baseless Reinin's heresy tutorial
baseless Reinin's heresy tutorial
Dude, this is like the 5th time I've seen you consider a theory as "heresy."Originally Posted by Sol
Considering how much serious work you've put into this forum, do you view Socionics as religious doctrine or some shit?
lol
There's classical Socionics theory: Jung's concepts of types, model A, dichotomies, IR theory.
Heresy is not religious term only, but anything outside of classical part.
Reinin's traits are too baseless, too far from Jung, too badly developed by Augustinavichiute (what she notes in own text) to use them seriously. The only reason they were spreaded is Augustinavichiute's text with their baseless descriptions. There are no reasons to trust to this hypothesis.
Even model A has parts with different degree of trust. For example, valued functions, strenght of functions - easy to check in practice. While descriptions of how functions work in different places of the model - already deserves some doubts, as this has no good theoretical or practical basis - only subjective observations by Augustinavichiute of not so clear things to notice. But model A is classical part anyway which should be known, not rejected, but better used with limitations according to what I said. In case you want to reduce chances of mistakes because of possibly wrong theory.
Socionics may be integrated as one of methods in borders of religious/social doctrine. You may read my IR test theme with my thoughts about it. But I'm using the term "heresy" not in religious context.
Look, I'll be the first to say that in its current form, Model A is much more useful and reliable than the reinin dichotomies.Dude, this is like the 5th time I've seen you consider a theory as "heresy."
Considering how much serious work you've put into this forum, do you view Socionics as religious doctrine or some shit?
I'm happy to debate the specific definitions of dichotomies, although not in this thread, because this tutorial is strictly about teaching the dichotomy structure, not the definitions. If we actually started debating the 30 traits, 140 small groups, 240 dyad pairs with the 16 types, we would get absolutely nowhere because the task is too big, especially if we started trying to put all of it in terms of information metabolism. This is exactly why I think it is so important to understand how these concepts relate, because then we can organize the debate into manageable pieces.
The end goal of this project is a synthesis, critical analysis and a scientific test of all concepts and all schools in socionics. At this point, I think this is far beyond the effort of any single person. This is why I think the math is so important, because you can use computers to analyze gigantic data sets, as long as you know how to program them. This tutorial teaches that basic understanding of how you could go about it.
As for people who are dismissive of the current form of the dichotomies, that's okay, as long as they are fair about it. I am setting the stage of really testing a verifying these concepts. No matter which side of the isle you are on, you should support putting theory to the test. If they have any better way of trying to falsify the dichotomies, they should do it. But what I don't like is whiners. They've made up their mind and they just like being difficult. Especially if someone doesn't know the proper use or spelling of hearsay, probably best to ignore them until they make a point worth talking about. I totally share you sentiment, but I'd rather not have this thread cluttered with a pointless argument.
You are using non-classical hypothesis like it has the trust close to classical part. It's not acceptable. Reinin's traits are not even close to Jung's dichotomies in the sense of basis. They are like other typology, as there is nothing good to think those traits are linked to Jung's types like it's claimed. Even their descriptions differ between different authors, even own Augustinavichiute's text has contradictions, unclear and strange parts (look Lytov's article). It's low quality hypothesis, while you mix it with core Socionics theory like equal.
I'm in the process of reading the article (which may take a while) and I understand that some empirical definitions do not fit the model A descriptions, but let me ask you this. If you consider quadra to be "classical", then should quadra depend on the four Jungian dichotomies, or can any type be in any of the four quadras (effectively increasing the number of types to 64)? If quadra does depend on type, then that is a testable hypothesis. You can have a test for quadra, and a test for type, and they have to statistically coincide, or one or both tests are wrong.
I also understand that synthesis is not the same as integration. There are lots of bad ideas in the socionics community that should not be used. What I want to do is rank them based on how well they work with other dependent combinations. Sort of like Cronbach's Alpha, it would be a measure of internal consistency. You could then iteratively try different combinations until you found the best combination.
EDIT: I finished skimming though the article. The author seems to care very much about the names of the traits rather than the actual empirical items. If it would make people happy, we could refer to all reinin dichotomies with their types code, like I could say I am <ET+, N+, ENP-, ETP+>, but no one would know what I am talking about. We could also change the names every times someone came up with a bright idea, and have as many ways of referring to the dichotomies as we have referring to the types (should I say I am IEI, INFp, Yesenin, the lyricist, a romantic, NiFe, NiFi, NiFx, Ni-F, TE, TR,,
?) Personally, I am extremely annoyed I have to learn every person's individual jargon, and want to keep and use the current reinin dichotomy names until we get everyone on the same page.
That being said, I don't have the time right now to analyze everything that is said in the article, but I can say that I have been pleasantly surprised when I have tried to actually apply the reinin dichotomies to people I am trying to type. Based on the descriptions, not the names in the 2003 reinin dichotomy study, this is my experience so far:
Great:
Irrational / Rational
Logic / Ethics
Intuitive / Sensory
Merry/ Serious
Yielding / Obstinate
Process / Results
Good:
Extrovert / Introvert
Carefree / Farsighted
Judicious / Decisive
Constructivist / Emotivist
Iffy:
Democratic / Aristocratic
Positivist / Negativist
Static / Dynamic
Unusable:
Tactical / Strategic
Asking / Declaring
But again, trying to evaluate all of them at once is too much to handle. Every if some of them do not work, we should go one at a time.
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 11-17-2017 at 08:54 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
