What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

[jason_m]

I should give more background as to why I made the above post.

This thread was actually inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YT-MtAvbR8

I'm sorry, read between the lines here. What is this video (and therefore the MBTI) actually saying? It is implying that people who give to charities have a nice heart, but they don't have strong enough logic to see that what they are doing isn't rational. I.e., they are really good people at heart, but they are logically inept. And what is it implying about thinking types? It is saying that they are logically smart, but in some way actually like 'Scrooge' about money, giving to others, etc. I find this message idiotic. Even the ideas that the 'ENTP' was using as criticism against giving to charities were dumb. This seems to be the whole message about thinking and feeling in the MBTI. And then I realized if this applies to the MBTI, it probably applies to socionics as well. And if it applies to both, it is relevant to the people of this forum. Then there are therefore dark undertones to certain types and how they should act. I am sorry, I am good enough critical thinker to not buy into at least this notion of both theories. I honestly hope you would agree...

[Singu]

I should give more background as to why I made the above post.

This thread was actually inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YT-MtAvbR8

I'm sorry, read between the lines here. What is this video (and therefore the MBTI) actually saying? It is implying that people who give to charities have a nice heart, but they don't have strong enough logic to see that what they are doing isn't rational. I.e., they are really good people at heart, but they are logically inept. And what is it implying about thinking types? It is saying that they are logically smart, but in some way actually like 'Scrooge' about money, giving to others, etc. I find this message idiotic. Even the ideas that the 'ENTP' was using as criticism against giving to charities were dumb. This seems to be the whole message about thinking and feeling in the MBTI. And then I realized if this applies to the MBTI, it probably applies to socionics as well. And if it applies to both, it is relevant to the people of this forum. Then there are therefore dark undertones to certain types and how they should act. I am sorry, I am good enough critical thinker to not buy into at least this notion of both theories. I honestly hope you would agree...

Well the problem is observing a certain trait in people, and extrapolating to all of their personalities. You can't know 100% of their personality traits, unless you observed 100%, which is practically impossible.

The fact is that people are logical some of the time, people are feeling some of the time, but definitely not all of the time. It depends on the appropriateness of the situation, etc. It's very doubtful that someone will be emotional when he's trying to solve some logical problems, and it's very doubtful that someone will be logical when he's listening to some music.

Stereotypes of "ENTP" and "ISFJ" can exist. But it's doubtful that that's how they act all of the time. They may change their minds, they may change over time, they may learn new things that make them see things in different ways. The most important of all, it doesn't explain why they're behaving that way.

My personal view is that people don't differ in their ability to be logical and rational. But some people may have less feelings, or even are just less aware of their own feelings and the feelings of others.

[Myst]

Well the problem is observing a certain trait in people, and extrapolating to all of their personalities. You can't know 100% of their personality traits, unless you observed 100%, which is practically impossible.

The fact is that people are logical some of the time, people are feeling some of the time, but definitely not all of the time. It depends on the appropriateness of the situation, etc. It's very doubtful that someone will be emotional when he's trying to solve some logical problems, and it's very doubtful that someone will be logical when he's listening to some music.

Actually emotions and rationality in the prefrontal lobe can work together (see Damasio's classic work on this subject).

Metacognition theories do introduce the idea of an "affective regulatory loop" that utilises *emotion* for executive functioning.

And so on.

Stereotypes of "ENTP" and "ISFJ" can exist. But it's doubtful that that's how they act all of the time. They may change their minds, they may change over time, they may learn new things that make them see things in different ways. The most important of all, it doesn't explain why they're behaving that way.

My personal view is that people don't differ in their ability to be logical and rational. But some people may have less feelings, or even are just less aware of their own feelings and the feelings of others.

What makes you think that people are all the same in terms of "cold objective" rationality and differ in terms of feelings? That to me didn't sound all that logical

I would say the easiest way to refute this idea is think of the stereotypical male vs stereotypical female. Yes those are stereotypes and how your brain works doesn't depend all that strictly on whether you have a penis or a vagina but there are actual differences in the brains of people regarding "masculine" and "feminine" stuff. Ofc it's an individual mix of different skills/traits for everyone.

It's for the simple reason that if you can't explain "why", then you have no idea if it has anything to do with it or not.

Saying that there's a "type" is another way of saying that if someone is a certain way, then there's a very high probability that the person will be acting in the same way in the future. Which may be true.

But that's just an assumption that the person will be acting in the same or similar way in the future. It does in no way explain why he's acting in that way. It's just an attempt at predicting behavior and bypassing having to explain things. And a bad attempt at that, since true prediction isn't just expecting the same past trend to continue. Somebody may suddenly change his mind, and then what? The prediction then becomes impossible.

But you can explain why he changed his mind.

The socionics model does attempt to explain things, it's another issue altogether that the explanations are not holding up.

What @Heretic 007 said is an ok way to look at it. So no don't expect an actual explanation beyond what that can offer - though in my opinion even those explanations do not hold up well.

[Myst]

I should give more background as to why I made the above post.

This thread was actually inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YT-MtAvbR8

I'm sorry, read between the lines here. What is this video (and therefore the MBTI) actually saying? It is implying that people who give to charities have a nice heart, but they don't have strong enough logic to see that what they are doing isn't rational. I.e., they are really good people at heart, but they are logically inept. And what is it implying about thinking types? It is saying that they are logically smart, but in some way actually like 'Scrooge' about money, giving to others, etc. I find this message idiotic. Even the ideas that the 'ENTP' was using as criticism against giving to charities were dumb. This seems to be the whole message about thinking and feeling in the MBTI. And then I realized if this applies to the MBTI, it probably applies to socionics as well. And if it applies to both, it is relevant to the people of this forum. Then there are therefore dark undertones to certain types and how they should act. I am sorry, I am good enough critical thinker to not buy into at least this notion of both theories. I honestly hope you would agree...

That's not really the whole message about Thinking/Feeling, but it does conflate several factors together in these preferences and that can end up being a problem when trying to apply it to actual situations. This is true both for MBTI and Socionics.

If I were you, I would ask why you got hung up on this issue personally. Does it touch on something for you personally? Think about that IMO instead of analysing these theories. Perhaps think about it with the help of someone else, a friend, a therapist, etc.

[jason_m]

That's not really the whole message about Thinking/Feeling, but it does conflate several factors together in these preferences and that can end up being a problem when trying to apply it to actual situations. This is true both for MBTI and Socionics.

If I were you, I would ask why you got hung up on this issue personally. Does it touch on something for you personally?

Honestly, I don't like it because, if I come to the conclusion that I'm thinking type, I have to admit that I'm some sort of miser with giving to charities, etc. If I come to the conclusion that I'm feeling type, I have to admit that I'm illogical, weak critical thinker, etc. I don't like either conclusion. But you're right - there are probably several factors that are conflated that's causing it. My theory:

1) You either like giving to charities or you don't.
2) If you give, you either give in a rational/calculated way, or you do not.

- I like giving, but I prefer to give in a way that is calculated - having certain principles of giving, limits to what I give, etc.

Those two are probably conflated and cause a problem...

I also can't come to a conclusion, because, at the back of my mind, I feel that anything is possible - "in principle, even some of the best theories can be overturned." That makes it very hard to come to a solid conclusion.

[Myst]

Honestly, I don't like it because, if I come to the conclusion that I'm thinking type, I have to admit that I'm some sort of miser with giving to charities, etc. If I come to the conclusion that I'm feeling type, I have to admit that I'm illogical, weak critical thinker, etc. I don't like either conclusion.

Hmm as far as I recall, Jung described Feeling types as being able to think and use logic just fine, otoh their Thinking is usually kind of borrowed rather than truly creating them with own Thinking. Tho' ofcourse they can create some too, it's just not their real mode of being. Also, their Thinking is subjected to adjustment to Feeling values, so, a Feeling type would not like to think about cold inhumane thoughts / it feels cold to them in a way it does not feel to a Thinking type. This does mean they are less of a truly critical thinker than a Thinking type but a Feeling type would not actually want to be as much of such a critical thinker since again, they'd find that too cold and not humane enough / the criticality would feel overdone to them. This is how the theory goes. Modern scientific studies have shown that Jung was correct as far as neuronal networks for mechanical logic will end up inhibiting the networks for the social (humane) approach and vice versa, under the right circumstances. They also show that the two approaches of rationality and emotionality intertwine in a crucially important way for much of basic functioning / executive functioning too, which way can be viewed as compatible with some of Jung's ideas again.

If we go by this theory, then I do think you'd be a Feeling type btw because you focus more on human and personal factors in evaluating this issue. As far as the theory is any good, aside from scientific results, you can definitely see distinct preferences for some people. Not necessarily an easily visible preference for all people and I wouldn't be able to tell you why - the theory could be wrong with the idea that everyone has a distinct preference, or it's hard to detect with some bc they are close to being fully balanced.

But you're right - there are probably several factors that are conflated that's causing it. My theory:

1) You either like giving to charities or you don't.
2) If you give, you either give in a rational/calculated way, or you do not.

- I like giving, but I prefer to give in a way that is calculated - having certain principles of giving, limits to what I give, etc.

Those two are probably conflated and cause a problem...

I agree, these are two different things in your list. 1) Whether someone likes to give barely depends on the Thinking/Feeling preference really. As for 2)... Well like I said Feeling types have logic too according to the theory

I also can't come to a conclusion, because, at the back of my mind, I feel that anything is possible - "in principle, even some of the best theories can be overturned." That makes it very hard to come to a solid conclusion.

That's true, they can be overturned with new data. But I do think there is a real world so some statements we make are connected with how things actually are... it can't all be randomly changed around