Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Lao Tzunami]

Have you read Psychological Types by Jung and The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer? If you haven't, please go read those first, and then we can talk more about this.

I don't see how that is relevant.

I have the feeling in this thread that we each know what others mean when they refer to a Type or an Information Element, or at least, for all practical purposes (at least in the short term, not so much the long term where there is an ultimate desire to test the claims of Socionics), we have visualizations that are synonymous, and yet these visualizations are rather nebulous and prone to shifting in definition depending on the context, and having a tendency to being circular in terms of proof.

Reading the seminal texts is vital because they are the basis of socionics. Augusta's Model accepts Jung's 8 types as correct, and then abstracts them into information, which is projected onto the 8 base types, creating 16 types of information metabolism and 16 intertype relations. I think socionics has done a great job explaining the rationale behind its unique advancement to Jungian typology. But if you have issue with the 8 information elements, you have to show that either the information abstractions, or Jung's original 8 base functions are incorrect. To do that, you have to read and understand Psychological Types, and that may also mean reading Jung's inspirations, especially Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, depending on the depth you want to understand these concepts at.


Especially if you haven't read Psychological Types, of course this doesn't make sense to you, because you're not educated. I have done the research, but I don't have the time to teach you specifically, nor is it my responsibility. Reading these books is a lot of work, and I'm sorry there are not better educational resources available, but having to do your own independent research comes with the territory of pioneering theories.


As far as I can tell, the reasoning is solid, and besides, it still needs to be demonstrated empirically. So in either case, the solution is fair scientific tests. Any social construction or archetypal forms should be observable in the data. We can't argue it out, the only way to settle this is to do the tests.

[Enters Laughing]

Reading the seminal texts is vital because they are the basis of socionics. Augusta's Model accepts Jung's 8 types as correct, and then abstracts them into information, which is projected onto the 8 base types, creating 16 types of information metabolism and 16 intertype relations. I think socionics has done a great job explaining the rationale behind its unique advancement to Jungian typology. But if you have issue with the 8 information elements, you have to show that either the information abstractions, or Jung's original 8 base functions are incorrect. To do that, you have to read and understand Psychological Types, and that may also mean reading Jung's inspirations, especially Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, depending on the depth you want to understand these concepts at.


Especially if you haven't read Psychological Types, of course this doesn't make sense to you, because you're not educated. I have done the research, but I don't have the time to teach you specifically, nor is it my responsibility. Reading these books is a lot of work, and I'm sorry there are not better educational resources available, but having to do your own independent research comes with the territory of pioneering theories.


As far as I can tell, the reasoning is solid, and besides, it still needs to be demonstrated empirically. So in either case, the solution is fair scientific tests. Any social construction or archetypal forms should be observable in the data. We can't argue it out, the only way to settle this is to do the tests.

I have read both those works, and re-read the bit you referenced of Schopenhauer. Jung and Schopenhauer are not known for their emphasis on making falsifiable predictions.

[Enters Laughing]

As far as I can tell, the reasoning is solid, and besides, it still needs to be demonstrated empirically. So in either case, the solution is fair scientific tests. Any social construction or archetypal forms should be observable in the data. We can't argue it out, the only way to settle this is to do the tests.

Do the Socionics types define individuals, or do individuals define Socionics types?

[sbbds]

Do the Socionics types define individuals, or do individuals define Socionics types?

The goal is to prove that it’s both happening at the same time.

[Enters Laughing]

The goal is to prove that it’s both happening at the same time.

That would not explain anything.

[sbbds]

That would not explain anything.

It would prove that Socionics represents actual phenomena.

[Enters Laughing]

It would prove that Socionics represents actual phenomena.

It would be the same as saying 2=2=2.

[sbbds]

It would be the same as saying 2=2=2.

This is a huge feat when the 2 in the second position is actually Jung’s anus such as in these circumstances.