Thema Mundi

[Metamorph]

When the ancients set up their astrological chart for the the world itself, they took each of the planets according to their speed of motion and lined them up from the center of the Zodiac outwards. From this they derived the Thema Mundi, or theme of the world. However, the ascendant sign wasn't placed as Aries, the sign of warriors and might and official "first" sign, but as Cancer, the sign of love and nurturing and intuition, which incidentally makes quite a bit of sense theoretically considering the Moon is also the fastest planet and it is by light we see and not by the abstractions derived from light. The "tropical" zodiac could be considered to be derived from the Moon since it would not exist without harmonics and the Moon is the Sun's primary harmonic.

Yes, you had to read that to understand my next point. In shoutbox, another user proposed the "type types," so to speak, of extraversion as being SEE and of introversion as being LIE. Typing introversion itself as an extraverted type seems to be nonsense. I thought it would naturally be LII. So, if the prototypical types are actually SEE and LII, are our "conflictors" perhaps our optimal relationships rather than our duals?

[ooo]

I don't get the reasoning behind this (the socionics part) : )

[mclane]

LIE's are often classical introverts despite being extrotims, so picking them as a "type" for introversion wouldn't be too far off, but yeah it makes more sense to pick an introtim type. Conflict intertype is actually not as conflictive as the name would suggest. There isn't a better teacher than a conflictor. I have been thinking about renaming the Conflict intertype to "confusion". But it is certainly not the optimal relationship. Anybody who has experienced it would know this.

Regarding the Thema Mundi; I'm not sure how exactly would it benefit in any way, even as an abstraction. On a related note, I believe I might have figured out the full rulerships and exaltations of all the planets in the signs, thanks to the aid of Socionics. I don't know what you mean by harmonic, but some planets have Higher Octaves (mercury- uranus, venus-neptune, mars-pluto).

ETA: another good term for conflict ITR would be "Challenge".

[Tallmo]

I assumed this was a joke, but I will take it seriously and say that this is just playing with words and using the concepts in ways beyond their real meanings. Of course it can be fun to play with words if you like that.

Astrology is in itself a game of meanings and symbols so you can do it there if you like.

[mclane]

I believe I might have figured out the full rulerships and exaltations of all the planets in the signs

Here it is:

Planet	Domicile	Exaltation
Sun	Leo	Sagittarius
Moon	Cancer	Taurus
Mercury	Gemini (diurnal) / Virgo (nocturnal)	Scorpio
Venus	Taurus (nocturnal) / Libra (diurnal)	Cancer
Mars	Aries	Capricorn
Jupiter	Sagittarius	Pisces
Saturn	Capricorn	Libra
Uranus	Aquarius	Aries
Neptune	Pisces	Leo
Pluto	Scorpio	Gemini
Ceres	-	Virgo
Chiron	-	Aquarius

These have been confirmed by me by observation.

[Metamorph]

Here it is:

Planet	Domicile	Exaltation
Sun	Leo	Sagittarius
Moon	Cancer	Taurus
Mercury	Gemini (diurnal) / Virgo (nocturnal)	Scorpio
Venus	Taurus (nocturnal) / Libra (diurnal)	Cancer
Mars	Aries	Capricorn
Jupiter	Sagittarius	Pisces
Saturn	Capricorn	Libra
Uranus	Aquarius	Aries
Neptune	Pisces	Leo
Pluto	Scorpio	Gemini
Ceres	-	Virgo
Chiron	-	Aquarius

These have been confirmed by me by observation.

This is wrong, and I don't even use astrology so much as I was using it as an example of mathematical reasoning I thought had a similar basis to socionics reasoning.

[mclane]

This is wrong, and I don't even use astrology so much as I was using it as an example of mathematical reasoning I thought had a similar basis to socionics reasoning.

Why is it wrong?

[ooo]

because the exaltations make no sense, they're just random

[ooo]

btw, in astrology there are 2 main signs which are our opposites, not one. there's a third sign which is our complementary, so this creates a multifaceted spectrum of possibilities which lacks in socionics, and I liked the conclusion of the OP for this reason, I've been thinking the same for long... but I don't get the reasoning behind LII/SEE/LIE etc... could you expand? thx

[mclane]

because the exaltations make no sense, they're just random

They're not. Most of them are already present/correlated in mainstream astrology, I just introduced a few innovations. Also, if you notice, they line up perfectly because each sign gets one exalted planet.

[mclane]

btw, in astrology there are 2 main signs which are our opposites, not one. there's a third sign which is our complementary, so this creates a multifaceted spectrum of possibilities which lacks in socionics, and I liked the conclusion of the OP for this reason, I've been thinking the same for long... but I don't get the reasoning behind LII/SEE/LIE etc... could you expand? thx

What? You mean the ones in square aspect ?

[ooo]

no, tropical astrology revolves around antiscia, check them out. there are 3 pairs of signs correlated to antiscia, 4 signs each.

the traditional exaltations are coming from a planetary alignment from around 2000 BC., they're not logical, just sensational. if you want an improved system of exaltation you have to follow the same logic of the thema mundi: order.

[mclane]

no, tropical astrology revolves around antiscia, check them out. there are 3 pairs of signs correlated to antiscia, 4 signs each.

the traditional exaltations are coming from a planetary alignment from around 2000 BC., they're not logical, just sensational. if you want an improved system of exaltation you have to follow the same logic of the thema mundi: order.

They can be observed from elemental affinity between the particular planet and the sign in question. If they didn't make sense or align with reality, they would have been discarded. I mean, you don't think Mars is exalted in Capricorn?

This antiscia thing seems another word for signs in semi-sextile and inconjuntion, others seem to overlap with the square. While not a negative inter-relational position traditionally, major aspects such as square or trine carry much more importance. Do you consistently use these instead of the major aspects with good results ?

[ooo]

astrology is symbolical, therefore we can recognize everything we want with its symbols, reason why we dont just rely on symbols to make sense of it, and we need an order to explain it, which your system lacks. pay attention to the planetary domiciles, the exaltations of the planets don't follow the same elemental rules... why should that be so? again, trad exaltations are sensational.. every explanation for an alternative exaltation system is gonna be excusable, not for this it'll be making logical sense.

antiscia comprehends all kind of aspects, yeah, that's not really the point. the point of antiscia is a about light and dark. mirrors and complementaries. it's not about using it "instead of" the other aspects. astrology has many keys.

[Metamorph]

16t: where people have stopped caring about socionics so completely that me using astrology in an example of applying mathematics to create what was then an untested system became an actual debate about astrology.

[mclane]

Okay, so you assert (with dubious analogic logic) that maybe conflictors are the optimal relationships. Do you have any other data to back up this assertion? I'm really interested because I experienced a close conflict relationship and it was very rewarding. I'm also watching the latest star trek show and there's a conflict there that reminds me of what I experienced.

[Metamorph]

Okay, so you assert (with dubious analogic logic) that maybe conflictors are the optimal relationships. Do you have any other data to back up this assertion? I'm really interested because I experienced a close conflict relationship and it was very rewarding. I'm also watching the latest star trek show and there's a conflict there that reminds me of what I experienced.

I have no empirical data, but I think no one else does either. My main line of reasoning is that rational vs. irrational is a much more primal distinction than quadra, and I think it's strange to combine two rational or irrational types. It actually seems problematic to combine a static and dynamic perceiving element since the result seems to be the static one changing the dynamic one without much else happening. Do quadras even exist, considering how dubious some of the other dichotomies are even though socionics is much much more theoretically sound than MBTI and seemingly as sound as Jung? SEEs and ILIs, for example, both seem terribly compulsive. I don't think they could balance each other out. No pair of only rationals or irrationals seems sound. Conflictor or mirror seem like better relations, and semi-dual seems like an unambiguous disaster.

[mclane]

You are like understanding everything backwards. Quadras definitely exist, you only have to type a typical group of neighborhood friends, or better yet, a gang, and you will see they are composed of same quadra types. The only worthwhile contribution I see in your assertion is the fact that conflict can be an "interesting" (for a lack of a better term) ITR to experience. Everyone should have a conflictor experience (ideally; romantically) as an experience towards self-awareness, self-understanding and self-development.

As a side note, I've come to dislike my inter-quadrants. In fact, I no longer seek a relationship with an inter-quadra woman, and am currently pursuing something with an ILE girl. But this might be a peculiarity of my persona.

[Metamorph]

You are like understanding everything backwards. Quadras definitely exist, you only have to type a typical group of neighborhood friends, or better yet, a gang, and you will see they are composed of same quadra types. The only worthwhile contribution I see in your assertion is the fact that conflict can be an "interesting" (for a lack of a better term) ITR to experience. Everyone should have a conflictor experience (ideally; romantically) as an experience towards self-awareness, self-understanding and self-development.

As a side note, I've come to dislike my inter-quadrants. In fact, I no longer seek a relationship with an inter-quadra woman, and am currently pursuing something with an ILE girl. But this might be a peculiarity of my persona.

If that's true, it's empirical evidence for quadras not being as foundational as people believe.

[sbbds]

To me what’s more mysterious than astrology and god itself is the fact that you guys are even here if you don’t think basics of socionics are a thing. I agree with @mclane about conflictors being “teaching” and “confusion” though.

Also I can somewhat get his chart too. A lot of them are related to old rulers and elements anyway.

[Metamorph]

To me what’s more mysterious than astrology and god itself is the fact that you guys are even here if you don’t think basics of socionics are a thing. I agree with @mclane about conflictors being “teaching” and “confusion” though.

Also I can somewhat get his chart too. A lot of them are related to old rulers and elements anyway.

Basics of socionics are a thing, but no one has rigorously empirically tested socionics to know what those are.

I somewhat get the chart too, but ditto, and astrology is not as much of a thing as socionics except for in pop culture and folklore.

[sbbds]

Basics of socionics are a thing, but no one has rigorously empirically tested socionics to know what those are.

???

[Metamorph]

???

Duality and ITR are much less empirical than other aspects of socionics. The ordering of socionics functions are much more theoretically rigorous and therefore falsifiable than MBTI or other similar adaptations of Jung's typology, but besides Olga Tangemann, no one has gotten close to actually empirically testing them. Questionnaires are valid but also have limited validity in applications. ITR would be best tracked through case studies and to a lesser extent controlled experiments, after the participants are typed individually, though double blind experiments with personalities seems extremely difficult to say the least.

[Singu]

Duality and ITR are much less empirical than other aspects of socionics. The ordering of socionics functions are much more theoretically rigorous and therefore falsifiable than MBTI or other similar adaptations of Jung's typology, but besides Olga Tangemann, no one has gotten close to actually empirically testing them. Questionnaires are valid but also have limited validity in applications. ITR would be best tracked through case studies and to a lesser extent controlled experiments, after the participants are typed individually, though double blind experiments with personalities seems extremely difficult to say the least.

A bunch of meaningless buzzwords.

Whoopee, there's nothing "theoretically sound" about being able to categorize people into 16 types, nor you can even "empirically test" that (what is there to test?).

[Metamorph]

A bunch of meaningless buzzwords.

Whoopee, there's nothing "theoretically sound" about being able to categorize people into 16 types, nor you can even "empirically test" that (what is there to test?).

None of these are buzzwords. People's behavior and even thoughts are empirical whether they like it or not. And socionics is much more developed than any other Jungian-based system from a strictly theoretical viewpoint.

[sbbds]

Duality and ITR are much less empirical than other aspects of socionics. The ordering of socionics functions are much more theoretically rigorous and therefore falsifiable than MBTI or other similar adaptations of Jung's typology, but besides Olga Tangemann, no one has gotten close to actually empirically testing them. Questionnaires are valid but also have limited validity in applications. ITR would be best tracked through case studies and to a lesser extent controlled experiments, after the participants are typed individually, though double blind experiments with personalities seems extremely difficult to say the least.

The wording was strange in your post before this. If you believe something to be a thing, you should know “what” it is to some extent, even if not in a perfectly complete way empirically. It’s foreign to me at least that people might believe in something they can’t “see” empirically to some degree.

[Singu]

None of these are buzzwords. People's behavior and even thoughts are empirical whether they like it or not. And socionics is much more developed than any other Jungian-based system from a strictly theoretical viewpoint.

Maybe they're "standard procedure" in psychology. Which is why the entire field has less than 40% replication rate...

People's behavior and even thoughts are empirical whether they like it or not.

That they are, but we can't possibly empirically observe all of people's behaviors and thoughts in all situations and all contexts. So we're only studying a minuscule portion of people's behaviors and thoughts.

So it's best to enter the realm of possibilities, and what kind of behaviors and thoughts are possible, not just to study what we have empirically observed so far. THAT, we can test.

[Metamorph]

Maybe they're "standard procedure" in psychology. Which is why the entire field has less than 40% replication rate...



That they are, but we can't possibly empirically observe all of people's behaviors and thoughts in all situations and all contexts. So we're only studying a minuscule portion of people's behaviors and thoughts.

So it's best to enter the realm of possibilities, and what kind of behaviors and thoughts are possible, not just to study what we have empirically observed so far. THAT, we can test.

Are you talking or are you farting? Because all of this sounds like it's from your ass.

[Singu]

Are you talking or are you farting? Because all of this sounds like it's from your ass.

Well you must be projecting because that’s what you sound like most of the time.

Why don’t you actually bother making rational retorts or arguments? You fall back to sophism too often.

[Metamorph]

Well you must be projecting because that’s what you sound like most of the time.

Why don’t you actually bother making rational retorts or arguments? You fall back to sophism too often.

Psychology has a poor replication rate, but socionics is not a factor in that because very few studies are on socionics.

[Singu]

Psychology has a poor replication rate, but socionics is not a factor in that because very few studies are on socionics.

I said what you were suggesting were the methodology in psychology, not Socionics.

If you suggest that we should apply that to Socionics, then it'll have the same problems in Socionics.

Not that things are that much different in Socionics. You start with "empirical observations" (of people). You make a loose statistics out of it. Call it a "model". Profit.

[Metamorph]

I said what you were suggesting were the methodology in psychology, not Socionics.

If you suggest that we should apply that to Socionics, then it'll have the same problems in Socionics.

Not that things are that much different in Socionics. You start with "empirical observations" (of people). You make a loose statistics out of it. Call it a "model". Profit.

I don't think we'll have the same problems because socionics is a much more mathematically-sound and comprehensive model that allows less room for error. I think the problems with psychology revolve around bad and unclear hypotheses. Prove me wrong.

[Singu]

I don't think we'll have the same problems because socionics is a much more mathematically-sound and comprehensive model that allows less room for error. I think the problems with psychology revolve around bad and unclear hypotheses. Prove me wrong.

...Why are they "mathematically sound"? The entirety of Socionics is based on the Jung's idea that people could be separated into 4-axis and 8 functions, which Jung himself admitted that it was arbitrary:

The four functions are somewhat like the four points of the compass; they are just as arbitrary and just as indispensable. . . .

If you want to "test" a theory or a hypothesis, then it should at least predict something, preferably something that we have never seen before.

Socionics is pretty much the "String theory" of psychology:

Richard Feynman: “String theorists don’t make predictions, they make excuses.”

Sheldon Glashow: “…they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental prediction.”

Ed Witten: “What is really unsatisfactory at the moment about string theory is that it isn’t yet a theory.”

Gerard t’Hooft: “Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a “theory” rather a “model” or not even that: just a hunch.”