what correlates with socionics?
Years ago I came to the realization that socionics is a floating abstraction and has nothing to do with anything else. Either because the other theory of psychology is a bad theory or that there is no correlation between any particular theory and soconics.
Has anyone else come to the same conclusion or is there something that actually correlates with socionics.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
Shoe size. Shoe size correlates with Socionics, but the transform is not simple.
Yeah, because the correlation is surjective, the same case with VI.Originally Posted by Adam Strange
It correlates with personality disorders.
But seriously, Socionics is just a system of a bunch of categorizations. It makes a bunch of observations of people, takes notes of their behaviors, introspective thoughts, etc, and say "See? These categorizations exist, this is all real".
Socionics makes claims that this is all perhaps something that is in-born. "Types" and "functions" and "Model A" are hypothetically, something like an analogy of the model of the brain. You are born with them. The whole point is to try and correlate all these observations of categorizations with what actually goes on in the brain, if we had some sort of a brain-scanner.
The problem with this approach is that things like (most) "thoughts" and "behaviors" don't start out as some sort of pre-programmed, gene-coded "base" of the brain. But rather, you first have the "base", then you have the thoughts and the behaviors. Basically, you have the hardware (brain), which creates software such as various thoughts or behaviors. It would be like trying to categorize computers for having different OSes and software installed, even though all the hardware is nearly identical. Even though fundamentally all computers have almost the exact same hardware in principle (just that some may be a little bit faster or slower) how they're used can differ greatly depending on what people use them for. In other words, people can install all sorts of different OSes and software on it that can be used to do many different things. And hence, the variation of what the computer can do is going to be almost infinite, even if the hardware starts out as something that is finite and fixed.
Is it pointless to try and categorize computers with what kind of OSes and software that are installed? Probably not, but it only shows that that only changes with the various fashions of the time, and it's hardly something that is innate, or because of due to hardware.
I totally disagree. Socionics talks about the same phenomena as personality psychology and, to an extent, sociology and cultural anthropology. The only difference is that Socionics offers a unique hypothesis about the origins and the natures of these phenomena. On the other hand, personality psychology and other social sciences offer more detail than Socionics when in comes to describing personality traits and their relationships to personality pathology.
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...-elements.html
http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.co...socionics.html
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Well what is the origin, then?
Hypothetically, it's alleged to be some sort of regions of the brain, or something other.
Then how do, say, this "in-born region of the brain, Fi", create Fi behaviors? The mechanisms of how they work are not explained, except through the recurse of "Fi behavior is what we observe in Fi types". And I don't just mean as in how neurons work or something, but even as how it works psychologically.
But even then, trying to categorize "hardware" is like trying to categorize the hardware of all different computers. PCs and Macs may seem very different, but hardware-wise, they're both nearly identical. That's because what matters is what OS and what software is being installed on them. And the rest are just superficial appearances and cosmetics.
I'm not saying that people are exactly like that. I'm sure that there are some in-born traits and behaviors of people. But it's also true that people's influence on cognition and environmental influences play a huge role. It's doubtful that hardly any of the thoughts and behaviors that people have right now, are pre-determined and pre-programmed by our genes.
better typing will help
There are at least moderate correlations with other type systems, philosophies, disorders, etc., but it's usually not a 1-1 thing like people try to claim.
It's a bit of both. Socionics is a floating abstraction, but there is some objective aspects of it as well. It is like imagine if there is a mountain by a river and then there is a map of it that only vaguely resembles it in a very linear and cartoonish manner. Socionics is that vague simplistic map trying to describe something it does not fully comprehend.
The map is not the territory, but it doesn't mean the territory doesn't exist. It just means the map doesn't do the best job of illustrating that territory and on top of that it only covers a small fraction of that territory. That mountain by a river is merely one part of that territory and the rest of the areas are not covered by that map. Hence why Socionics needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but not completely discarded either.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Singu, did you just ask how does the brain work?
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
mistyping leads to this as should and as expected to be high in general
average typing accuracy is ~40%, according to known real typing matches ~17% gotten in 2 experiments. in own types many may mistake too, mb in >50% of cases as the majority is incompetent (in this cases you'll notice much of problems with the theory working). it needs a practice to understand types better. having such accuracy it's harder to notice the correlation of the seen with the theory. also besides types other factors may make the correlation lesser clear. for example, if someone is your dual - you may annoy him too.but to make a good marriage and close friendship duals should allow higher chance among the types
as this "abstraction" allows typing matches higher than accidental (1/16), it has objective basis. among 2 typers I saw up to 40% matches, average among random people who know the theory up to 20%
mb it will later proved complementation function effect by a way alike my IR test. and by stats showing the correlation in some data and types fiting to the theory, alike below than average divorces rate among good IR, higher than average technical abbilities among T types, etc. there is the example emotions reading test, which seems correlates with F types (for correctly typed ones
if something does not work, sometimes it's because you used it incorrectly
Jung types may help to develop weak regions of functions, to make better pairs. to bring more love and humanism to societies. to make people happier and wiser
mb you'll try to use the types again and will find the use from them
Socionics is a Kantian theory. Think of the field of applied mathematics. It just looks like abstraction adapted to real life. However, we can go deeper with our observation. Applied mathematics is applied rationalism. The structures that you make don’t have to correlate to reality, but that is why your axioms must be made with care so that your conclusions do match reality. Once that occurs you make adjustments based on empircal observations. You start to see how strong your axioms were ( or you see an adjustment to make to your axioms) and it comes together for a complete theory. That is what socionics is about.
The only failure socionics faces is incompetent practioners and critics. “It doesn’t work for me, it must be wrong.” When none of them do proper analysis for themselves. If they took time to look at the foundations of socionics they would realize how powerful the tools it grants are.
Last edited by Investigator; 10-14-2019 at 08:08 PM.
I somehow missed your post the first time I glanced at this thread. I clicked it today and followed your link. I recently took this self assessment which is kind of interesting.
https://self.labinthewild.org/self/
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
It correlates with big 5.
Agreeableness = T/F
Extroversion = I/E
Openness = Si/Ni vs Se/Ne, also a bit J vs P
Conscientiousness = J vs P (in mbti)
Neuroticism = not mentioned in socionics, in MBTI its T vs A (Turbulent vs Assertive)
Did you know that 60% of ILIs are 51% more SEE-like, than 60% of SEEs are ILI-like?
from an interview with Gulenko:
The basic scale of The Big 5 can relate to socionics, as there are a lot of similiarities. The first factor is extroversion, which correlates to socionics extroversion. It is the first noticeable, "on the surface" trait. The second factor is openness, which is when a person is open to new things, which correlates to socionics intuition. The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality. The fourth factor is agreeableness, which means that you will agree with society's standards, which correlates with socionics ethics, especially ethics of relationships, which is introverted feeling. The last factor is emotional stability, which was discovered later. It doesn't relate to Aushra or Jung's dichotomies, but Gulenko discovered that it could relate to a DCNH subtype dichotomy called terminality. It is is about how well you adapt emotionally, and see your goals through to the end without being swayed emotionally.
I personally think that subtypes influence big 5 traits. dominant subtypes have a very low agreeableness. dominant and creative subtypes a higher extroversion. creative subtypes have high openess but low conscientiousness.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
