Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Psychosophy as a Subtype System

  1. #1
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Psychosophy as a Subtype System

    If you don't know what Psychosophy is then here are some links for more information:

    https://www.attitudinalpsyche.com/

    https://fomalhaut.su/en/psychosophy/


    I think this is a good subtyping system for Socionics, the EIEs that have the WELP psychosophic type seem very very similar to me.

    So tell me what your thoughts are on it and I would also like to know your psychosophic type.
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  2. #2
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,525
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see myself kind of functioning this way, usually. Is it a subtype system, really?

    I look like extremely L.
    I seem to be quite OK around E. I don't think this is a problem area.
    I usually end up cringing at my own will 3V.
    I'm a pig that can be toilet trained 4F.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  3. #3
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoRandomBSGenerator View Post
    I see myself kind of functioning this way, usually. Is it a subtype system, really?
    I think it can work as a subytpe system, don't you? I mean it's not the most elegant way to make subtypes but it could work.

    Also, I think you being LEVF makes sense.
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  4. #4
    YXPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    INFp / VEFL
    Posts
    245
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've been using as a "subtype" system since I came across it years ago. It's really great. But it's not related to socionics so I don't know if you can really call it a subtype system; for example, you can have weak Se and strong will (which is my case). The functions in Psychosophy are completely different from the functions in socionics.

  5. #5
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YXPR View Post
    The functions in Psychosophy are completely different from the functions in socionics.
    This is actually why I like it. All SLEs don't have to be super driven self motivated people, some could have low Will. You could have an LII with high will (probably first), I suspect @myresearch is an example of this.

    But I guess you are right it isn't exactly appropriate to call it a subytpe system in socioncs since its an independent system. If that's true MBTI could be a subtype system for socionics lol. hmm maybe that could work...
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  6. #6
    ☽ the cutest type ☾ Aquamarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    SEI 9w1
    Posts
    1,314
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For the attitudinal psyche one I had done the test some time ago and got EFLV. I feel like it fits me but then I kept reading more and I also relate to the others so it was just confusing.

    I think I'm either EFLV or ELFV.
    Last edited by Aquamarine; 09-15-2021 at 04:13 PM.
    Chronic "grass is always greener" syndrome




  7. #7
    Dazu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    TIM
    Alexandr Dumbass
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Psychosophy is perhaps one of the worst systems, and even worse as a subtyping system.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i like thinking of it as a veil one wears... it's thin and partially see-through, an air, an attitude...

    the issue is that a perpetuating attitude has a nebulous relationship to what one is actually capable of doing or what one is actually doing (in life). so it's still difficult for me to place it with socionics even if i imagine it as a veil the socionics type is wearing.

    like 1F for instance are often called "owners" and it's implied they can manage all the practical real world stuff and thus they end up having a um robust real world presence more often than not--robust in the sense of owning things, managing resources, whatever? but if it's just an attitude one holds then sometimes attitudes are superficial only (one can fancy themselves something they absolutely are not, for instance).

  9. #9
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    Psychosophy is perhaps one of the worst systems, and even worse as a subtyping system.
    why?
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  10. #10
    Poptart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    TIM
    Ignorant mass
    Posts
    1,929
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudaimonia View Post
    why?
    Socionics is neat and symmetrical. Psychosophy is a smorgasbord spinoff of existing typology systems.

    Just my opinion

  11. #11
    Dazu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    TIM
    Alexandr Dumbass
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudaimonia View Post
    why?
    Well it already lacks essential qualities that make up a decent personality system - strong definitions and predictive qualities. The attributes have little definition and can't really be mapped onto reality too well. Like what does it mean to have high Logic in the system? Allegedly, it's simply just a positive attitude towards Logic. Okay, how would that manifest to make a predictable portrait? Since Logic is so vague one could argue that someone who is positively oriented towards say science yet not philosophy could be completely different types. Really, when I read the type descriptions and their "quadra" successions, I- saw little correspondence in reality. I can't name anyone that is a darn obvious WLPE.

    For this reason it makes an even worse subtyping system. Once one has ingrained the idea that subtype can be inferred from type and vice versa, they already have sacrificed a sensible typing methodology. I see so many typists make asinine typings like Elon Musk being LSI because of this. They can justify it under the premises of their subtype system, which being there's no strong connection between these systems and even less so than how Gulenko uses G and DCNH (remember, Alfansyev made Psychosophy because he didn't like Socionics) they are left to make bad inferences. Someone might say "well, how do we explain how we have an EII in a position of power? An SEE who likes math? An SEI that likes Economics?" Then simply just say there's an SEI that likes economics. And if you think this is strawmanning, this is how Timur uses it. He would base the difference between an SLE drill sargeant and body guard on different positions of Psychosophic Will, ignoring possible life circumstances that could possibly restrict a potentially high W SLE being in a high rank position.

    So to soon end it, it's never a good idea to systemize outliers. They are just that - outliers. It's much more meaningful and fair to treat things with a relationship between generality and locality than general to general. There's no grounding when this happens.

    Like seriously, what is one gonna do when someone isn't a stereotype of both their Socio and Psychosophy types? Make another system to explain the variables of a combined Socionics and Psychosophy type? Well, they actually kinda do that. If you are not Willful enough for a 2W yet somehow fit into the already buttery structure of a 2W type, you become 2W with a 4W subtype...

    Like... what?

    At least Gurdjieff's centers had the excuse of lacking a formal structure, it can get away with vagueness (funny enough, PY is really just a rip off of his 4 centers). But if vagueness is useful, then just use it as Tarot cards for creativity, not an actual subtyping to make meaningful predictions.
    Last edited by Dazu; 09-14-2021 at 09:07 PM.

  12. #12
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,131
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    Well it already lacks essential qualities that make up a decent personality system - strong definitions and predictive qualities. The attributes have little definition and can't really be mapped onto reality too well.
    Just because a system is logically consistent does not mean that it has any predictive observations. Just because a system's definitions are rigid does not mean that it defines anything outside of itself.


    This is the sort of thing that alphas has infinite patience for arguing about, but I don't. I mean I did ask why, didn't I? So I feel like I should respond, but I really don't care lol.

    If you don't like it that's fine. Saying it is the worst system is dramatic. Socionics has no better claim for scientific validity and it's definitions have no basis in reality.

    There is no Ti in real life, or Fe, or any information element. Acting like socionics matters in real life where other systems don't is misguided.

    There is no decent personality system, because personality itself can't properly be defined. I mean you could look up the definition in the dictionary but then you'll find it to be as vague as the psychsophic functions.
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  13. #13
    Dazu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    TIM
    Alexandr Dumbass
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As much as my dogmatic self wants go "REEEE TI IS REAL BREE!" I'll play along. Let's say all these systems are not reality grounded. At the end of the day, they are being used. And that is a fact. They are used for describing and predicting ways of behaving and thinking. That said, if one system has better resolution and can make more meaningful predictions, why should an obviously more inferior system be taken seriously? But nonetheless, your stance is obvious. All these systems are instrumental to you, and at the end of the day guesswork. Which, autism aside, is fine. I'm just simply stating that it doesn't make sense to seriously use both systems together.

  14. #14
    Dazu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    TIM
    Alexandr Dumbass
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyways, I think my lame P type is LEPW. actually I take everything back. This system sucks. And you are wrong. Socionics supremacy! WE STAN!!!!

  15. #15
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,811
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I got LVFE this time, LEVF and LVEF can also suit me. The thing that bothers me with this system is the attributed features of positions. I don't relate to 3rd position of any aspect. First position, the strongest feature described in a way that it isn't open to externality, but in socionics, our base is accepting.

  16. #16
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,525
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    In short this is all about your attitude. It has nothing to do with IME's.
    Like SEI who pretty owns the theory of delicious cookie baking is 1L.

    Or LII who is all about academy is also 1L (although there are other variations). Hence, you, @myresearch are not likely 1L. I think your #1 is clearly around V/F. I think V. If you have seen Ben Vasserlan's (LII) channel I think he is 1F, 3L, 2V, 4E (FVLE).

    It is not that complicated.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp684 sx/sp
    Posts
    710
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that Psychosophy brings an interesting perspective to human behaviour and everyday attitude that socionics can't. Thinking that one can compare one to the other is the biggest heresy there is though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    Well it already lacks essential qualities that make up a decent personality system - strong definitions and predictive qualities. The attributes have little definition and can't really be mapped onto reality too well. Like what does it mean to have high Logic in the system? Allegedly, it's simply just a positive attitude towards Logic. Okay, how would that manifest to make a predictable portrait? Since Logic is so vague one could argue that someone who is positively oriented towards say science yet not philosophy could be completely different types. Really, when I read the type descriptions and their "quadra" successions, I- saw little correspondence in reality. I can't name anyone that is a darn obvious WLPE.
    We should get rid of the concept "personality" completely. It's as elusive as the concept of a "immortal soul". Who gets to say people got one? Ghost in the machine. As long as people think about "personality types", psychology will stay a pseudoscience plagued by confirmation bias.

    Neither socionics nor psychosophy deal with "personality". Socionics is about cognitive sciences(so it makes sense to look in the direction of neuroscience and neuroimagery to find empirical proof) and psychosophy about behavioural sciences(like OCEAN, Big Five, etc...), so I'd advise people to stop comparing them. Two systems, two disciplines, two viewpoints. One is definitely not the subtyping system of the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    For this reason it makes an even worse subtyping system. Once one has ingrained the idea that subtype can be inferred from type and vice versa, they already have sacrificed a sensible typing methodology. I see so many typists make asinine typings like Elon Musk being LSI because of this. They can justify it under the premises of their subtype system, which being there's no strong connection between these systems and even less so than how Gulenko uses G and DCNH (remember, Alfansyev made Psychosophy because he didn't like Socionics) they are left to make bad inferences. Someone might say "well, how do we explain how we have an EII in a position of power? An SEE who likes math? An SEI that likes Economics?" Then simply just say there's an SEI that likes economics. And if you think this is strawmanning, this is how Timur uses it. He would base the difference between an SLE drill sargeant and body guard on different positions of Psychosophic Will, ignoring possible life circumstances that could possibly restrict a potentially high W SLE being in a high rank position.

    So to soon end it, it's never a good idea to systemize outliers. They are just that - outliers.
    The strawman you refer to is indeed problematic, but not because of what you say. Socionics doesn't deal with predicting if EIIs can come into positions of power or not; only that they are not capable to perceive and affect the levers of a situation, to apply pressure, etc... Psychosophy deals with behavioural attitudes and how much time/priority is given to different behaviours; pondering -logic, purposeful activity - will, physical indulgence - physics, emotional reactivity -emotions.

    I know an EII girl which goes to the gym every two days to do power lifting, and she's kinda buff. There is no environmental pressure for her to do this, other than she likes it. I'm split as to the accuracy of psychosophy, but I always welcome even half-backed attempts to classify tastes and behaviours instead of putting it on "outliers"(outliers of what theory? again, socionics doesn't predict such kind of things) and I think Anafasyev was onto something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    It's much more meaningful and fair to treat things with a relationship between generality and locality than general to general. There's no grounding when this happens.

    That's a problem for any inductive qualitative research though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    Like seriously, what is one gonna do when someone isn't a stereotype of both their Socio and Psychosophy types? Make another system to explain the variables of a combined Socionics and Psychosophy type? Well, they actually kinda do that. If you are not Willful enough for a 2W yet somehow fit into the already buttery structure of a 2W type, you become 2W with a 4W subtype...

    Like... what? At least Gurdjieff's centers had the excuse of lacking a formal structure, it can get away with vagueness (funny enough, PY is really just a rip off of his 4 centers). But if vagueness is useful, then just use it as Tarot cards for creativity, not an actual subtyping to make meaningful predictions
    Timur and Gulenko use those stereotypes and subtyping systems as selling arguments for career orientation so of course they mix up two things which have nothing to do with each other and try to attribute stereotypic behaviours to abstract theoretical constructs. Blame customers who want them to predict every of their actions as if this shit is horoscope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    As much as my dogmatic self wants go "REEEE TI IS REAL BREE!" I'll play along. Let's say all these systems are not reality grounded. At the end of the day, they are being used. And that is a fact. They are used for describing and predicting ways of behaving and thinking. That said, if one system has better resolution and can make more meaningful predictions, why should an obviously more inferior system be taken seriously? But nonetheless, your stance is obvious. All these systems are instrumental to you, and at the end of the day guesswork. Which, autism aside, is fine. I'm just simply stating that it doesn't make sense to seriously use both systems together.
    It depends what you use them for.

    Btw, you seem to use a hella lot of Ti for a SEI-Fe. And you're probably 1L in psychosophy.
    Last edited by lkdhf qkb; 09-15-2021 at 12:24 PM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i have recently been thinking differently about PY because i had my type wrong. i recently took the talanov test that gives PY type as well and it gave LEFV (the augustine). i had generally not considered any 1L types for myself because both my um "debating style" i guess and not being a logical type. but really also because i um become a horribly emo drunk person and am an emotional wreck. but the more i think about it, the more it seems to fit, whereas the types i was considering before were just trying to cookie cutter myself into them.

    1L is just an attitude or orientation, or what i'm attuned to. so if a problem arises, i generally go to an attitude of thinking about it in a detached way without emotional interference (or if i don't, i still think that's the best way to approach it and i was carried off by an emotional wave). when i'm in this detached mode which probably also connects partially with the 5 and 9 in my tritype most, i am not really in an emotional mode and can easily be mistaken for a logical type. people in jobs have thought i'm a logical type before. this attitude also led me towards math and philosophy in college, in part. it likes to be thoughtful and to understand what it thinks and why. it doesn't like when it wades into thinking that doesn't feel independent or authentic enough. it doesn't like when it has been emotionally overridden by Fe swimming in my head. however, it may not know when it has been hijacked by the deceptively "logical" emotional reasoning from 4d Fi. it is after all an attitude, not being Ti lead or something. it kinda works well with Pi lead though.

    so even though i get all emo due to actually being an ethical type, i can see how 1L is an attunement i have. it's not really a "subtype" but maybe more if my socionics type was a song, it's the key that song is played in? the tone it can take but of course does not always?

    and also i'd had this confusion about 1E vs. 2E. i often would get 2E on some tests and i thought i was because i was confused by 1E vs. 2E questions due to preferred self image. the 2Es sounded so much less selfish, whereas the 1E is emotionally selfish. and i generally thought i was trying to deny my emotional selfishness in my answer pattern. but i think this is all the wrong way to see it. i wasn't really focusing on the ways i'm emotionally negotiable. sometimes i am actually deciding which way to feel, even though i'm really moody and ruled by my moods. thinking of it as selfish or not really leads me in the wrong direction. my 2E is just as selfish as 1E would be, it's just different.

  19. #19
    Dazu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    TIM
    Alexandr Dumbass
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @lkdhf qkb

    Okay, dude. I'm unsure if it's my trash Ne or what, but honestly, what are you even saying? Some parts you try to counter what I am saying, some parts you are in agreement, one part you take what I said but portray it in a way that's framing as if I didn't say - in regards to the note on EIIs and power. I never said EIIs can't get into power, quite the opposite. On top of this, you try to validify Psychosophy by barely talking about Psychosophy's structure (which, I guess I can't blame you for, I did superficially try to criticize the structure of Psychosophy for sake of expedience).

    We both seem to agree Psychosophy and Socionics can't be compared and used as subtyping though, however, you seem to nullify this by using it to infer a part of my Psychosophy type on the basis that I'm "too Ti" (haven't found an ExFx who hasn't said something similar...). Is Psychosophy just behavioral or what? It clearly isn't because it will literally say how much in percentage a certain aspect takes up time thinking about it, which you brought up.

    If I'm being harsh, you can tell me. Trying to keep my HA Ti tempered.

  20. #20
    Hey Hey People Stainless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    103
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've seen this system used on PDB. Maybe I'll look into it.
    Last edited by Stainless; 09-15-2021 at 10:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •