one man's trash is another man's treasure
one man's trash is another man's treasure
Please do not promote such nonsense ideas. You clearly don't understand Reinin traits, or much of anything else.Originally Posted by Sol
I don't know what system you follow in your head that you have labeled "socionics" but it seems to have very little to do with the ideas that have been developed by actual socionists. People like Ausra, Gulenko, Bukalov, and yes, Reinin.
It's just not clear what sort of thinkers and ideas you are following. If you mean the "classical socionics" as typified by Model A, this is intimately connected with the Reinin traits. For example, the relation of the Static / Dynamic trait to the model should be obvious. Same thing goes for Aristocratic / Democratic. Model A is usually associated with Ausra, and she highly valued Reinin's contributions and incorporated them into her thinking.
There are no examples of socionists who completely reject the traits because traits are simply a natural and logical extension of the original Jungian model. They "exist" in a formal sense whether you like them or not.
There are real, objective heuristics we can use to determine types, including some which are widely accepted.
For example, everyone today is aware of the differences between introverts and extraverts. Even Western academic psychologists, who are biased against all things Jungian, admit that this is a real and meaningful distinction. But with socionics, that's only scratching the surface. A good socionist can get people's types quite reliably in the vast majority of cases.
There is no reliable method of typing people right now, but does not imply that there will never be such a method.
Then please, provide a method where you can objectively measure a type.
Then that is a scientific research, not a Socionics research. Even then, what constitutes an introversion or extroversion is pretty vague, for instance you can be both, depending on situations and circumstances. It's more of a case of "more of" or "less of".
Again, how? Even if he could, say, reliably predict relationships, it only says that he is good at predicting relationships. But it says nothing about Socionics as a theory.
That's why I said that it's not impossible, but we can't explain for now, so it is unknown. Of course, we can eventually explain how this "intuition" works, so we can understand how it gets things right, and how it get things wrong.
the devaluation of the psyche is based in large measure on fear
Can you expand? Is there a context to this that i'm missing?
There's no such thing as the "psyche", that's an outdated terminology. Reducing everything to a psychological factor is called psychologism.
its a Jung quote
nothing quite like defining something out of existence in order to devalue it
Of course everyone is a little bit of both. Jung pointed this out as well. However, people tend to skew one way or the other, hence the phenomenon of types.
That's why I said that it's not impossible, but we can't explain for now, so it is unknown. Of course, we can eventually explain how this "intuition" works, so we can understand how it gets things right, and how it get things wrong.
Everything in the theory is trying to explain "how it works." The functions have all been defined in ways that are consistent and mutually contrastive. For example, we can say thatrelates to the explicit potential of objects at a particular moment in time. Power, force, strength, direct influence. Meanwhile
deals with objects' implicit potential - possibilities, opportunities, alternatives. Depending on how an individual interacts with these categories of information, we can (hopefully) say something about their type.
Right now, the only "objective" way to type someone is to get an expert opinion. Ideally, each typing could be confirmed by the subject under consideration where the type "clicks" and matches their own experience of how they think and where their cognitive focus lies.
Before you bash the theory some more, consider that very often, complex medical diagnoses often come down to expert opinion as well. Experts can disagree and medical theories are subject to change. Does that make them useless?
Well that's useless, he has literally made up an "explanation" out of thin air. Psychologism, indeed.
Though, I can understand your wide-eyed admiration and idolization of "psychoanalysis", as I used to be into it myself. I used to be amazed, I used to think that it could explain everything, it could even solve all of the problems of the world! - if only people understood their psychological motivations!
But now I know better, and I know that not everything can be explained in terms of psychological factors. Nor is psychoanalysis even accurate.
But then that how those functions are derived, is through the unexplainable typing process, so it's all circular.
And how would that "expert" explain his typing process? It can be potentially put into words and made into a language, but it will likely contain too much information and it would take too long to be practical.
The experts in the medical field can explain their theories objectively. They use measurements measured by scientific instruments. The theories change, when there's a better explanation replacing the other explanation.
However what doesn't change, is Socionics.
@Singu, are you aware that Occam's razor is fallacy?
It doesn't have to be Occam's razor, you can just conclude that if there are two explanations, and one has a simpler explanation, and the other has explanations left unexplained, then the other explanation will be [simpler explanation + baggage] for that the simpler explanation can already explain everything that the other expalanation can.
Last edited by Singu; 04-08-2018 at 09:31 AM.
Singu, I am actually glad to have a fellow skeptic on here with me. You are taking what I agree is the correct approach. Criticize the method of the person typing and it always demonstrates that systems like socionics lack objectivity. It erodes the belief that it has extraordinary explanatory power. There is no valid proof that humans exists as 16 distinct types, that we each prefer only certain functions, that cognitive function models of the brain is how our brains actually work(it is more metaphorical than methodological).
Jung had a lot in common with Romanticism, which rejected that science had a monopoly on truth. Like many Romantics, he erroneously believed that intuition, and not reason, is an equally valid path toward knowledge. Like many egoists, he seemed to hold that his own intuition was more valid than yours, mine, or anyone that disagreed with him. How can it be wrong if intuition says otherwise? The irony is the only way to resolve conflicting intuitions is to perform scientific experiments.
While science surely doesn't currently hold all the answers, it doesn't follow that if science can't explain it, then some other path toward knowledge is true! That is similar to the argument that Christians use: Science can't explain it, therefore God exists, and Jesus died on the the cross for your sins! I am comfortable with not knowing until we have valid answers. I would rather keep looking and searching.
Socionics is really a sophisticated pop pyschology for people that do not have a deep understanding of the philosophy of science. A true understanding instills nothing but a deep reverence for how we determine truth and acquire knowledge. Do not expect people here to understand.
actually I think Jung would point out the "sides" taken over the issue are mainly declarative, and that subjective types tend to seek out objective systems and ways of thinking (empirical ones) as a form of compensation. its no surprise Ni doms love this stuff, because underlying it they are secure in their subjectivity. whereas more objective types must bring "their full powers" to bear to counter the overwhelming feeling of being determined. the point has never been that science is invalid, people routinely place Jung in a far smaller box than is merited in order to gain their point. if people realized what Jung was really about they'd be terrified. perhaps that is where this surface level reductions come from, precisely some awareness somewhere deep inside that is motivating precisely that
To argue that typing needs to be objective really misses the point of what Jung was trying to do. He was trying to explain and illuminate qualia, the subjective experience that we all share through differentiation. He wanted to understand the person as a unique individual and tailor his psychoanalysis to the individual, rather than judge everyone by the same criteria, which will not be effective for everyone. And to do this he had to go heavy into philosophy to come up with his framing of the "individual" or "subjective" psyche. To complain about it not being objective shows an enormous amount of ignorance of its intended purpose and a complete disregard for its underlying philosophy.
That said, typing is a tentative thing and is heavily influenced by interpretation and synchronicity of its explanations. But demanding that socionics be "objective" is an oxymoron to its Jungian roots.
good bye
yeah its almost like they're aiming at the result of disregarding the intended purpose
The people who treat socionics as though it actually IS objective would be a better target for these criticisms than the people who get frustrated at socionics because of those people, imo.
Hmm, not sure about this. The type is not what makes an individual unique.
Jung may have started it, but I just cannot comprehend the way some peole swear by Jung as if there was nothing to improve upon his work. It isn't about Jung, but about science. Psychology should be a science, I hope we all agree on that. Yes, it touches on other domains, and it is applaicable in other areas, but ulitmately it is about knowledge. To say that psychology, of which typology is but a branch, should open to such interpretations and should lack any kind of consideration for objective regularities turns it into a mess.
Now, psychology is a human science not a natural science, it studies the human condition and once something is learned about the human condition, humans can alter their behavior and thus fizzle the so-called regularity: but that's precisely the point, here; once you know what your blind and weaknesses spots are you can work on yourself. But if there are no objective trends to observe in typology how can it be useful, as a system.
I'm not saying applying a case by case approach to the human condition isn't useful, it certainly is, but then it ceases to be typology.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the point of typology isn't to put people in boxes but to help you get out of the box you're in, to help you become a better individual.
Also I think you are right about Jung's intents (him wanting to better understand the differences between people so he could apply it in psychoanalysis). Jung was a total introvert: changing the outside world didn't matter to him at all. He wanted people to better understand their inner world. Not surprising then, that he designed typology as a tool for introspection. Still, when people say typology needs to be objective, they're talking about determining type, in other words, methods, which are always objective. They're not talking about self-knowledge being objective which wouldn't make much sense.
The only thing I don't understand about your post is a refusal to improve upon the foundations laid by Jung by using hard data and such. It seems like saying we can't (or just shouldn't) use hard data at all is anti-progress.
Last edited by WVBRY; 04-08-2018 at 08:16 PM.
I don't like the implications you've put on what I've said and they aren't accurate, but forget it...
but,
If you don't see the inherent paradox/problem in expecting someone's feelings, thoughts, ideas, values, identity, and just plain consciousness to conform to objective standards of understanding, I guess there's not much to discuss. Objectively, we are just the result of neurons firing in a brain. Subjectively, we experience our lives as something separate from that, something much more meaningful.
good bye
Pretty sure you could hold a steaming pile of poo in front of Singu's face and he would look you in the eye and deny its objective existence
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
people also act like Jung was some kind of dumbshit operating in the dark prior to science and in ignorance of what it could do. the thing is Jung knew exactly what it was capable of and everything he said was with that in mind. people treat him right off the bat from an inferior position where if they just granted that maybe he was smarter than them they might actually learn something, but since they don't and they don't they assume its his fault. its quite infantile, but it only prove's Jung's point about a certain mode of progress being moral in nature. that said Jung is not for everyone, the world needs all kinds and Jung doesn't need me to defend his honor any more than that
Saying that it's "subjective" won't solve the problem, because then you won't be able to "transfer" the knowledge. Jung may have known some things from dealing with many patients, but that doesn't mean that you do. It's like somebody can describe his subjective experience of riding a bike, but you won't learn how to ride a bike from it. You'd have to do it by yourself. That's the whole point of subjectivity.
We are also presumely seeking, objective understanding of people, not merely retreat into our own worlds and deny the existence of outside reality.
Saying that we shall retreat into our inner worlds and therefore, we can directly know things for sure, doesn't make sense.
Basically the whole thing is just a new version of solipsism.
lol you're the most solipsistic person I've ever encountered
it doesn't how many odes you sing to science, its how you do it that demonstrates you're totally in your own world
I don't think that we'd ever able to predict, or patternize our thoughts. We can predict certain behaviors from certain thoughts, but we can't predict certain thoughts from another certain thoughts, because our thoughts are infinite and therefore infinitely variable. And there are more infinities than the biggest infinity. If we suppose that our thoughts are like information data, then it's going to have an infinite amount of possible combinations.
Our thoughts are not limited by things like laws of physics or laws of biology in the way that our physical bodies are (except for the kind of computation that they can perform, i.e. raw intelligence). Our thoughts are abstract in nature, and they do not align with the laws of physical reality, except for perhaps logic (and our language), and even then, that perhaps only apply to our physical bodies and the physical reality that we live in. And since that it's an abstract concept, it contains false things that don't actually exist in the physical world. We can say how our thoughts are made, but I don't think that we can predict how those thoughts will progress.
We can't create a kind of "laws of the mind" as in of itself, except in that they are in principle confined to the laws of biology of our bodies, and the laws of physics of the physical reality that we live in.
So I think that "subjectively trying to understand the subjective", is a nonsensical and an impossible goal.
This is also why I think, "information metabolism" isn't how it actually works in reality. You can't predict the exchange of pure and raw information between people. So one day you'll conflict with your conflictor, the next day, you'll get along with him, because you've probably changed your mind somehow.
Not to mention, the "Model A" is the model of the MIND, and not the model of the biological brain. And I don't think that you can model the mind. You can not predict morality for example and say that this is Fe, this is Ti, and this will lead to that, etc, not because morality is some sort of a magical gift from God, but because morality is an act of creativity. Morality is made from an infinite amount of possible combinations. And morality progresses continuously throughout the time, because better morality replaces the old morality if they are criticized and the proposed improvement is thought of to be better. So there is a clear progression, but again, as this goes on for infinity, this cannot be predicted.
So basically, I think that Socionics as a theory is way too ambitious for its own sake. It's trying to do things that it can't possibly do, at least according to its own theory.
Last edited by Singu; 04-09-2018 at 05:54 AM.
Soo...I gotta ask, forget socionics, but what even would an objective method of psychology be? Behavioral prediction? Mapping thoughts to neuronal firing? Reading someone's mind? Manipulating the brain to get a predicted outcome? At what point does it become objective enough to be objective?
good bye
I agree, which is why I said what I said the way I said it.
Hmm, the first two are good examples that are already in use.
Please note that I'm only talking about methods of typing people being based on hard data. Not the actual psychology itself.
It's just that when some people hear the word "hard data" they freak out like you're trying to shut down their subjective universe or something. That's not the case, I am just saying that there does need to be some objective criteria for knowledge to be shared, or else it just becomes impossible to map as Singu has said. The map however, remains a map and not the territory.
I know that there currently are no objective methods of figuring out people's types. That doesn't mean there never will be. How does science progress when people say "it can't be known"?
I don't think that the whole point is subjectivity vs. objectivity.
The problem of Socionics is that it lacks proper explanations. It says "This behavior is explained by Fe", and but then when you ask "Right, and how exactly does this 'Fe' work?" and it has no answer. When it says "This person is type X", and you ask, "Right, and how exactly does this typing work?" and it has no answer.
So Socionics can't even come up with a reasonable explanation for its own proposals/hypothesis, which is what makes it problematic.
The reason why we can't use arguments like "This was done by an angel" "This is because ghosts did it", is not necessarily because they don't "exist" (can't prove that), but because we can't independently explain their behavior ("What are the physics of ghosts? What kind of force do they have?" etc).
This entire confusion is created by the "problem of induction", which is the stereotype of science that you come up with a hypothesis, you perform an experiment and then you observe the result. But that's not actually how science works. You don't even need to perform an experiment, because you can simply rule out the theories which lack proper explanations (but performing an experiment is an excellent way to completely rule out false theories).
So saying that "Socionics is just a hypothesis!" is no excuse, since it lacks explanations. Saying that "it's supposed to be subjective!" is a non-sequitur, since what we are seeking are explanations.
Last edited by Singu; 04-09-2018 at 10:41 AM.
I'm a pretty big fan of Jung here, I think he was way ahead of his contemporaries, but I just don't get why people on typology forums seem to devote a personality cult to Jung either. Not pointing any fingers, just something I've noticed in general. When you say Freud was a moron people don't care yet when you criticize Jung they all gang up on the person doing it like fervent catholics when you insult the virgin Mary or something.
And yet he could still be right: that's the thing about ad hominem attacks, they don't prove anything about the arguments being made, right or wrong.
dingu
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I think the explanations are there, you just aeren't looking for them. People on socionics forums can't really explain the internal mechanics of how socionics is supposed to work, and that includes me since the theory is fairly boring (imo) to research.
Take a look at how Aushra based her explanation for the functions and model A on Kepnisky's information metabolism. http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ion_Metabolism
Also, not everything in science needs an explanation. Quantum mechanics is a good exmaple of something which we can't explain, yet works for us. I might not be able to trace every phenomenon of type to some explanation, but the fact remains, as I've observed it: people have types.
Well, that's just the outline of the theory of "information metabolism", but it doesn't explain how functions like Fe work. Kepinski seems to have made the analogy of "information processing" (the model of the mind) as analogous to a living organism or a living cell, and he has taken a few laws from biology to explain the analogy. Basically, it seems like he has taken a lot of ideas from biology for some reason, and thought that the information processing works almost exactly like the cell, with its own membrane (walls or borders), nucleus ("command center"), mitochondria (energy source), lysosome (information processing).
However, I'm sure that's how modern cognitive scientists, computer scientists, AI researcher and some philosophers of the mind would take it, as information processing is often said to be analogous to that of a computer, i.e. it has a CPU, a memory, a storage and sensors to input sensory information.
To be an "objective" explanation, it has to be consistent with all the other explanations that are beyond the scope of its own subject.
So therefore, I think it has rightfully received these criticisms:
Nevertheless, his concept of information metabolism has been criticized as controversial by some scholars.[14] The controversy was related with the fact that some elements of the theory cannot be verified by the scientific method.[14] In respose to these objections, the supporters of Kępiński's model pointed out that information metabolism was never meant to be a scientific theory, but rather an anthropological model, which accurately integrates the findings of neurophysiology, psychology, social science and medicine.Philosopher Jakub Zawiła-Niedźwiecki noted that current reading of Kępiński has to correct for his work mostly being pre-scientific from before the evidence-based medicine, modern philosophy of the mind and cognitive psychology era.[15] He enlisted two Kępiński's propositions that are currently proven incorrect i.e. the proposition that information metabolism has its control center (the homunculus argument) and the view that brain is only used in 30%.[15]
The more effort you put into seeming smart, the stupider you look
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
The Ti HA of xEIs in a single sentence. Niffer strikes again, brilliant as always.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Does it matter though? If it works; who cares how they derived that knowledge?
And yet you don't even understand what is meant by it. If you think that's "putting effort" then well, you must not be very smart yourself, because I don't see how that's trying to "putting effort into seeming smart", it's just kind of common knowledge. However if I don't put some effort into it, then I know that people are going to say "Well why didn't you say this, say that" and poke at holes, so I know that I have to be extra clear and specific.
But then you don't even know how to answer things, because you simply don't understand anything at all.
Well, here's the thing. What exactly does it mean by "it works"?
Someone could say that "The reason why the planets move in that way is because the angels are moving them". And then you become convinced and say, "Ah...", as it seems to work that way.
But then you might also ask, "Well, how do the angels work?", and then they are forced to answer, "Well, it's because the angels are causing the mass of the sun to create a spacetime curvature, and this gravity causes the planets to keep them in orbit around the sun...". But then this is basically the exact same answer as the physics' answer, but plus the baggage of unexplainable angels.
So if you scan a brain and correlate some behavior to some brain activities, and say "Well this area of the brain here, is Te", and you say, "Ah...". But the real explanation is that you scanned a brain and correlated some behavior with some brain activities, but how this "Te" works is left unexplained, so just like the angels, it becomes an unnecessary baggage.
People here on the forum mostly do the "vibe" thing, but they also do a lot of explaining after the fact. They decide what they want to type someone, and then they do a bunch of gymnastics to make it fit. And yeah, they often have no connection to reality whatsoever, or any real reasoning of any kind.
If you're looking for a socionics typing system that has been tested and defined, look at Talanov's stuff. You'll find all kinds of odd associations, but taken as a whole, as a group they get you to the same point. A group of features is found more often in certain types than others, and in more or less degrees in all of the others, and a test can be made out of it. The starting point of course is how he defined the types to begin with. Link to thread on Talanov's stuff: LINK
You can also pull groupings of statements out of his lists in order to narrow down types and compare traits of one to another, or create kind of mini-tests. I did this just for fun and to kind of test the idea in @aster's typing thread.
The basic idea is, if you start with well-defined categories, and then you compile traits of each category, you can then use possession of a majority of traits from one category over another to find the category to sort the person into. But, first, you have to know how you are defining the categories, and it won't work without that. On the forum there isn't even a consensus on how the categories are defined, so yeah, typing is all over the place.
Well, I think that you'd have to start with what types are NOT and what functions are NOT. But then this makes someone not being able to fit into any of the type, so this becomes a problem for the entire premise of the theory because there are only ever 16 types of people.
So it's like how Popper said, the problem of "psychoanalysis" is that it can basically fit into anything and it can "explain" anything. Which is its exact weakness, not a strength.
Here's the full text of it:
In short, we should try to prove a theory wrong, not right. Because if you try to prove it right, then you will find "confirmations" of the theory everywhere - if you look hard enough for them.
Last edited by Singu; 04-10-2018 at 02:14 AM.
its just nonsense because anyone could spend their life trying to prove any theory wrong, if that rationale without more is accepted. the idea that you could prove any theory correct with effort is weird, but what's weirder is the idea that you can profitably trying to prove a theory wrong which is just as if not more futile. how about instead of framing it as trying to prove x right or wrong just try and be more useful than what came before. the better theory is what the old one can do and more. all this idealogical attitude toward theory itself misses the point, except as component to that broader goal. you're missing the forest for the trees. in any case popper did not have an ideological approach to science, that is something you're reading into him at the root via projection, which is just part of the IEI/SLE endless game of grabass
That's just how science, or anything for that matter, works, bro. If you don't try to prove something wrong, as in if you don't criticize it, then you won't be able to improve it.
That's the exact same thing as "trying to prove the theory wrong". Obviously, the new theory is going to prove the old theory wrong. It's called falsifiability.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote