Why does Socionics not take off?

[serenaeva]

A combination of factors:

- MBTI's dominance means Socionics is easy to be dismissed as obsolete since a lot of the structure/language is the same across the two.

- Socionics outside of Russia lacks any kind of centrally recognized authority from which the "right" interpretation flows. Attempts to put material out to the public is often met with dissenting viewpoints dragging it back down.

- The community engages in more overt pseudoscience than MBTI does (that's not to say MBTI communities don't do this too, but these practices are generally kicked out of the public eye). The prevalence of VI is especially detrimental, as well as the esoteric tangents in Augusta's work.

- Socionics is a more daunting system to learn at first glance. MBTI is usually content presenting the letter signifiers and nothing deeper, while Socionics communities often insist on the learning of elements/functions.


Those factors aren't necessarily all equal, but I think they're all very valid roadblocks in the West.

I agree with everything with the exception of the notion of VI being esoteric and overt pseudoscience. Jung himself described on multiple occasions qualitative differences in terms of gaze and function usage and all typology systems are namely based off of his cognitive function theory and for some reason many people don't know that/assume it was just another thing made up in the way.

Now, one could always argue that focusing on one aspect of Jung's work doesn't mean everything else that's part of it should be taken into account (given his spiritual proclivities and et cetera), but this is directly tied to how he describes manifestations of different cognitive functions (namely difference between the eyes of sensors versus intuitives and et cetera). And because of that alone, there are plenty of MBTI typists i've stumbled upon that have been into visual identification (Jung's influence). Again, not at all surprising because if you'll actually adhere to Jung and use his theories as a basis for any other personality type system, entirely dismissing a part of his work extending to cognitive functions specifically is kind of odd.

That's not to say that you're not allowed to disagree with it, but one can easily surmise why people are keen on picking up on it. It's not some seemingly not interconnected or mutually exclusive with analyzing how one metabolizes information in a more "classical" way (going by mostly analyzing behavioral preferences and associating it with different IE usage) thing and it seems like the most vocal VI-related criticisms mostly stem from people that think it's literally based off of concrete physical appearance features/physiognomy which is incorrect and/or people who don't really understand and cannot assimilate it very well.

I myself was a skeptic at first but tried to pick up on it and it turns out - over 95% of the people i try to VI type in my Discord server (usually strangers i have not otherwise interacted with and whose self-typing i am not familiar with) end up telling me that what i attempted to type them based on gaze and et cetera alone is actually congruent with their own self-typing. That seems to happen often enough with actually good VI typists like me, @toska and Ashton to a point where categorically discrediting the mere notion of it is strange... and more of an off-kilter and "esoteric" thing to do than adhering to VI in of itself.

Also re: Aushra's "tangents" - are we really going to act like the majority of this (Western) community actually reads any source material or is genuinely familiar with Aushra's work? "Model Aushra" as we know it has very little do to with Model Aestrivex/Ibrahim that most people around seem to label and perceive as Model A. I don't think it's actually Aushra's writing getting in the way (even if you have valid criticisms of it), in reality it's perhaps more so what passes as Socionics and Model A these days.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Really? I think it's one of the most revolutionary discoveries ever made. Huge potential in psychology and education and just for general understanding of human beings and relationships.
I think Socionics/Jung is often UNDERestimated in these forums.

But it might be a few hundred years ahead of it's time.

Lol, you have an optimistic take! Why do you think Socionics/Jung haven’t been so generally accepted?

[ouronis]

It would be only the lure; once they got interested the site should contain a rating system where it recommends you possible relationships based on your inter-type with them, so people are not only limited to duality. Also, by knowing beforehand who has a good intertype with you, you will be able to bypass the "how annoying is this person" stage of dualization. The only problem I see with this is that in relationships there are too many factors to count to what makes a succesful relationship, or rather, a relatioship worth experiencing, so there should be a disclaimer that the recommendations of the site are orientative and that you should engage whoever you like, as long as you are aware (a description of the pertinent ITR should appear) of the ITR you have with said person (which defines the "tonality" of the relationship).

I think something like this already exists

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I really think you overestimate the "benefit to humanity" this offers. It is useful, sure, but it's not some paradigm-shifting event that will improve the world.

And an EEG would offer no results that validate socionics, it can only stand to decrease its validity. If the results don't match the model, that's a problem for socionics. If the results correlate with the model, why are you going in with a preconceived model instead of constructing a model based on the results? Again - that's a problem for socionics, and it's (partially) why Nardi is a hack.

If something like that could be done with an EEG, people would've already done it by now. Too many people have a hard on for type theory and would have noticed it in the plethora of EEGs that have already been done with the intention of finding evidence.

[Tallmo]

Lol, you have an optimistic take! Why do you think Socionics/Jung haven’t been so generally accepted?

Too difficult to learn, takes too long. You have to rely on your own ability to observe people and vague phenomena. Is Ti>Te, that's generally considered bad. How many people want to watch thousands of videos and argue about typings endlessly, or learn about compatibility from dating?

Why do you think I have an optimistic take?

[roger557]

I really think you overestimate the "benefit to humanity" this offers. It is useful, sure, but it's not some paradigm-shifting event that will improve the world.

I think that potentially, it is indeed a world-changing theory. Socionics is the 'theory of everything'.

And an EEG would offer no results that validate socionics, it can only stand to decrease its validity.

You seem to believe that socionics is not true. Both VI and socionics are true. Models A and its extension Model B are true. Hard evidence might not be easy to find, but the fact that people are able to operate it successfully means it is true.

If the results don't match the model, that's a problem for socionics. If the results correlate with the model, why are you going in with a preconceived model instead of constructing a model based on the results? Again - that's a problem for socionics, and it's (partially) why Nardi is a hack.

I don't understand. By operating socionics, one can see that it works. If it works, it must be true. If it's true, then evidence can be found. What evidence? Evidence that the functions/IM elements correspond to particular brain areas (this is pretty easy to find). Finding evidence of the types is more difficult, with an EEG at least (maybe more advanced machinery could find it). I guess that can only be observed in practice (which IMO, also counts as evidence). Btw, your PoLR is apparent that you are LSI.

[roger557]

Okay, I came up with a way to test types with an EEG: test the PoLR. You perform a series of tests pertaining to the PoLR to the subject, and hopefully, it should show in brain activity that that aspect of reality is not handled well by the subject's brain (low-activity).

[Teslobo]

You seem to believe that socionics is not true. Both VI and socionics are true. Models A and its extension Model B are true. Hard evidence might not be easy to find, but the fact that people are able to operate it successfully means it is true.

That's not what it means at all. People could successfully operate Newtonian physics which turned out to be just straight-up incorrect, and it is still taught despite the fact because Newton's laws can still predict a lot of phenomena even if it fails to account for everything in the universe and even if we've run tests that have broken Newton's third law.

I think applying notions of true/false to socionics is, at best, the peak of naivety. The creation of a label and a set of criteria along with it doesn't really have a right/wrong, to say otherwise is to implicitly claim that the labels themselves exist in a capacity beyond language - it's like saying that labels like 80s culture/90s culture/etc are a trait that is a physical part of a piece of clothing or music, when it absolutely isn't. Yes, you can study if the labels correlate with the real world but that will always fall short of being scientific truth because it's impossible to answer the question of "is there a more accurate model we could make" because the only ways to confirm that question are:

A) Create a more accurate model, rendering socionics obsolete
B) Reach 100% typing accuracy with socionics - good luck

Okay, I came up with a way to test types with an EEG: test the PoLR. You perform a series of tests pertaining to the PoLR to the subject, and hopefully, it should show in brain activity that that aspect of reality is not handled well by the subject's brain (low-activity).

For reason previously stated, even if you can draw up this test, perform it and get results that parallel your hypothesis, it still doesn't work as evidence of socionics. The only way it is valid evidence is if you make a model from the data without any preconceptions and the model you come out with is socionics. If the model the data lets you build is different, the data suggests there is a more valid model than socionics. As previously mentioned, searching for validity of socionics works on the naive basis that it can be true or false to begin with.

[roger557]

That's not what it means at all. People could successfully operate Newtonian physics which turned out to be just straight-up incorrect, and it is still taught despite the fact because Newton's laws can still predict a lot of phenomena even if it fails to account for everything in the universe and even if we've run tests that have broken Newton's third law.

I think applying notions of true/false to socionics is, at best, the peak of naivety. The creation of a label and a set of criteria along with it doesn't really have a right/wrong, to say otherwise is to implicitly claim that the labels themselves exist in a capacity beyond language - it's like saying that labels like 80s culture/90s culture/etc are a trait that is a physical part of a piece of clothing or music, when it absolutely isn't. Yes, you can study if the labels correlate with the real world but that will always fall short of being scientific truth because it's impossible to answer the question of "is there a more accurate model we could make" because the only ways to confirm that question are:

A) Create a more accurate model, rendering socionics obsolete `

That means there is some truth to it, same as Socionics. Even if the model that exists is not a 100% accurate representation of the underlying natural phenomena, if it can be used and make predictions with it, it means it works. If it works, I guess you could not say it is true, but the underlying phenomena surely you can say it's true. That's what I'm referring to when I say that socionics is true, that the underlying natural phenomena exists. The Models... they're are just useful and nothing more. Either they work or they don't. A 100% accurate model is a utopia, everything in science is an approximation of how things really work. But nobody discards F = m x a , or E =mc2 or w/e just because it is just an approximation (that works) of how some phenomena really works. Until some "theory of everything" is invented (and I believe we have this right here, and that is Socionics -- perhaps in it's most evolved state) all we have are approximations. And this is because the world is analogical, trying to convert something analogic to logic, just means you have to "cut it short". Take note how to this day they haven't been able to reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics, and Physics don't really know what gravity truly is.

B) Reach 100% typing accuracy with socionics - good luck

Perfectly possible. The types are there, you just have to "score" and get them right. Thought experiment: an android that was able to be completely objetive in its judgments, and had the capacity to type people, would never err.

For reason previously stated, even if you can draw up this test, perform it and get results that parallel your hypothesis, it still doesn't work as evidence of socionics. The only way it is valid evidence is if you make a model from the data without any preconceptions and the model you come out with is socionics. If the model the data lets you build is different, the data suggests there is a more valid model than socionics. As previously mentioned, searching for validity of socionics works on the naive basis that it can be true or false to begin with.

Explained above.


Take note that my aim with this thread is identifying and troubleshooting the reasons why Socionics has not become wide-spread already. MBTI is pretty widespread, and it has the same drawbacks, with the added flaw that it's a crap theory. So nothing of that you mention it being a perfect model or w/e is necessary for it to become popular, which is what I want. IMO, in its current development, it's good enough to begin teaching it to young adults and in schools.

[CR400AF]

There are somewhat multiple MBTI's and multiple Socionics's. For instance there are model A, model T and model G. If you look at different forums many who claim to know Socionics have very different understandings.

So it's like a pyramid. Jung's typology is a not-so-easy system. Different people understand it in different levels. But in general you need more time and efforts to understand Socionics. (This is partly because MBTI occupied most of the market. Also it's because that Aushra understands Jung better than Myers and Briggs)

[Exodus]

That's not what it means at all. People could successfully operate Newtonian physics which turned out to be just straight-up incorrect

This is wrong. Newtonian physics is not "straight-up incorrect", it still applies as a limit of relativistic physics where the speed of light is infinitely large (and therefore relativistic effects remain negligible). Science works through approximations and old models are not completely invalidated, only refined. In the same way one can speak of things like 90s culture as broad generalizations that are true but need not apply down to the last detail. Newtonian physics is still what we use for all intents and purposes in many everyday scenarios, proving its truth. In the same way socionics contains general features of personality that still apply, even if certain cases may be more complicated or less typical.

For reason previously stated, even if you can draw up this test, perform it and get results that parallel your hypothesis, it still doesn't work as evidence of socionics. The only way it is valid evidence is if you make a model from the data without any preconceptions and the model you come out with is socionics.

This is a nonsensically limited idea of science, and it would also rule out theories like general relativity which were conceived prior to being verified by experiment.

[InkBlue]

MBTI had a place to take off from and is now used by companies and professionals. Socionics is hidden in a tiny corner of the internet, barely has any resources in English and at first glance looks like a pseudoscience.

Which is a good thing...

Because socionics is filled with potential for serious misuse. Just look at companies using MBTI. But MBTI can only be used to kick people out of their jobs. Socionics shouldn't be known to the general public. Seriously, don't even think about it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

MBTI is its obvious competitor, and is far more known than Socionics. Perhaps Socionics is far too much on the fringe to be investigated by a significant number of those interested in the MBTI.

Socionics types have not been defined to a high standard. As this paper (Condon, D.M., Wood, D., Mõttus, R., Booth, T., Costantini, G., Greiff, S., Johnson, W., Lukaszewski, A., Murray, A., Revelle, W. and Wright, A.G., 2021. Bottom up construction of a personality taxonomy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.) says: "[...] items should be preferred for inclusion in the set when they have reference to clear psychological attributes that respondents can understand, high reliability, high agreement between self-reports and reports by knowledgeable informants (unless there are articulated reasons for why different rating sources should not converge for particular items), and they increase the total information within the set (i.e., are not redundant with other items; have meaningful reliable item-specific variance). That is, the focus is on the properties of items as markers of the lowest measurable level of the personality trait hierarchy, nuances, rather than on the properties of multi-item scales, as has been customary in personality psychology."

There is no evidence that Socionics can describe the range of personality in a comprehensive way, nevermind in a way superior to typologies such as HEXACO or the Big Five.

There is no evidence that most humans can be split into dichotomous personality types or traits - in fact, human behaviour better fits a normal distribution. This is a significant reason why professional psychologists do not take MBTI seriously.

There is no evidence that intertype relations conjectured (I don't think the word "hypothesised" can be used, as hypotheses are supposed to be based on observation - i.e. evidence) by Socionics actually produce the expected relationship dynamics. My suspicion is from non-Socionics research into relationship satisfaction is that duality does not exist as conjectured by Socionics.

I believe that personality makes up much less than 50% of what explains high quality relationships. I think taste for one thing is far more important - although that could arguably be said to be an aspect of personality.

I think most hobbyists and amateur psychologists who are interested in Socionics tend to be concerned with establishing their Socionics type and those of people they know (very much like how people interested in astrology are interested in establishing what star chart they have, or fans of a TV show want to know what character they are most like in a quiz), or trying to place some behaviour into Socionics ("What type does this?" or "Let's split up the types a new way"). There is little or no attempt to define Socionics in a "more systematic and comprehensive framework" (quoting a phrase from the paper I cited above), and little or no interest in exploring what causes "good" or "bad" relationships. But anyone who is interested in such topics could improve on Socionics within about 5 minutes of searching - and yet that's probably NOT one reason why Socionics hasn't taken off.

[Metaphor]

Alright but here's my thought on this occasion:

Apparently, Socionics really isn't the easiest subject but rather to be one of the hardest to learn since it involves a lot of theories to be evolved into a somewhat empirical system to be induced by the lexemes in the act of deductive method that is still incomplete. MBTI is way more simple therefore more popular since it's been well known and you don't think that Russia, in many ways, is any popular than USA, do you? I believe that, the matter of case here is more about the way how people perceive Socionics as a whole: a complicated system that is meaningless for them, therefore doesn't have the "fun" or "entertaining" element in which MBTI does have.

And I don't think that there will be a conspiracy theory behind the wheel but regardless the application, there are only a sort of people whom also have a deep interest towards typology that are willing to learn about it. And I think that the most fatal problem of Socionics is the descriptions of appearance for each Socionics type, that first introduced by Filatova (?) by using her guide book, and there are too many interpretations or versions that seem to be very rigid than understood by others.

[Metaphor]

Jung's typology is rather to be a tricky one but somewhat conceivable enough once you tried to make it be applicable since he never meant to make it a scientific system to a certain extent. Albeit, the understanding of Aushra about Jung is rather reverted akin to Myers-Briggs. And both were like working in a still Jungian realm, but rather to be counter-opposite since Socionics realm is more environmental than MBTI is.

[RBRS]

Socionics is taking off thanks to the MBTI community, I don't see what you are all talking about.

Ever since the MBTI community has discovered socionics it has majoritarily decided that socionics is a more complex and authoritative form of jungian typology, they even test or type themselves through socionics and then adapt their MBTI letters to it.

You might be worried that socionics could become a sort of puppy for the MBTI, and you might be correct. But if you worry that the MBTI community is less serious than the socionics one, you're wrong.

[roger557]

Socionics is taking off thanks to the MBTI community, I don't see what you are all talking about.

Ever since the MBTI community has discovered socionics it has majoritarily decided that socionics is a more complex and authoritative form of jungian typology, they even test or type themselves through socionics and then adapt their MBTI letters to it.

You might be worried that socionics could become a sort of puppy for the MBTI, and you might be correct. But if you worry that the MBTI community is less serious than the socionics one, you're wrong.

MBTI is a flawed theory. Some MBTI four letters types, are very rarely their equivalent in Socionics (very common example; MBTI ENTJ's are very rarely LIE's; SLE's, ESE-Si's, LSE-Te's,etc). MBTI is pop-psy; it offers nothing relevant, has no depth, and is fundamented in a great number of people mistyped.

[RBRS]

MBTI is a flawed theory. Some MBTI four letters types, are very rarely their equivalent in Socionics (very common example; MBTI ENTJ's are very rarely LIE's; SLE's, ESE-Si's, LSE-Te's,etc). MBTI is pop-psy; it offers nothing relevant, has no depth, and is fundamented in a great number of people mistyped.

Where's the relation from what you said to what I wrote? Socionics is deeper, more complex, closer to reality... But it's community is not only pop-sy, it's sectarian and composed of airheads.

[roger557]

Where's the relation from what you said to what I wrote? Socionics is deeper, more complex, closer to reality... But it's community is not only pop-sy, it's sectarian and composed of airheads.

That might be so. So what's the solution then.

[RBRS]

Discarding unfounded claims and making electroencephalogram experiments.