Do you believe socionics is as valid as astrology?

[sbbds]

Not carried away emotionally. I do miss some details and jump around. I wasn't even saying you personally, just something I see in general here. Also, typing on this small device is somewhat frustating as it is more difficult to see text as a whole.

You said “I call these type ad hominems”, lol.

‘These’ as only being able to refer to the contents of our conversation.

I see your response to Dingu as entirely emotional but believe what you will.


Btw, a type ad hominem would be like, “You’re wrong because you’re Te polr / a feeler”. Whereas I was saying he’s Te polr independent of why he was wrong; in other words, he’s wrong and Te polr, if that wasn’t clear and obvious enough.

People don’t really do that too often on here actually IMO. Except for Sol maybe. If it happens so often I don’t suppose you’d have an example of it on hand?

[Skepsis]

You said “I call these type ad hominems”, lol.

‘These’ as only able to refer to the contents of our conversation.

I see your response to Dingu as entirely emotional but believe what you will.


Btw, a type ad hominem would be like, “You’re wrong because you’re Te polr / a feeler”. Whereas I was saying he’s Te polr independent of why he was wrong; in other words, he’s wrong and Te polr, if that wasn’t clear and obvious enough

People don’t really do that too often on here actually IMO. Except for Sol maybe.

Why the emphasis on it being an emotional response? I don't point out all of your emotional reactions?

[sbbds]

Why the emphasis on it being an emotional response? I don't point out all of your emotional reactions?

Because you started your response to me with “Not carried away emotionally.” For unknown reasons, too.

[sbbds]

Btw I updated my post @Nebula :

”People don’t really do that too often on here actually IMO. Except for Sol maybe. If it happens so often I don’t suppose you’d have an example of it on hand?”

I’ll wait for an example if you’re ever feeling up to it, but I won’t expect one.

[Skepsis]

There really isn't a good term for what goes on here. Type ad hominem is the closest thing I can come up with. Just about everything everyone says becomes seen through the prism of socionics. Yes, I know it is a typology forum, but it is very annoying when everything one says is viewed through this prism without establishing the accuracy of the underline type conclusion from which assumptions are based. It really makes the dogmatism and brainwashing very apparent.

[sbbds]

There really isn't a good term for what goes on here. Type ad hominem is the closest thing I can come up with. Just about everything everyone says becomes seen through the prism of socionics. Yes, I know it is a typology forum, but it is very annoying when everything one says is viewed through this prism without establishing the accuracy of the underline type conclusion from which assumptions are based. It really makes the dogmatism and brainwashing very apparent.

Yet it’s apparently enough for you to decide to call it a “logical fallacy” (your words).

Again, since you have such a strong opinion on this you should be able to quote and explain using some actual examples from somebody on here. Otherwise you’re getting emotional about absolutely nothing lol.

[sbbds]

Are there any people here that Actually Majored in a science, like chem, bio, or physics? Anyone actually study it?

Btw, how about you Nebula? A few of us responded to you, but you didn’t tell us about yourself.

[sbbds]

Something, something dogmatism and brainwashing ...

So far looks like you’re trying to fight imagined dogmatism and brainwashing with real dogmatism @Nebula . Also ostensible that you’ve been brainwashed to think people here should all be brainwashed.

[Skepsis]

Because you started your response to me with “Not carried away emotionally.” For unknown reasons, too.

You used the word "carried away" implying I was responding irrationally. I'm skeptical of your intentions here.

Yes, reading back, it does seem that I was directing toward you. Singu's post made me think of something I've been thinking of addressing, but keep forgetting to, so I jumped to redirecting to a different point I wanted to make. Again, i'm typing on a small device and didn't write how i would've otherwise.

[sbbds]

You used the word "carried away" implying I was responding irrationally. I'm skeptical of your intentions here.

It was a reference to you saying it about yourself first earlier in this thread. You added “emotionally” yourself first too.

My intentions are irrelevant to the validity of my statements. Don’t try to ad hominem me now.

[sbbds]

This is the most fun internet banter I’ve had in years since 2006-7 when I was 13 and going on the (now defunct) intpforum.com forums, supervising all the LIIs on there. Thank you @Nebula @Singu .

[Skepsis]

Something, something dogmatism and brainwashing ...

So far looks like you’re trying to fight imagined dogmatism and brainwashing with real dogmatism @Nebula . Also ostensible that you’ve been brainwashed to think people here should all be brainwashed.

Provide me with objective evidence that cognitive functions actually exist, that socionics is an accurate theory and I will cease to think those that believe in it are dogmatic. The burden of proof are on those that make the claim. Being skeptical of the claims is not dogmatic. I will change my mind with sufficient evidence.

Also, with regards to Singu, you keep harassing him with assumptions of him being Te polr, as if you have proof that he is. But this cannot be established without first proving that brains work via cognitive functions, that socionics knows what these functions are and their properties, and that they can be confidently identified in individuals. Then you have layers built on these premises, like conflictor, supervisor, dual, etc. If this isn't dogmatism....

[sbbds]

Provide me with objective evidence that cognitive functions actually exist, that socionics is an accurate theory and I will cease to think those that believe in it are dogmatic. The burden of proof are on those that make the claim. Being skeptical of the claims is not dogmatic. I will change my mind with sufficient evidence.

Also, with regards to Singu, you keep harassing him with assumptions of him being Te polr, as if you have proof that he is. But this cannot be established without first proving that brains work via cognitive functions, that socionics knows what these functions are and their properties, and that they can be confidently identified in individuals. Then you have layers built on these premises, like conflictor, supervisor, dual, etc. If this isn't dogmatism....

He totally deserves this “harassment” though. Did you even read our exchange?

And if you think that then why are you here typing yourself? Why do you hold some of the most stereotypical dogmatic claims from MBTI out of everyone active here? Even squark noticed and pointed that out about you too. Socionics actually has an explicit structure to it whereas MBTI is pure dogma.

[Skepsis]

This is the most fun internet banter I’ve had in years since 2006-7 when I was 13 and going on the (now defunct) intpforum.com forums, supervising all the LIIs on there. Thank you @Nebula @Singu .

It is all good. I kind of like going back and forth with you.

[Skepsis]

He totally deserves this “harassment” though. Did you even read our exchange?

And if you think that then why are you here typing yourself? Why do you hold some of the more stereotypical dogmatic claims from MBTI out of everyone here? Even squark noticed and pointed that out about you too.

I am not holding on to mbti stereotypes. What i was saying has been misunderstood. Jung is the one that came up with dichotomies that aren't even mutually exclusive. I am totally open to reinterpretation to less dogmatic topologies. I've been advocating this for a long time.

[Skepsis]

Communication is a huge issue for me personally. It causes more issues than i intend. I like solving problems. Not creating them.

[Skepsis]

He totally deserves this “harassment” though. Did you even read our exchange?

And if you think that then why are you here typing yourself? Why do you hold some of the most stereotypical dogmatic claims from MBTI out of everyone active here? Even squark noticed and pointed that out about you too. Socionics actually has an explicit structure to it whereas MBTI is pure dogma.

I read, but maybe i am not so good at picking up on some of the interpersonal nuances? Idk

[sbbds]

I am not holding on to mbti stereotypes. What i was saying has been misunderstood. Jung is the one that came up with dichotomies that aren't even mutually exclusive. I am totally open to reinterpretation to less dogmatic topologies. I've been advocating this for a long time.

You literally said that Sol is unlikely to be a sensor simply because he’s been on a typology forum for a long time.

Also apparently you believe that people are stereotyping and especially “type ad homineming” each other on here all the time but haven’t provided evidence of it yet. That holding onto conclusions in spite of a lack of evidence or not being perceptive of the current situation is characteristic of stereotypical thinking, ironically.

Oh not to mention, you also apparently think you don’t get carried away emotionally often. There’s no way that’s not been influenced by stereotypes of your self-typing, which I see you’ve taken down as of only a couple hours ago at most if not more recently, like since this exchange here now.

[sbbds]

I read, but maybe i am not so good at picking up on some of the interpersonal nuances? Idk

His Te is bad. And he always avoids meaningful dialogue on it and misconstrues things. Also he will never love me or bend over.

[waddup]

To be, or not to be. That is the question. @Singu.

[waddup]

Communication is a huge issue for me personally. It causes more issues than i intend. I like solving problems. Not creating them.

"Find a problem, solve a problem" - quote from my teacher Paramedic for EMR course from 10 years ago.

If you are broken IEE "Find a problem, break it and make two more problems until someone comes and fixes it."

[Skepsis]

You literally said that Sol is unlikely to be a sensor simply because he’s been on a typology forum for a long time.

Also apparently you believe that people are stereotyping and especially “type ad homineming” each other on here all the time but haven’t provided evidence of it yet. That holding onto conclusions in spite of a lack of evidence or not being perceptive of the current situation is characteristic of stereotypical thinking, ironically.

Oh not to mention, you also apparently think you don’t get carried away emotionally often. There’s no way that’s not been influenced by stereotypes of your self-typing, which I see you’ve taken down as of only a couple hours ago at most if not more recently, like since this exchange here now.

Why is this such a bad thing to say? I thought it would be a complement. I said that about Sol because he has no qualms about making similar statements regarding other people.

I see you are fishing for more reactions from me. I suppose it is to work everything I say into the socionics model. I have already told you that your interpretations of what I said weren't what I meant. There is nothing more to say about it.

I will provide evidence when I see it occur again, which I'm sure it will. I don't remember where I've observed and this forum isn't the most user friendly. I am talking about a tendency some typologists have, some aren't currently active, and others I haven't seen them do lately, but I am keeping a watch out.

With my own type, I'm not trying to hide anything. I just can't decide how I want to present a "type" that is compatible with a more current understanding of personality, while trying reconciling this with socionics in a way that can be presented in an understandable way. For instance, I am a MBTI INTP in terms of dichotomy. Since I reject cognitive functions, I don't type through them, but through overall tendencies of the individual. It is not so much a type in terms of structural orientation, as much as it is groups if tendencies loosely strung together. For instance, I am IP in both systems, I prefer the abstract and I'm pretty oblivious to my environment from as far back as I can remember. Thinking and feeling, sensing and intuition are oversimplifications of the human brain and are only useful in certain contexts. I see them as semantic and heuristic tools. Anyways, I prefer T>F, not because I want to not appear unemotional(all of us have emotions and they factor into our decision making), but because I'm more interested in things that are impersonal in nature and because I prefer logical explanations over mystical, spiritual, revelational, or overly subjective ones. That is where I stand. Now I'm not perfect, not claiming infallibility, or refuse to change my mind, but logical explanations, along with scientific, are strongly preferred. But this is separate from the world of subjective feelings and impressions and relationships. I strive to improve my understanding of the world and form relations with at least a few people that I love.

It doesn't matter which system, I am INTP, but this isn't necessarily converted into an MBTI or Socionics type because it is a dichotomous preference if what exists on a sliding scale. It doesn't state how strong the preferences are. I tend 55:45 T:F, while being 70:30 N:S and 80:20 I:E. This is more useful than trying to match or fit into cognitive functions which are inconsistent in definition and their interpretation.

Of couse I see myself from a particular perspective and with particular words that I think are representative. This is what language is for. You do it, I do it.

I think it quite ridiculous to complain about stereotyping within a system that lacks gravitas. Without empirical evidence, unlike being gay or black, there is no justification for the victimization. These are hypotheticals, not empirical reality. My actual concern with typology is that it can he used to discriminate in the future. Imagine if you were "typed" at birth and could not contest it, even when the evidence and justification for the type is weak. It could affect us in ways seen and unforseen. It sound like something out of a dystopian scifi novel

[sbbds]

Lol.

[Eliza Thomason]

Going back to comment on the original post, I don't think it's either/or, but both/and. That said, I feel more confident discussing Socionics which is easier to grasp than Astrology, with all its complex, outside (spacial! retrogrades and such) influences. I can usually pick someone's Socionics type after I have a feeling that I have gotten to know them, after enough interactions, or one strong interaction. Some people I have known a long time are a puzzle to me but if I put my mind to it hard - starting with "I" or "E" then S/N, T/F, and j/p, I usually get it, and if not, I think about Quadra characteristics including even sometimes physical characteristics of Quadra's - and the demeanors of those Quadras, and I usually get it. There are even more "tests" (like Reinin Dichotomies) if that didn't get me there, but it pretty much always does. I don't try to guess Socionics type right off because I would rather just get to know the person, and then guess later based on reflecting on my interaction with the person. I don't like to try too hard because it does come to me clearly eventually. And people's types have a sort of "voice"*, even online. (Probably does not correspond to an audible voice) but online, after I have closely followed some things that are written by that person, having never seen a picture even, I can guess their type (and here, it's not always the one they think they are!). So I know Socionics is valid, on that account and also on because of the relationship types. Sometimes with a couple, things I observe about their interactions makes me guess their relationship type before I guess their types!

I also can do that sort of guessing with Astrological Sun Signs. Not as often or as clearly as with Socionics but many times I can clearly know. Some characteristic or revelation about a person's character or ways will puzzle me, and I will search about in my mind for a reason and sometimes it will be a Sun Sign type of reason. Like, why does this person in my life withhold all compliments even when I have put great effort into a thing for their benefit? Oh, it must be that Leo thing - they do not like to acknowledge if someone is shining more than them, even just in a particular circumstance, because they want to always be the center/highest (there are situations where a more mature Leo will compliment, but that is a more advanced Leo and this person is not advanced).. Or, I will see in a relationship that there are two Cardinals and I see their strain from that, or a relationship of two Mutables, and they appear to be drifting... So I conclude that Astrology is valid, though it seems to be both an art and a science (of a sort) and it's not one I want to spend my lifetime on understanding, as one could.

I have seen polls here and MBTI polls in the past on what Socionics/MBTI types are what Sun Signs, and there does not seem to be a pattern. I look at my life and those in it and also do not see a pattern. For example, these types all include persons whose Socionics types I am positive about: Cancers: ISTj, ISTp, ISFj, ESFj, and INTp; Taurus - ESFj, ESTp, ISFp, ESTj, ISFj, INTp... Aquarius: ISTp, INFj, ISTj, ESFp, ENFj... Leos: ESFp, ENFp, ESFj, ISTj, ENTp, INFp. All of these persons exhibit characteristics of their Astrological sign and of their Socionics type. So I conclude there is not a pattern.

*@PeterPanPrinciple, I am getting a LII vibe from you so I would not be surprised if that is your type!

[Singu]

That context... is reality. And known information ...

... from reality.

No, the context was that they were trying to figure out why the Mars was moving around in a funny way, observed from our vantage point.

And that the atomic theory was applied to chemistry to try to solve some of their problems.

You clearly don't understand history. So much for "Te".

By the way, Mach didn't believe that atoms existed all his life, because we couldn't observe them. He lambasted the proponents of the atomic theory, and it was so bad that some may have even committed suicide over it.

So ironically, you're turning into a Logical Positivist, which is often the criticism coming from Socionics.

[sbbds]

So ironically, you're turning into a Logical Positivist, which is often the criticism coming from Socionics.

And? Problem?

You just want to say “no” to everything that doesn’t come out of your own mouth/ass lol. Some things never change.

[Singu]

And? Problem?

The problem is that Logical Positivism is wrong, obviously.

Perhaps you should stop believing in Socionics/Jung, because you can't observe them.

[sbbds]

The problem is that Logical Positivism is wrong, obviously.

Perhaps you should stop believing in Socionics/Jung, because you can't observe them.

If it were wrong, it wouldn’t be used in applied science.

=)

I can observe things, and make decisions based on what I see. That might be precisely why I “believe in” (there is no “believing in” going on) Socionics. I’m sorry that’s so difficult for you in your life.

[Singu]

If it were wrong, it wouldn’t be used in applied science.

Okay, so using theories from science, which isn't actually "based on" any observations, but rather they're the explanations of observations, would somehow make Logical Positivism correct...

[sbbds]

Okay, so using theories from science, which isn't actually "based on" any observations, but rather they're the explanations of observations, would somehow make Logical Positivism correct...

As correct as applied science, which has allowed you to use the piece of technology you’re typing from now, and everything else in modern society is.

[Singu]

As correct as applied science, which has allowed you to use the piece of technology you’re typing from now, and everything else in modern society is.

Er, what? They're all based on scientific theories, which none are actually based on any observations.

You are free to not believe in any theories that are not based on observations, but you will find that none actually exist.

[Raver]

I don't understand why those that discredit Socionics completely hang around this forum (this is different than being skeptical of Socionics and questioning it, which is fine). It's like an atheist or an agnostic hanging out at a church telling others religion is make believe or God doesn't exist. It's just pretentious and senseless when you really think about it even if they're right.

[Desert Financial]

I don't understand why those that discredit Socionics completely hang around this forum (this is different than being skeptical of Socionics and questioning it, which is fine). It's like an atheist or an agnostic hanging out at a church telling others religion is make believe or God doesn't exist. It's just pretentious and senseless when you really think about it even if they're right.

I don't understand why people who hang around this forum hate it when people criticize Socionics.

By criticizing existing theories, you move the understanding of a topic forward.

Otherwise, your understanding just remains stagnant. It's like an appeal to "infallible" authoritarianism.

[Desert Financial]

We didn't "see" atoms when somebody came up with the atomic theory.

That's true. Democritus first coined a primitive concept for atoms. Then, Epicurus refined the idea based on the (rationalist) premise that the universe was finite. If the universe is finite, then it must be composed of indivisible parts. In a way, the concept was purer back then because it wasn't defined by observations that came later about what we eventually considered to be atoms - therefore, it more accurately described even smaller units we eventually discovered, like quanta.

[Raver]

I don't understand why people who hang around this forum hate it when people criticize Socionics.

By criticizing existing theories, you move the understanding of a topic forward.

Otherwise, your understanding just remains stagnant. It's like an appeal to "infallible" authoritarianism.

Well, like I said, criticism is fine. There's many holes in Socionics that you can point out so it can improve. It is by no means perfect and it has many overriding factors that hold more weight psychologically.

However, to say it doesn't exist, just kind of throws the whole theory out the window. Which goes back to what I was saying of why discuss it at this platform at that point. It is basically beating a dead horse.

[Singu]

Well, like I said, criticism is fine. There's many holes in Socionics that you can point out so it can improve. It is by no means perfect and it has many overriding factors that hold more weight psychologically.

And has anything actually ever been improved?

[Raver]

And has anything actually ever been improved?

Heh, it depends on what you define as that. The theory is being developed by Russian psychologists, but I haven't delved into it. Anyways, I have taken Socionics with a grain of salt for a while like many other regulars, but I just don't see the need to announce it constantly because it's obnoxious. We all had that moment of realization when we realized Socionics is overglorified and it was incredibly disappointing.

Socionics cannot and should not explain the entirety of your personality and your interactions with others. Too many other factors that it doesn't take into account. It is obvious to anyone who has been studying and applying the theory for a long time that it is a flawed theory. Take it for what it is: measuring how people process information based on some human personality traits and how that affects our interactions with others to a limited degree.

The key word here is limited because Socionics leaves out quite a bit on our personality, which leaves out a lot on how we interact with others too. You just have to connect the puzzle using Socionics, other typology systems and non typology psychological systems too and even that doesn't solve the enigma that is the human personality.

[Desert Financial]

Well, like I said, criticism is fine. There's many holes in Socionics that you can point out so it can improve. It is by no means perfect and it has many overriding factors that hold more weight psychologically.

However, to say it doesn't exist, just kind of throws the whole theory out the window. Which goes back to what I was saying of why discuss it at this platform at that point. It is basically beating a dead horse.

The fundamentals of a system are fair game for criticism, and when the fundamentals are unsound, the foundation of the system has some problems. One fundamental aspect of Model A is that it lacks any account of how information processing changes. It fails to mention how vital IMs become mental, how mental functions become vital, or any other kind of transition. I know "vital" functions rise to consciousness in my mind. That said, Model A's not general enough to have reliable predictable worth, and since users here treat it like it has predictive worth in that they treat Model A like it can be used to reliably type people, nobody's beating a dead horse. Furthermore, the rules behind Model A are arbitrary in that they're simply mapped out through various dichotomies, creating a system of substantial complexity based on what amounts to circular reasoning. The more complex a hypothetical system is, the more parts it has, the more parts it has, the higher its likelihood of error is in testing and general accuracy. Contrast Model A with Big 5, a system consisting of 5 simple traits, none of which are contingent on each other, and you start to see why psychologists hold Big 5 in higher esteem than Socionics. Big 5 is less error prone and generally more accurate because its simplicity compensates for chaotic elements.

[Desert Financial]

The theory is being developed by Russian psychologists, but I haven't delved into it.

So you don't really have any definite proof of improvement.

[Raver]

The fundamentals of a system are fair game for criticism, and when the fundamentals are unsound, the foundation of the system has some problems. One fundamental aspect of Model A is that it lacks any account of how information processing changes. It fails to mention how vital IMs become mental, how mental functions become vital, or any other kind of transition. I know "vital" functions rise to consciousness in my mind. That said, Model A's not general enough to have reliable predictable worth, and since users here treat it like it has predictive worth in that they treat Model A like it can be used to reliably type people, nobody's beating a dead horse. Furthermore, the rules behind Model A are arbitrary in that they're simply mapped out through various dichotomies, creating a system of substantial complexity based on what amounts to circular reasoning. The more complex a hypothetical system is, the more parts it has, the more parts it has, the higher its likelihood of error is in testing and general accuracy. Contrast Model A with Big 5, a system consisting of 5 simple traits, none of which are contingent on each other, and you start to see why psychologists hold Big 5 in higher esteem than Socionics. Big 5 is less error prone and generally more accurate because its simplicity compensates for chaotic elements.

The fact that it is complex just means that it is harder to prove, but that doesn't make it automatically false by default. Or maybe it will be proven to be true, partially true or false in the future with advanced brain scans, but only time will tell. Yes, Big 5 has more weight than Socionics now because it has more concrete evidence, which makes sense.

So you don't really have any definite proof of improvement.

I don't because either it is too complex to be improved by theory alone or noone has done it yet. Until the science catches up or a genius makes an improvement happen or realize it is all bunk, nothing dramatic will happen.

To be frank, I honestly don't care, Socionics doesn't have much value in my life to matter anymore. Too many real life experiences have shown me that it's a flawed theory (mainly ITR) despite having some boons.

So yeah, I get where you, Singu and others are coming from to an extent because of this. Doesn't mean that I have renounced the theory completely either though because of its flaws. I see its potential even with its shortcomings.