borrow and exchange concepts from one another.

There are sections I think both NF and SF types would be more inclined toward. Therapy and counseling, social work, that sort of thing.

Of course I'm talking about massive groups of people, your sociotype does not guarantee success or failure in any career field. I'm only talking about the likelihood that these careers would be pursued.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This is what I was getting at, there is an assumption that in sociology and psychology you just have these hunches and opinions and they don't need to be studied or statistically justified. While there is that, it is an academic field that requires a certain intellectual rigor that I don't think many NFs would have the patience to complete. Of course there can be NFs in social sciences as a whole, I see no reason in believing the assumption that since it's people oriented NFs must be doing it.

Economics does not consider people of secondary importance since people drive market forces.

The Gamestop situation is a good example.

Economics is a social science just as psychology and sociology and they borrow and exchange concepts from one another.

There are sections I think both NF and SF types would be more inclined toward. Therapy and counseling, social work, that sort of thing.

Of course I'm talking about massive groups of people, your sociotype does not guarantee success or failure in any career field. I'm only talking about the likelihood that these careers would be pursued.

I suggest you read some economics papers and books.

The most common "type" in Psychology as far as I recall is NF.