24 informational elements

[Smilex]

It goes to show that their entire approach has been wrong.

You're not supposed to have an observation "confirm" the hypothesis, because then an observation will eventually confirm anything. If you look for something hard enough, then you're eventually going to find it. That's why you instead predict something, and then you try to see if that prediction is true or not. That's what a scientific experiment is.

And you also shouldn't just throw random predictions. Anyone can throw random predictions enough times that it would eventually hit a jackpot. But that doesn't really tell us anything or enlighten us with anything, other than that you perhaps got lucky with the prediction. So you should also explain why that prediction should come true.

If it claims to "predict" things, like ITR, then it says that an observation will eventually fit into a description. But that's like saying that you will "predict" that a dice will eventually roll a 6, if you throw it enough times. But you're ignoring all the other times that it has not rolled a 6. In the same way, you can "predict" that you will eventually observe a Duality getting along, while you're ignoring all the other observations where they do not get along.

Either way, you can't explain why.

I agree with you.

And I'm going to continue by saying a couple of other things that relate to Aushra's work and scientific principles.

At least in medicine, when you observe a phenomenon, you want to separate groups of subjects and test them against each other. This is something you kind of have to do to discuss a phenomenon. And when creating these test groups, you kind of want a clear separation to get good results, so what you do is you ignore the subjects that don't clearly belong in any of the groups that you're discussing or that have anomalies. This is what you do to be able to continue.

So, if socionics types didn't exist, you would still be inclined to imagine them as a mental construct so as to be able to have a discussion about the phenomenon. This is how science works, even hard science.

Let's have a hard science example. As of right now, in the pubmed data base there are 36422 articles discussing migraines. We know a lot about migraines. Yet we don't know what a migraine is, the condition lacks a clear definition and it's even unclear whether it's a single thing or a group of things that have nothing to do with each other. Yet we continue to use the terminology because it's convenient.

It's a mistake to believe that Aushra's original work is based on a lot of proof or evidence. By it's nature it is highly speculative, pushing the boundaries of science. The same revolutionary nature which makes it wonderful makes it weak. She was, as ENTps do, pushing it. She's introducing new concepts and kind of playing with them to show how they possibly might work. She's not a practical type, what does she care about how these things relate to real life.

Aushra lacked the concepts of subtypes, partially because to introduce the original work, subtypes are inconvenient. It's easier to introduce one thing first and later add to it with newer concepts. ENTps are a process type, so typical for her would have been to proceed in steps, rather than to aim to introduce everything at once. ENTps tend to consider their work as progress towards something, not attempting to enshrine their work as the permanent new state of thought. Frankly I think Aushra would be not just honoured, but also kind of appalled of the idea that socionics stops at her work.

Anyway, back to the critical issue... The Model A hypothesis is a mental construct not meant to correlate to a physically existing phenomenon, it's a mind exercise. It fails when there's individuals of extreme subtype characteristics, like Adam displays in this thread. The same goes for a lot of socionics in general. To understand the phenomenon, you have to have a mental construct. But if the mental construct is deficient, you have to rework it to be able to discuss the parts of the phenomenon which the first construct ignores. That's what happens with science.

The most obvious failure of model A is of course the subtypes, and everything that correlates with ignoring these huge issue. For example the idea that the 1st function is automatically the strongest one, or that people are always looking for complements primarily based on the 1st function. But this bordering of digressing from the main issue of the message so I'll just stop.

[Singu]

So, if socionics types didn't exist, you would still be inclined to imagine them as a mental construct so as to be able to have a discussion about the phenomenon. This is how science works, even hard science.

Let's have a hard science example. As of right now, in the pubmed data base there are 36422 articles discussing migraines. We know a lot about migraines. Yet we don't know what a migraine is, the condition lacks a clear definition and it's even unclear whether it's a single thing or a group of things that have nothing to do with each other. Yet we continue to use the terminology because it's convenient.

It's a mistake to believe that Aushra's original work is based on a lot of proof or evidence. By it's nature it is highly speculative, pushing the boundaries of science. The same revolutionary nature which makes it wonderful makes it weak. She was, as ENTps do, pushing it. She's introducing new concepts and kind of playing with them to show how they possibly might work. She's not a practical type, what does she care about how these things relate to real life.

Aushra lacked the concepts of subtypes, partially because to introduce the original work, subtypes are inconvenient. It's easier to introduce one thing first and later add to it with newer concepts. ENTps are a process type, so typical for her would have been to proceed in steps, rather than to aim to introduce everything at once. ENTps tend to consider their work as progress towards something, not attempting to enshrine their work as the permanent new state of thought. Frankly I think Aushra would be not just honoured, but also kind of appalled of the idea that socionics stops at her work.

Anyway, back to the critical issue... The Model A hypothesis is a mental construct not meant to correlate to a physically existing phenomenon, it's a mind exercise. It fails when there's individuals of extreme subtype characteristics, like Adam displays in this thread. The same goes for a lot of socionics in general. To understand the phenomenon, you have to have a mental construct. But if the mental construct is deficient, you have to rework it to be able to discuss the parts of the phenomenon which the first construct ignores. That's what happens with science.

I think that it's partially true.

As you said in the OP, Socionics is based on observations. It's based on stuff that has actually happened in the past, so it has to be true.

Saying that Duals get along must be true, because two people will have to eventually get along at some point. They may even get along famously.

But it would be more powerful to explain why they get along, rather than just saying there are two kinds of people that will perhaps get along at some point, deterministically or otherwise. It would strengthen the observation, and it might lead to newer understanding of things, to more theories and further speculations.

Of course, there are some people who absolutely hate the role of having to explain things. I don't really know why that is the case, other than that perhaps because it's difficult and it takes too much effort. Or maybe because they were taught in public education that they're not allowed to probe things and ask the question "why".

[Smilex]

I think that it's partially true.

As you said in the OP, Socionics is based on observations. It's based on stuff that has actually happened in the past, so it has to be true.

Saying that Duals get along must be true, because two people will have to eventually get along at some point. They may even get along famously.

I think you mean 'can get along'. Because all types also argue and fight. One professional description describes duality such:"There are at least two conditions to be completed for a successful relationship between Duals. Firstly between the partners there has to be at least a minimal mutual attraction. Secondly and most importantly is that the partners are truly striving for the same or similar things. This may include common interests and/or life goals. Partners that are both seriously thinking about building a family are a good example. Logically saying: two halves of the same whole must not repel or move in the different directions, otherwise the whole will break into pieces. Relations of Duality also go through several stages. The first stage sometimes can be really tense. "

Basically... they're describing the best case scenario when conditions are met. Duality is usually described as a relation that covers your weak spots, hardly ever as something that enhances your good ones. Duality is also often described as something that 'leads to success' or as from the same source ' To have a Dual partner is irreplaceable if you have to compete or survive in a socially dangerous environment'...

Yet dual partners that I observe tend to usually look like... a truce, a cooperation, people trying to balance. But as in the description above, attraction needs to come from somewhere else. Dualism is by its descriptions and nature in real life more of a tool for success than attractive in and of itself.
'Usually during first contact extroverts think about their introvert Dual as ordinary and simple, therefore not deserving their personal attention. In return introverts consider their extrovert Dual to be too good for them and therefore unattainable. Both positions usually belong to people who had a lack of Duality interaction during childhood. The magnetic effect of Duality becomes obvious when partners do not see each other for a while.'

Dualism is more of a 'yeah I guess I need this' thing rather than a 'I'm loving this' thing.

But it would be more powerful to explain why they get along, rather than just saying there are two kinds of people that will perhaps get along at some point, deterministically or otherwise. It would strengthen the observation, and it might lead to newer understanding of things, to more theories and further speculations.

It would.