Socionics and 'awareness of the self'

[para]

I think it's interesting to think about the way Socionics has an effect on how we percieve ourselves in regards to the labels they put forth. Socionics forces us to examine not only the way we act and think but why we act and think as we do. It seems to me that the adaption of specific posts in a group of 'organisms' strengthen the system itself. The knowledge of these categories reinforce themselves, so to speak.
I think Socionics not as a system in and of itself, but as a creaton of humanity shows our affinity for 'equalizing the unequalizable' into conceptual models that both obscure and clarify what we seek. I think this is one of the things that interests me most about the subject.

It's fascinating how living things adapt in regards to not only concrete forms and situations but also models implicitly and explicitly concieved to navigate themselves and the world!

[Singu]

You just start to act in stereotypes, and how you fit to a certain type or quadra.

[para]

Well, that's the point, right? When we create systems to understand the world, we warp the nature of the world to make it fit our system. I don't think that's limited to Socionics.

[Singu]

Other systems are enlightening and show us new things, not merely stereotypical or a generalization of things.

[para]

How do you determine this exactly?

[Singu]

Hmm... well as a system of observations, Socionics can't exactly tell you more than the things that you have observed in the past. So it can't tell anything about how things will be in the future.

Other systems come up with a model first, and calculate its logical consequences. For instance, they came up with the model of the DNA as the "double-helix" structure, when they've never even seen the DNA before. What would be the logical consequence if the DNA does happen to have the double-helix structure, and what happens if it were not?

So what do we get if we assume the things about Socionics to be true? What does it exactly mean to have "Fi in the dominant function", and how would that work? How would we calculate its logical consequences?

[Sol]

yes. "there is no spoon". it's just we think so trying 'equalizing the unequalizable' into conceptual models of the spoon existence
there is nothing really. it's all illusions.
and when you get bad relations and suffering - it's illusion of bad relations and suffering
illusional Socionics just helps you to rise the chance to get the illusion of better relations so you had better illusionary emotions and lesser of your illusionary problems

[idontgiveaf]

Socionics is labeling people..
And some people try hard to fit in on their Socionics type.
Gj!

[falsehope]

Only if you can type yourself correctly. Now I think you are SEI because of some previous posts as well some previous VI.

[The Reality Denialist]

I don't really think it it like that. Just take it as information exchange which is pretty automatic anyways. Self reflect when needed.

[para]

Hmm... well as a system of observations, Socionics can't exactly tell you more than the things that you have observed in the past. So it can't tell anything about how things will be in the future.

Other systems come up with a model first, and calculate its logical consequences. For instance, they came up with the model of the DNA as the "double-helix" structure, when they've never even seen the DNA before. What would be the logical consequence if the DNA does happen to have the double-helix structure, and what happens if it were not?

So what do we get if we assume the things about Socionics to be true? What does it exactly mean to have "Fi in the dominant function", and how would that work? How would we calculate its logical consequences?

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but how can any system tell us more than what we've seen in the past? We can calculate its effects, sure, but they are still interpretative methods that base its validity on perception.

There are basic assumptions we make about the world in all our systems, that have just as much realness as 'having Fi in dominant function'. It doesn't have to be there to be useful for us. Does the universe recognize a metre as real? Or is it interpretation?

By logical consequences, do you mean in relation to scientific methods? As in, building upon systems based on previous observations?

[para]

Only if you can type yourself correctly. Now I think you are SEI because of some previous posts as well some previous VI.

I'm very curious to hear why you think i am SEI in detail, if you have the time of course.

I'm sceptical about Si-ego, mostly because my recognition of internal states are unbalanced and a source of dismay and irritation for me. I am either totally hypochondric about something going on with me, or i completely ignore it 'til it's too late. I feel as if i don't have the ability to recognize if something in me is good, natural, bad etc. So i am a bit scared of my own body, and i would wish it were just static background, to 'carry' my mental world so to speak.

I definitely appreciate and enjoy aesthetic experiences, but i'm completely unable to replicate them myself.

[para]

I don't really think it it like that. Just take it as information exchange which is pretty automatic anyways. Self reflect when needed.

Well, isn't information exchange what builds these things? It's a collective understanding that influences roles and states, that we ourselves partially create. The language use to describe them have a clear effect on how they present themselves, and thus how they morph.

[Singu]

Maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but how can any system tell us more than what we've seen in the past? We can calculate its effects, sure, but they are still interpretative methods that base its validity on perception.

When an atomic bomb was invented, nobody in the history of mankind had ever seen an atomic explosion before. And yet people had predicted that there would be a gigantic explosion, in under the exact conditions which it would occur, and it exploded in the exact way that they had predicted.

They predicted this by explaining how nuclear-fission and nuclear physics work. But can anyone "really" predict the future? No, it's still just a guess. But if they test it and if it works in the exact same way as it had been predicted, then maybe there's something to it.

By logical consequences, do you mean in relation to scientific methods? As in, building upon systems based on previous observations?

By logical consequence, for instance by studying nuclear-fission, will it really explode in the way that it had been logically predicted?

If we suppose that Socionics is true, then what kind of a world should we see?

[The Reality Denialist]

Well, isn't information exchange what builds these things? It's a collective understanding that influences roles and states, that we ourselves partially create. The language use to describe them have a clear effect on how they present themselves, and thus how they morph.

Yes. For me it is just better to look past type or relational categories. People carry their own personal histories etc. The influence that person makes is highly dependent on those aspects as well. One might want to steer it certain direction with different levels of success. They might fixate on something that IE's might describe with certain accuracy and be receptive to another. It can be fun to test responses.

[para]

@Singu

I think there's a definite difference between supposing Socionics is true (and taking measures that coincide with this belief) and seeing why some people suppose that Socionics is true. The latter can give you insight into how we form knowledge, the former is not useful on its own.

[Singu]

@Singu

I think there's a definite difference between supposing Socionics is true (and taking measures that coincide with this belief) and seeing why some people suppose that Socionics is true. The latter can give you insight into how we form knowledge, the former is not useful on its own.

Well, it's like this. Socionics says that Te is empiricism, while Ti is rationalism, or something close to it. But that's just based on an observation of the current era, both empiricism and rationalism are a kind of a doctrine or a philosophy of the 19th-20th century. They were merely invented by some people as a way of inquiring about how the world works. But both empiricism AND rationalism have been refuted, and neither can be said to be the correct way of inquiring objective knowledge about the world. "Reality" consists of neither pure observations nor pure intellect alone. It's likely require a mixture of many things, and we'll have to creatively combine many different methods, as well as come up with new ways on our own.

So, how can it be that Te is empiricism, and Ti is rationalism? Are both "Te valuers" and "Ti valuers" forever doomed to be wrong? Obviously no, because people find new ways to gather information about the world. There are going to be new philosophies that will replace both empiricism and rationalism. People make mistakes, and people come up with something new to correct those mistakes.

So what does this mean? I would think it would mean that words or concepts like "Te" and "Ti" are going to be relatively meaningless. If Te is not empiricism, and Ti is not rationalism, then what? What exactly are they? Obviously, Socionics is not going to be able to predict what Te or Ti will come up with next. Nothing can predict those things, as progress in human knowledge is inherently unpredictable.

[para]

Well, it's like this. Socionics says that Te is empiricism, while Ti is rationalism, or something close to it. But that's just based on an observation of the current era, both empiricism and rationalism are a kind of a doctrine or a philosophy of the 19th-20th century. They were merely invented by some people as a way of inquiring about how the world works. But both empiricism AND rationalism have been refuted, and neither can be said to be the correct way of inquiring objective knowledge about the world. "Reality" consists of neither pure observations nor pure intellect alone. It's likely require a mixture of many things, and we'll have to creatively combine many different methods, as well as come up with new ways on our own.

So, how can it be that Te is empiricism, and Ti is rationalism? Are both "Te valuers" and "Ti valuers" forever doomed to be wrong? Obviously no, because people find new ways to gather information about the world. There are going to be new philosophies that will replace both empiricism and rationalism. People make mistakes, and people come up with something new to correct those mistakes.

So what does this mean? I would think it would mean that words or concepts like "Te" and "Ti" are going to be relatively meaningless. If Te is not empiricism, and Ti is not rationalism, then what? What exactly are they? Obviously, Socionics is not going to be able to predict what Te or Ti will come up with next. Nothing can predict those things, as progress in human knowledge is inherently unpredictable.

I would think that as our view of different ways of inquiring about the world changes, so does our view of ''Ti'' and ''Te''. As you said, reality is not observation or intellect alone. Is it the rigidness of the defining part of Socionics you're criticizing? It would be shortsighted to view a specific IE as something so simple, with no contact or regard for the other elements that form cognition and understanding. I'm sure some people fall into this trap, though.

[para]

Also, i think that, again, to view it as a tool rather than the thing itself we're describing is healthy, and this is with regards to not only typology but any form of systematicizing and defining.

[Singu]

I would think that as our view of different ways of inquiring about the world changes, so does our view of ''Ti'' and ''Te''. As you said, reality is not observation or intellect alone. Is it the rigidness of the defining part of Socionics you're criticizing? It would be shortsighted to view a specific IE as something so simple, with no contact or regard for the other elements that form cognition and understanding. I'm sure some people fall into this trap, though.

Well if the view of Ti and Te are going to keep changing... then what exactly are they? Are they just always going to lag behind observations? If so, then what would be the point of having them?

[para]

Well if the view of Ti and Te are going to keep changing... then what exactly are they? Are they just always going to lag behind observations? If so, then what would be the point of having them?

I still fail to see how it will lag behind observation? Does our way of observing and categorizing based on them not change as well? Our scientific methods may change to a point that will render our previous observations obsolete from a practical standpoint, it has done this many times before, right? But even so, we use our errors to build upon new things, that may be errors.

I am of the opinion that blindly subscribing to our definition of what 'knowledge' is is pretty useless as well. We view the world as if it revolved around us, how could we not?

What is the point of something that has no explicit form? Is it useless just because the definitions change and that it isn't 'real' in some sense?

[Singu]

I still fail to see how it will lag behind observation? Does our way of observing and categorizing based on them not change as well? Our scientific methods may change to a point that will render our previous observations obsolete from a practical standpoint, it has done this many times before, right? But even so, we use our errors to build upon new things, that may be errors.

I am of the opinion that blindly subscribing to our definition of what 'knowledge' is is pretty useless as well. We view the world as if it revolved around us, how could we not?

What is the point of something that has no explicit form? Is it useless just because the definitions change and that it isn't 'real' in some sense?

Well, like I said, if all we do is write things down after an observation, then it's going to lag behind observations. That's just the inherent limitation of deriving things from observations alone.

So the question is, how can we create knowledge that is not based on observations alone?

[para]

Well, like I said, if all we do is write things down after an observation, then it's going to lag behind observations. That's just the inherent limitation of deriving things from observations alone.

So the question is, how can we create knowledge that is not based on observations alone?

I agree that there is a difference between creating systems based on observations alone, and creating systems based on theory + observations, but how does the end result really change? There is no real 'knowledge' of Socionics because it's a theory. It's a lens to view the world through, and you can indulge yourself in vanity regarding how the world actually is or not. I feel the same way regarding these things. A universally dogmatic scientist has as little footing as a universally dogmatic socionist.

I think we're fundamentally in agreement on what Socionics is capable of, just not whether or not it stands as something 'valid'.

[Singu]

I agree that there is a difference between creating systems based on observations alone, and creating systems based on theory + observations, but how does the end result really change? There is no real 'knowledge' of Socionics because it's a theory. It's a lens to view the world through, and you can indulge yourself in vanity regarding how the world actually is or not. I feel the same way regarding these things. A universally dogmatic scientist has as little footing as a universally dogmatic socionist.

I think we're fundamentally in agreement on what Socionics is capable of, just not whether or not it stands as something 'valid'.

Well Socionics is based on very few hypothesis, or more like axioms, like "Fi and Ti conflicts". And you wouldn't want any axioms in a theory, because then the theory becomes automatically correct and thus irrefutable. What if Fi and Ti doesn't conflict with each other? Well we are supposing that it's true, since it's axiomatically true. So it can't possibly be true that Fi and Ti does not conflict, according to Socionics. That's why axioms only exist in logic and mathematics, and not in theories.

This is why Socionics is so dogmatic and can't ever be refuted. This is also why, Socionics cannot progress or improve. Contrary to popular belief, irrefutability isn't a good thing, since it would imply that a system cannot improve.

I'd suppose Rick came to the same conclusion on his blog a while ago:

Major Red Flag #2: Socionics has been around for 40 years, and the issues being debated among professionals in the field have not changed significantly in at least 15-25 years. What's the cause of this? Are socionists not smart enough to make a big breakthrough? Is lack of funding the problem?

I invite you to try to make a case that the cause of the stagnation of the field is anything other than the fact that the entire field is based upon a set of unprovable axioms.

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2017/0...ory-is-at.html

[para]

Well Socionics is based on very few hypothesis, or more like axioms, like "Fi and Ti conflicts". And you wouldn't want any axioms in a theory, because then the theory becomes automatically correct and thus irrefutable. What if Fi and Ti doesn't conflict with each other? Well we are supposing that it's true, since it's axiomatically true. So it can't possibly be true that Fi and Ti does not conflict, according to Socionics. That's why axioms only exist in logic and mathematics, and not in theories.

This is why Socionics is so dogmatic and can't ever be refuted. This is also why, Socionics cannot progress or improve. Contrary to popular belief, irrefutability isn't a good thing, since it would imply that a system cannot improve.

I'd suppose Rick came to the same conclusion on his blog a while ago:


http://socionist.blogspot.com/2017/0...ory-is-at.html

Okay. I get what you're saying now. Well, you're of course correct in that Socionics assumes things to be true to make that system. But does this invalidate the things the system is based upon? Yes, the assumptions may be baseless in that there is no way to improve on it from inside the system, but i would argue that the interest also lies in the definition of these terms, what they're trying to tell us. Socionics may not be useful for truth, but i can be useful to learn about how we percieve the world. That's what makes it interesting.

[Singu]

Okay. I get what you're saying now. Well, you're of course correct in that Socionics assumes things to be true to make that system. But does this invalidate the things the system is based upon? Yes, the assumptions may be baseless in that there is no way to improve on it from inside the system, but i would argue that the interest also lies in the definition of these terms, what they're trying to tell us. Socionics may not be useful for truth, but i can be useful to learn about how we percieve the world. That's what makes it interesting.

Well why do we have to assume things to be axiomatically true? We can just make a hypothesis instead, like "Do emotions and logic always conflict with each other?". This hypothesis is obviously easily refuted, so we can modify it a little bit: "Sometimes emotions and logic conflict with each other, and sometimes they don't". And we can keep making more and more modifications and improvements, like "What do we mean by 'sometimes'? Does it depend on situations? Does it depend on the person? What do they depend on?" and so on and on, and these modifications go on to infinity.

That's much more interesting, than just supposing that some things are true.

[para]

Well why do we have to assume things to be axiomatically true? We can just make a hypothesis instead, like "Do emotions and logic always conflict with each other?". This hypothesis is obviously easily refuted, so we can modify it a little bit: "Sometimes emotions and logic conflict with each other, and sometimes they don't". And we can keep making more and more modifications and improvements, like "What do we mean by 'sometimes'? Does it depend on situations? Does it depend on the person? What do they depend on?" and so on and on, and these modifications go on to infinity.

That's much more interesting, than just supposing that some things are true.

I completely agree with you, but it is also interesting to study things like Socionics, to gain personal insight into these questions. An interest in it is not the same as buying into it blindly, no one should. A personal and collective interpretation of something, while expanding and gaining nuanced perspectives on things like this is much more favourable. Socionics is not useless in this regard.

[Singu]

I completely agree with you, but it is also interesting to study things like Socionics, to gain personal insight into these questions. An interest in it is not the same as buying into it blindly, no one should. A personal and collective interpretation of something, while expanding and gaining nuanced perspectives on things like this is much more favourable. Socionics is not useless in this regard.

Well the point is I think to improve our understanding of things. So I would like to perhaps ask, the "why"s of the questions. Why do types exist? Why does Fe seek Ti? Why should Fe Ti Ne Si form "Alpha"? Why should Alpha progress to Beta? Why do duals get along, and conflictors conflict?

I think Socionics potentially does harm, by being content with little, with "because it's just so, there's no more to be explained" sort of "explanations" that stops all progress. It's just how myths of the past, such as when they looked up at the sky or the heavens, perhaps that angels were moving the planets, and there's no more to be explained, which stopped progress for millenia. It wasn't until people starting seeking why, and how should those planets be moving in a certain way, what mechanics are there, and can they possibly discover some sort of a law?

[para]

Well the point is I think to improve our understanding of things. So I would like to perhaps ask, the "why"s of the questions. Why do types exist? Why does Fe seek Ti? Why should Fe Ti Ne Si form "Alpha"? Why should Alpha progress to Beta? Why do duals get along, and conflictors conflict?

I think Socionics potentially does harm, by being content with little, with "because it's just so, there's no more to be explained" sort of "explanations" that stops all progress. It's just how myths of the past, such as when they looked up at the sky or the heavens, perhaps that angels were moving the planets, and there's no more to be explained, which stopped progress for millenia. It wasn't until people starting seeking why, and how should those planets be moving in a certain way, what mechanics are there, and can they possibly discover some sort of a law?

I think so too. The best way to process these things is with humility and an openess to the interpretive qualities of our perceptions. I think the fact that so many people disagree with each other on here is a testiment to the vagueness of the subject itself. It's all up to the individual person to approach it intelligently.

[Singu]

I think so too. The best way to process these things is with humility and an openess to the interpretive qualities of our perceptions. I think the fact that so many people disagree with each other on here is a testiment to the vagueness of the subject itself. It's all up to the individual person to approach it intelligently.

Well another thing is that when some people complain that Socionics is too vague, doesn't work as well, etc, then the common excuse is that "It's not supposed to be exact... it's not supposed to be that accurate...", etc. But the problem is that if things are vague, then it's just another way of saying that they don't actually understand things very well, and in turn they actually are not understanding people very well. It's like they're just driving themselves into more confusion by saying that things are supposed to be vague. Instead of trying to have better understanding of things by demystifying things, they just make things more vague, and hence have even less of an understanding than before.

[para]

Well another thing is that when some people complain that Socionics is too vague, doesn't work as well, etc, then the common excuse is that "It's not supposed to be exact... it's not supposed to be that accurate...", etc. But the problem is that if things are vague, then it's just another way of saying that they don't actually understand things very well, and in turn they actually are not understanding people very well. It's like they're just driving themselves into more confusion by saying that things are supposed to be vague. Instead of trying to have better understanding of things by demystifying things, they just make things more vague, and hence have even less of an understanding than before.

Well, i think it depends on how you approach this vagueness. It's either vague because the system isn't apt at describing and categorizing (and then you improve on it), or it's vague because the people interpreting the system have troubles with it (and then you improve your interpretation). Socionics has qualities which depend entirely on the people expanding it and clarifying it. I think one of the greatest potentials of Socionics is focusing on how we understand ourselves through systems like this. The system itself (without the past and creation of it, the roots) is not worth much. But the process of it's becoming is useful in many other areas of thought, IMO.