What would, in your opinion, make socionics more scientific?
What would, in your opinion, make socionics more scientific?
The first ideas to came to mind sound a bit silly in written form:
- If the introverted functions could somehow be captured in brain scans or recorded in the form of mind's images/snapshots, that would be interesting to see.
- If the nervous system response when in communication with a dual (compared with a supervisor for example) could be measured. I don't know where I'm going with this idea, what I am trying to get at is a way to avoid jumping to conclusions and writing off an opportunity to understand someone.
- A way to measure the effect that upbringing has on the Super-Id block.
- If certain activities could be proven to help balance out an excess/overuse of one function. A unintended benefit could be spending time with someone else's perspective by trying something different that comes naturally to them, but not to you.
Your first idea would not work, given it would only show someone is an extrovert if not being able see in brain, the Ep and EJ (Pe and Je). At most it would just show a bit, but maybe the creative introverted functions would show differently than that of base. But ten you still have two types between to figure out; the logical or ethical, which perhaps it can be easier show from that.
Second idea is fruitless. You can be attracted to anyone and even if not dual, it will be shown better. You would need have no one in a relationship. And they would HAVE to be strangers. Things like physical appearance, what you are attracted to, can get in way, though. Blue eyes versus brown, blonde versus brunette. Tall vs short.
You would have to find people of different types who all look alike, which is getting more and more unrealistic to do. Same eye color, height, weight, build, vocal tone, skin texture, complexion, hair style, facial similarity. And again, you would need not just 2-3 people, but people looking like this of all the type.
You would need 32 people who look exactly, nearing it, alike. To test both male and female versions. It just is absurdly unrealistic to have of that happening, in a way that can decipher if attraction is personality or something physically subconscious. They would even need to talk the same, so maybe acting classes.. Who is going fund that?
How they move even can also factor the subconscious attraction... They would need move the same.. Wear same clothing. There are too many things you need to match up, and clothing is of the easiest one. But you cannot get the exact hair shade even, unless it is a wig, given hair dye will show differently in each person's individual hair chemistry, how it intermixes with the dye.
alternatively, maybe they put people who have all the types and test in numerous setting with new partners, but.. Still, you are not eliminating physical obfuscations. That can directly affect the nervous system. It would be better to just put people in a room and see how they interact and do it with new samples of people each time and see who they attract to. Put a person of a type in a room with a sample of new 16 people of each type, like 10 times in a row with 16 new people and see who they most attract to, not knowing what the person's type is, but if they have Soionics knowledge, they may be able figure it out on their own which is issue. Someone would need type someone foreign to Socionics, and not tell them their type, then put them with other people who also know nothing about it.. So you would need assess the people and assure you have enough of each type, which can be harder to do. Since you may not just get every single type out of a 100 people, say, who volunteer.
You're right about the second idea being fruitless. It would be difficult to figure out whether the duality alone was causing the comfort response. As you said, being familiar with a person already would place you in a more comfortable state for a start. It is possible to feel guarded for reasons outside of a bad socionics relationship, too.
I think I just displayed my HA Ti a whole lot. .
Otherwise you run into the same issue you have with the different socionics schools - the kind where one determines a person LIE while the other says the same person is Ti-valuing and LSI.
For something to be scientific, it has to make a hypothesis you can test against reality, otherwise it is pseudoscience by definition. For something to be testable, it has restrict possible outcomes (i.e. if I let go of this ball, it will fall down and not float up). The more restrictive a theory is, the more persuasive the model will be if it matches the empirical evidence because the harder it will be to fake it, or get a false positive by random chance.
Even though socionics is currently not scientific, it is absolutely testable. There are many categories socionics predict for each type, but only 16 types. The correlation between these different measurements is what can be tested. Take basic model A for example: Each of the 16 types are described by a combination of 8 functions and 8 element. If you combined each function with a random element, you would get 8^8 = 16777216 possible combinations if you allow repeated elements. This is called the sample space. If you assess a person by individual functions, and most of the functions match the theory, you can prove the criteria you are using are not randomly correlated.
The more categories that are added, the larger the sample space becomes, and the more restrictive the theory behind any given application becomes. However, if you add bad categories that don't work, they will be randomly correlated with everything else, and will hurt the precision of the overall application. So there is a natural balance between adding in more categories that make the theory more restrictive, and selecting the highest quality criteria. There is no way to guess what parts of socionics actually work, you have to actually do the tests. However, a version of Model A has to be at its core because everything else is derived from that. I believe many people who are using socionics have done something like this for themselves, but it lacks the rigor and sample size of an actual scientific trial.
If people started taking socionics seriously and doing the hard work to realize this, there are 3 outcomes I could foresee:
1. No application of socionics can be found that is significantly different from random chance, proving the best version of socionics we have is useless, and falsifying socionics as is currently is.
2. Multiple contradictory models are found that are not random and are about as good as each other. Maybe both Model A and Model G can prove correlations within their networks of criteria, but don't give the same answer. Maybe you can be ILE in Model A and EIE in Model G, because they are talking about fundamentally different things
3. One model rises to be clearly superior to any other model, by either being the best model of socionics, or by combining the best of all kinds of socionics into a new model
The main issue I see is people apply socionics intuitively, which is valid, but is also very hard to write down explicitly how they are doing it. The immediate phase socionics should go into is generating criteria that can be replicated (given the same criteria, two separate people would agree a person being typed fit one characteristic and not the other). This is a psychometric problem, which has 2 aspects. First, we have to understand the socionics model enough to break our intuitions into their component parts to test them individually. Most psychometrics rate people by individual traits: a word or phrase for self reported tests, or a factor for things like the DSM. This is different from the paragraphs descriptions of socionics, that give a good impression, but lack itemization. Second, there are statistical techniques for validating the reliability of these parts, so we have reasonable inter rater reliability. If we can get to that level, then we can generate data and test if the different concepts are randomly correlated.
A big hurdle for even representing socionics as its components has been the model is actually far more mathematically complex than pretty much anything in psychology. I've been trying to learn the math needed for years, and it is getting to the level of quantum physics. Even though the Russian socionics are still responsible for their lack of science, for me, it makes it more understandable given how complex the math is. Most people attracted to psychology are also not quantum physics level mathematicians. If we can solve that problem, socionics can actually go on to be evaluated empirically, as it must.
I can go more into how exactly socionics has to be represented to be a valid application of Model A if you would like to know more.
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 08-03-2021 at 05:11 PM.
Fantastic, the name Lao Tzu given to gale force winds shows that performance with the flow and yin yang of collective skirmishing with dragons and fear in the dark cave is an island of cannonballing rafts of high pressure aerospace rendering to give wisdom and meaning to the grace of awareness as the internal gift to the future, however dressed up and plucked from the highway desire bed spread You can make all of Your laughter Germinate into a coil of fractured coastlines longing for the eternal return into bubbles of insight.
BUNNY 4 EVERY1 WISH
Pokemon is somewhere fun over the Rainbow emblazoned by the Power of 4ever. The clouds soar and the island escalates a Lugia petal dance tempest blizzarding shiny Ash. Evanescence sparkles glistening auroras of mirth and high frequency channels embarking with the winds of new beginnings. This magical adventure turns on at the dawn of time in 2000. Ceremony and enchantment dazzle the world with colors galore. Mania and extravagance shape shift and transform into the greatest show on earth, the evolution of Pokemon
Silph Sabrina Slowking Typhlosion Scizor Sandslash Hitmonlee Alakazam
if a Trainer and their Psychic Pokémon are very close they can communicate psychically
@Active reader, I strongly believe that making socionics scientific is the #1 existential priority, because it is the only way to keep socionics alive and uncorrupted in the long term. What are your thoughts on how to do it?
Model A. Relationship types. Dichtonomies.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
It's worth noting that there's 2 parts to typology that you can aim to apply scientific rigor to - the efficacy of a system and the "correctness" of a system.
Plenty of study has been put into the former on socionics and it is fair to say that the system has empirically demonstrable utility. The latter, however, is basically impossible.
Typology by its very nature reduces a complex system of personality into a human-readable format - these systems as an abstraction of reality are incorrect by their very nature. Say for example, we look at Dario Nardi's work, where he shows a correlation between someone's type and their brain activity. Is this evidence towards types being correct? No, because there's too many alternative explanations - chiefly that the types are an imperfect echo of what is truly correct - they correlate because they resemble reality, but are not reality. From the experiment's data, could you not assemble descriptions that better fit how reality seems? And then apply the same process to the new types with new data, and do it again and again and again until you reach the only "correct" typology system - a complete neurological map of every human being.
You can prove that the system has a predictive power of people's traits and behaviors, sure, but this will always fall short of socionics being scientific because there's no hypothesis that you can test that can clearly demonstrate its correctness. The best that can be done is cease making socionics anti-science in virtue of pursuing making it scientific.
Go back to the original observations/classifications and adapt modern information control system definitions and structures (like those used in artificial intelligence technology) to produce new models.
Wow! Y'all produced a lot of content. I see that I can't even think that deeply.
From my point of view, it's like that:
1. Form a hypothesis:
People who tend to work a lot (and the rest of the definition of LIE) are more likely to form a long-lasting relationship with people who tend to enjoy cleaning (and the rest of the definition of ESI) than with people who tend to be cheerful (and the rest of the definition of IEI).
2. Create an assessment that will give each time the same results
3. Test couples of certain types in certain conditions
4. You have (or you don't) evidence that certain types get along better than others
5. Of course, it doesn't prove that information elements exist, but what it does, it divides people in 16 categories and proves that some categories get along better than others