Ok, but you can't translate functions into behaviour like that, so your "evidence" says nothing about types. There is no strong link between Si and health for example, or Si polr and bad health. It's just a keyword trying to grasp the fact that Si monitors inner body phenomena.Originally Posted by Subteigh
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
OK, but I think the evidence against is stronger than for.
The concept of duality is surely central to Socionics, but I'm not aware of any convincing evidence in psychology that would support it.
The same person who claims EIEs do not use Se or Ti is pretty much the same ExI who's using Te right nowI have previously made statistics of self-typings on this forum, but I'm not in the position to attempt anything on the same scale again.
With no standardised Socionics test instrument and only subjective opinions of third parties there simply isn't the capability to do anything scientific from a Socionics perspective within the limits of this forum.
I have had a long and continued interest in psychology research they I often post here in the hope that it could have some significance for possible future Socionics research.
I am not a psychologist. Wanting to be scientific about Socionics and not wanting to make unfounded statements should not mean I receive insults, or be called a-type or whatever. Stick to the facts.
Nobody has asked you to engage a third party. You're unwilling to test the theories yourself and, instead insist that the tests you've chosen are factual when they're really just anecdotal
Convincing to everyone else or just you?
You just said, "I am not a psychologist" yet you're looking for convincing evidence within the realm of psychology. If anything, you've convinced everyone else that even if you did get convincing evidence that you either wouldn't believe it or even be able (or want) to comprehend it
Your're entitled to your conjectures, but are they based in evidence?
Well, you haven't produced any evidence that supports Socionics. There is a lot of reasons why psychologists consider the MBTI of no value and I think their criticisms will be true of Socionics. They see no evidence that discrete personality types exist.
To some extent I don't need to be a psychologist in order to interpret evidence, but it would be beneficial to be trained as one in order to not only be skilled enough to caring out research but to be in a position to carry out sizable experiments.
The evidence is the observations you make yourself. Isaac Newton made observations himself and the scientific community decided to use his evidence as the basis for certain laws. The problem is you want evidence to have "standardization" before you'll readily accept it, which is Te speak for not being able to draw analogies on your own.
The statistics you've claimed as evidence could simply be of a preselected sample size based on conjecture. For example, if I asked people who worked at Burger King, "Would you say that you're an honest person?". Most would reply, "Yes" and be lying, not because of social pressure but because people are, generally, not accurate judges of their own character. Furthermore, there is always nuance to the human psych that the self isn't aware of and couldn't possibly admit to on one of your "standardized" tests.
Ok, but you have the study I gave, which involved 8,000+ people with a standardized test, vs. your observations of Socionics types which has no standardised test and where you seem invested in Socionics tenets and not an independent observer.
Hypotheses are based on observation, conjectures aren't necessarily. I don't think Socionics qualifies as a hypothesis.
How many of those 8,000+ people are you confident were being truthful? As of matter of fact, go find a psychologist, who has credentials, and ask him to interview people for their complete honesty. What you seem to be telling me is that you're confident that an acceptable number of those people will be completely honest, simply because the psychologist has credentials
What I am suggesting to you is that a person must be unconsciously observed to get an accurate assessment of behavior. It is why psychologist observe young people from behind a glass, why zoologists observe animals even unbeknownst to the animal itself and why employers install cameras to observe business practices.
Human psychology cannot be standardized no matter how much you try. People lie and often have low self awareness, however, if you can observe a person's psychological behavior over a period of time you can get a much more precise view of their personality type.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote