Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Not A Communist Shill]

As far as I can tell, the reasoning is solid, and besides, it still needs to be demonstrated empirically. So in either case, the solution is fair scientific tests. Any social construction or archetypal forms should be observable in the data. We can't argue it out, the only way to settle this is to do the tests.

Do the Socionics types define individuals, or do individuals define Socionics types?

[sbbds]

Do the Socionics types define individuals, or do individuals define Socionics types?

The goal is to prove that it’s both happening at the same time.

[sbbds]

Aren't these combinations arbitrary? It is not seriously disputed that personality can be defined in dichotomies.

Right. If it were to be studied that way then there would be a ton of factors to pick apart and research, with no end goal in sight.

So we don’t want to study them as dichotomies in and of themselves but instead observe the correlations between the data (if there are any) to see if the theory is all connected structurally first, in the process collecting data on whether or not certain things within the theory can actually be considered to be dichotomous.

This is the basis of sindri’s hypothesis.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think my question "What observation would prove Socionics to be false?" earlier in this thread has been explicitly answered, save for essentially saying how we could affirm the view that Socionics is true.

“Tell me," Wittgenstein's asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?”

[Not A Communist Shill]

The goal is to prove that it’s both happening at the same time.

That would not explain anything.

[sbbds]

That would not explain anything.

It would prove that Socionics represents actual phenomena.

[sbbds]

I don't think my question "What observation would prove Socionics to be false?" earlier in this thread has been explicitly answered, save for essentially saying how we could affirm the view that Socionics is true.

So we don’t want to study them as dichotomies in and of themselves but instead observe the correlations between the data (if there are any) to see if the theory is all connected structurally first, in the process collecting data on whether or not certain things within the theory can actually be considered to be dichotomous.

This is the basis of sindri’s hypothesis.

If this doesn’t work, then it’s been falsified, and Socionics has been empirically invalidated.

So if we agree, “according to Socionics, EII type has XYZ qualities”, and we test it and find it to be untrue and/or that such a type doesn’t exist, then we can say the theory was wrong.

There are tons of claims in Socionics like this. As sindri pointed out earlier (just weirdly and in a less obvious way), Socionics is highly falsifiable. The only problem is that we need to set parameters on what our definitions are so we can begin to test these claims.

[sbbds]

Correlating verbal reports of behavior averaged across specific situations does little to illuminate the central issue of whether trait measures predict how people will actually behave under different conditions. Scores pooled across situations may embody high, moderate or low behavioral variability. In testing for behavioral generality, one must measure directly how individuals vary in their behavior under different circumstances, rather than how, on the average, they stand in relation to others, or how well judges agree among themselves in their over-all impressions of the individuals selected to study.

In the few behaviors that Bem and Allen actually measured, the self-described unchangeables were found to be more consistent for talkativeness but not for conscientious actions, thus revealing an inconsistency in the predictor of behavioral consistency.

In a more comprehensive study examining different measures of self-reported consistency and many personality dimensions, Chaplin and Goldberg (1983) found that self-reported consistency is uniformly unpredictive. Not only do different indexes of consistency disagree but, however it is measured, the self-reported consistent types are no more uniform in their behavior than the changeable types on any personality dimension.

This is useful. It supports what @Troll Nr 007 and I said about finding ways to collect data on people other than self-report.

It would be good to look into the sources for this in this book and take them into account when designing the experiments/data collection methods.

Thanks for the Xmas gift Dingu.

@ajsindri @thehotelambush

[Singu]

Right. If it were to be studied that way then there would be a ton of factors to pick apart and research, with no end goal in sight.

So we don’t want to study them as dichotomies in and of themselves but instead observe the correlations between the data (if there are any) to see if the theory is all connected structurally first, in the process collecting data on whether or not certain things within the theory can actually be considered to be dichotomous.

This is the basis of sindri’s hypothesis.

Socionics is about making a current observation, making a model out of it and logically deducing from the model which deduces that the same current observation will be predicted to be repeated again in the future.

We can separate the brain into regions like the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, hippocampus, amygdala, etc., in the same way that we separate cognition into Model A, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, etc. We can say that "the Hippocampus is responsible for these behaviors", in the same way that "Fe is responsible for these behaviors".

The problem is that we don't actually know exactly what kind of behaviors the hippocampus is actually capable of creating. But at least we can physically "see" the hippocampus area, so we can make some sort of a correlation (but not causation). But how are you supposed to "correlate" certain behavior with Fe?

If Fe is an abstract entity, but nevertheless has its own logic and a coherent system to it, then there must be some sort of a law that logically connects all the supposed amalgamated behaviors that are all labeled under the same umbrella of "Fe". Of course, no such system has ever been proposed in Socionics, but instead they all rely on the "intuition" of the typist, which might as well be nothing but a bias and a prejudice of the typist (what makes my intuition more right than your intuition?). This "intuition" is simply an implicit system that exists in the mind of all typists. Which is why agreement in typing is so rare, since everyone has their own individual systems which might differ from the others' systems.

Or we can spend an infinite amount of time saying and arguing over "This observation is Fe, that observation is Fe", which is absurd, as history shows that human behavior, thoughts, and beliefs change over time. You might as well say that the "Fe" is capable of creating almost an infinite combination of behaviors, which might very well be closer to the truth. It's one of the reasons why evolution has managed to create so much diversity. It's the combination of random errors over time and the possibility of the infinite that is capable of creating so much diversity from a relatively small starting point.

So if things don't stay the same, then how is psychological study possible? What laws exist in psychology that stay the same over time? I think the way to do is by coming up with "general principles" that stay the same that guide human behaviors, rather than listing a set of fixed behaviors that supposedly stay the same over time. The problem is that people have the ability to think abstractly and symbolically, and therefore they can pick and choose whatever behavior they think is appropriate for the circumstance. And there is no limit to what kind of behavior they can choose to create. I very much doubt that certain people are limited to fixed "Fe behavior, Te behavior", but rather people may simply pick whatever strategy that they think will be the most successful, given their own talents, the appropriateness of the circumstance, etc.

I think this is the approach that Albert Bandura has taken in his "Social Cognitive Theory":

SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Social Foundations of Thought & Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Albert Bandura

In the social cognitive view people are neither driven by inner forces nor automatically shaped and controlled by external stimuli. Rather, human functioning is explained in terms of a model of triadic reciprocality in which behavior, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants of each other. The nature of persons is defined within this perspective in terms of a number of basic capabilities. These are discussed briefly below and analyzed fully in the chapters that follow.

SYMBOLIZING CAPABILITY

The remarkable capacity to use symbols, which touches virtually every aspect of people's lives, provides them with a powerful means of altering and adapting to their environment. Through symbols people process and transform transient experiences into internal models that serve as guides for future action. Through symbols they similarly give meaning, form, and continuance to the experiences they have lived through.

By drawing on their knowledge and symbolizing powers, people can generate innovative courses of action. Rather than solving problems solely by enacting options and suffering the costs of missteps, people usually test possible solutions symbolically and discard or retain them on the basis of estimated outcomes before plunging into action. An advanced cognitive capability coupled with the remarkable flexibility of symbolization enables people to create ideas that transcend their sensory experiences. Through the medium of symbols, they can communicate with others at almost any distance in time and space. Other distinctive human characteristics to be discussed shortly are similarly founded on symbolic capability.

To say that people base many of their actions on thought does not necessarily mean they are always objectively rational. Rationality depends on reasoning skills which are not always well developed or used effectively. Even if people know how to reason logically, they make faulty judgments when they base their inferences on inadequate information or fail to consider the full consequences of different choices. Moreover, they often missample and misread events in ways that give rise to erroneous conceptions about themselves and the world around them. When they act on then misconceptions, which appear subjectively rational, given their errant basis, such persons are viewed by others as behaving in an unreasoning, if not downright foolish, manner. Thought can thus be a source of human failing and distress as well as human accomplishment.

FORETHOUGHT CAPABILITY

People do not simply react to their immediate environment, nor are they steered by implants from their past. Most of their behavior, being purposive, is regulated by forethought. The future time perspective manifests itself in many ways. People anticipate the likely consequences of their prospective actions, they set goals for themselves, and they otherwise plan courses of action for cognized futures, for many of which established ways are not only ineffective but may also be detrimental. Through exercise of forethought, people motivate themselves and guide their actions anticipatorily. By reducing the impact of immediate influences, forethought can support foresightful behavior, even when the present conditions are not especially conducive to it.

The capability for intentional and purposive action is rooted in symbolic activity. Future events cannot serve as determinants of behavior, but their cognitive representation can have a strong causal impact on present action. Images of desirable future events tend to foster the most likely to bring about their realization. By representing foreseeable outcomes symbolically, people can convert future consequences into current motivators and regulators of foresightful behavior. Forethought is translated into action through the aid of self-regulating mechanisms.

In analyses of telic or purposive mechanisms through goals and outcomes projected forward in time, the future acquires causal efficacy by being represented cognitively in the present. Cognized futures thus become temporally antecedent to actions. Some writers have misinterpreted the acknowledgment that experience influences thought to mean that thoughts are nothing more than etchings of environmental inputs in the host organism (Rychlak, 1979). When thought is miscast as mechanical mediationism, it is imprinted histories, rather than cognized futures, that impel and direct behavior. This is clearly not the view of cognition and personal agency to which social cognitive theory subscribes. Forethought is the product of generative and reflective ideation.

VICARIOUS CAPABILITY

Psychological theories have traditionally assumed that learning can occur only by performing responses and experiencing their effects. Learning through action has thus been given major, if not exclusive, priority. In actuality, virtually all learning phenomena, resulting from direct experience, can occur vicariously by observing other people's behavior and its consequences for them. The capacity to learn by observation enables people to acquire rules for generating and regulating behavioral patterns without having to form them gradually by tedious trial and error.

The abbreviation of the acquisition process through observational learning is vital for both development and survival. Because mistakes can produce costly, or even fatal consequences, the prospects for survival would be slim indeed if one could learn only from the consequences of trial and error. For this reason, one does not teach children to swim, adolescents to drive automobiles, and novice medical students to perform surgery by having them discover the requisite behavior from the consequences of their successes and failures. The more costly and hazardous the possible mistakes, the heavier must be the reliance on observational learning from competent examplars. The less the behavior patterns draw on inborn properties, the greater is the dependence on observational learning for the functional organization of behavior.

Humans come with few inborn patterns. This remarkable plasticity places high demand on learning. People must develop their basic capabilities over an extended period, and they must continue to master new competencies to fulfill changing demand throughout their life span. It therefore comes as no surprise that humans have evolved an advanced vicarious learning capability. Apart from the question of survival, it is difficult to imagine a social transmission system in which the language, life styles, and institutional practices of the culture are taught to each new member just by selective reinforcement of fortuitous behaviors, without the benefit of models to exemplify these cultural patterns.

Some complex skills can be mastered only through the aid of modeling. If children had no exposure to the utterances of models, it would be virtually impossible to teach them the linguistic skills that constitute a language. It is doubtful that one could ever shape intricate words, let alone grammatical rules, by selective reward of random vocalization. In other behavior patterns that are formed by unique combinations of elements selected from numerous possibilities, there is little, if any, chance of producing the novel patterns spontaneously, or something even resembling them. Where novel forms of behavior can be conveyed effectively only by social cues, modeling is an indispensable aspect of learning. Even when it is possible to establish new patterns of behavior through other means, the acquisition process can be considerably shortened through modeling.

Most psychological theories were cast long before the advent of enormous advances in the technology of communication. As a result, they give insufficient attention to the increasingly powerful role that the symbolic environment plays in present-day human lives. Indeed, in many aspects of living, televised vicarious influence has dethroned the primacy of direct experience. Whether it be thought patterns, values, attitudes, or styles of behavior, life increasingly models the media.

SELF-REGULATORY CAPABILITY

Another distinctive feature of social cognitive theory is the central role it assigns to self-regulatory functions. People do not behave just to suit the preferences of others. Much of their behavior is motivated and regulated by internal standards and self-evaluative reactions to their own actions. After personal standards have been adopted, discrepancies between a performance and the standard against which it is measured activate evaluative self-reactions, which serve to influence subsequent behavior. An act, therefore, includes among its determinants self-produced influences.

Self-directedness is exercised by wielding influence over the external environment as well as enlisting self-regulatory functions. Thus, by arranging facilitative environmental conditions, recruiting cognitive guides, and creating incentives for their own efforts, people make causal contribution to their own motivation and actions. To be sure, self-regulatory functions are fashioned from, and occasionally supported by, external influences. Having some external origins and supports, however, does not refute the fact that the exercise of self-influence partly determines the course of one's behavior.

SELF-REFLECTIVE CAPABILITY

If there is any characteristic that is distinctively human, it is the capability for reflective self-consciousness. This enables people to analyze their experiences and to think about their own thought processes. By reflecting on their varied experiences and on what they know, they can derive generic knowledge about themselves and the world around them. People not only gain understanding through reflection, they evaluate and alter their own thinking. In verifying thought through self-reflective means, they monitor their ideas, act on them or predict occurrences from them, judge the adequacy of their thoughts from the results, and change them accordingly. While such metacognitive activities usually foster veridical thought (Flavell, 1978a), they can also produce faulty thought patterns through reciprocal causation. Forceful actions arising from erroneous beliefs often create social effects that confirm the misbeliefs (Snyder, 1980).

Among the types of thoughts that affect action, none is more central or pervasive than people's judgments of their capabilities to deal effectively with different realities. It is partly on the basis of self-percepts of efficacy that they choose what to do, how much effort to invest in activities, how long to persevere in the face of disappointing results, and whether tasks are approached anxiously or self-assuredly (Bandura, 1982a). In the self-appraisal of efficacy, there are many sources of information that must be processed and weighed through self-referent thought. Acting on one's self-percepts of efficacy brings successes or missteps requiring further self-reappraisals of operative competencies. The self-knowledge which underlies the exercise of many facets of personal agency is largely the product of such reflective self-appraisal.

Self-reflectivity entails shifting the perspective of the same agent, rather than reifying different internal agents or selves regulating each other. Thus, in their daily transactions, people act on their thoughts and later analyze how well their thoughts have served them in managing events. But it is the one and the same person who is doing the thinking and then later evaluating the adequacy of his or her thinking skills, and action strategies. The shift in perspective does not transform one from an agent to an object. One is just as much an agent reflecting on one's experiences as in executing the original courses of action. The same self performing multiple functions does not require positing multiple selves pursuing different roles.

THE NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE

Seen from the social cognitive perspective, human nature is characterized by a potentiality that can be fashioned by direct and observational experience into a variety of forms within biological limits. To say that a major distinguishing mark of humans is their plasticity is not to say that they have no nature or that they come structureless (Midgley, 1978). The plasticity, which is intrinsic to the nature of humans, depends upon neurophysiological mechanisms and structures that have evolved over time. These advanced neural systems for processing, retaining, and using coded information provide the capacity for the very characteristics that are distinctly human--generative symbolization, forethought, evaluative self-regulation, reflective self-consciousness and symbolic communication.

Plasticity does not mean that behavior is entirely the product of post-natal experience. Some innately organized patterns of behavior are present at birth; others appear after a period of maturation. One does not have to teach infants to cry or suck, toddlers to walk, or adolescents how to copulate. Nor does one have to teach somatic motivators arising from tissue deficits and aversive events or to create somatically-based rewards. Infants come equipped with some attentional selectivity and interpretive predilections as well (von Cranach, Foppa, Lepenies, & Ploog, 1979). This neural programming for basic physiological functions is the product of accumulated ancestral experiences that are stored in the genetic code.

Most patterns of human behavior are organized by individual experience and retained in neural codes, rather than being provided ready-made by inborn programming. While human thought and conduct may be fashioned largely through experience, innately determined factors enter into every form of behavior to some degree. Genetic factors affect behavioral potentialities. Both experiential and physiological factors interact, often in intricate ways, to determine behavior. Even in behavioral patterns that are formed almost entirely through experience, rudimentary elements are present as part of the natural endowment. For example, humans are endowed with basic phonetic elements which may appear trivial compared to complex acquired patterns of speech, but the elements are, nevertheless, essential. Similarly, even action patterns regarded as instinctual, because they draw heavily on inborn elements, require appropriate experience to be developed. The level of psychological and physiological development, of course, limits what can be acquired at any given time. Because behavior contains mixtures of inborn elements and learned patterns, dichotomous thinking, which separates activities neatly into innate and acquired categories, is seriously inaccurate.

Basically, Social Cognitive Theory tells us that (1) people are capable of using and manipulating symbols and abstractions, (2) people have the ability to use forethought, (3) people have the ability to learn through observation (not through blind copying, but by understanding the meaning behind the observation) (4) people have the ability to regulate and direct their own behavior, (5) people have the ability to think about and reflect on their own thought processes, which makes them model themselves and the world around them, as well as to judge their own thoughts and behaviors, so they can choose what best course of action they should take.

All this is explained through how human nature has evolved over time, and how evolution has shaped human nature, which our neuro-plasticity allows us to do more than merely being the biological determinants.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It would prove that Socionics represents actual phenomena.

It would be the same as saying 2=2=2.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If this doesn’t work, then it’s been falsified, and Socionics has been empirically invalidated.

So if we agree, “according to Socionics, EII type has XYZ qualities”, and we test it and find it to be untrue and/or that such a type doesn’t exist, then we can say the theory was wrong.

There are tons of claims in Socionics like this. As sindri pointed out earlier (just weirdly and in a less obvious way), Socionics is highly falsifiable. The only problem is that we need to set parameters on what our definitions are so we can begin to test these claims.

I don't think that qualifies Socionics as a theory, rather than a conjecture.

That would be similar to a Texas sharpshooter, where you fire at a target, then circle where you hit the target, and claim that it represents a type that exists in reality.

Saying that an EII type has XYZ qualities can also only be shown to be internally consistent, rather than necessarily existing in reality: i.e. it is true by definition, rather than by observation.

[Singu]

GAUGING PERSONAL DETERMINANTS

Different causal models adopt different paradigms for elucidating how personal determinants contribute to human behavior.

Personality theories traditionally approach the issue in terms of omnibus tests of personal attributes designed to serve varied purposes. Such personality tests consist of a fixed set of items, many of which may have limited bearing on the activities of interest in any particular instance. Moreover, in an effort to serve all purposes, the items are often cast in a general form requiring respondents to fill in the unspecified particulars concerning the nature of the actions, the settings in which they are performed, the persons toward whom the actions are directed, how often they are expressed, and their intensity. The more indefinite the items, the more contents the respondents have to fill in, and the less one can know exactly what is being measured.

It is unrealistic to expect such all-purpose tests to predict with high accuracy how people will perform diverse activities under diverse circumstances. We saw earlier that trait measures usually yield modest correlations. Tests of this sort have some practical value in that some predictive gain, however small, is better than sheer guesswork. But progress in understanding how personal factors affect actions and situations is best advanced through the microanalysis of interactive processes. This requires measures of personal determinants that are specifically tailored to the domain of functioning being analyzed. The study of individual differences by trait measures derived from omnibus tests is a method of convenience, which unfortunately sacrifices explanatory and predictive power.

[Number 9 large]

Sure. I think if Socionics could be shown to have practical utility (e.g. by showing that its predictions about intertype relations could be shown to have some merit), that would at least show it is somewhat meaningful and perhaps superior to other typologies. But perhaps it doesn't need that.

Yeah knowing peoples motivations and underlying fears is useless

[sbbds]

It would be the same as saying 2=2=2.

This is a huge feat when the 2 in the second position is actually Jung’s anus such as in these circumstances.

[sbbds]

I don't think that qualifies Socionics as a theory, rather than a conjecture.

That would be similar to a Texas sharpshooter, where you fire at a target, then circle where you hit the target, and claim that it represents a type that exists in reality.

Saying that an EII type has XYZ qualities can also only be shown to be internally consistent, rather than necessarily existing in reality: i.e. it is true by definition, rather than by observation.

Since we would be observing reality for it then it will be true by observation.

[sbbds]

Guys maybe this will make it simpler to understand:

The experiment is just about “Does this previously philosophical/anectodally*-based theory actually match up with reality?” That in and of itself is testable. You don’t need to do anything major for something to be scientific. Even finding correlations is scientific. You don’t need to know why. It just needs to be done objectively and accurately. We are not creating a new scientific theory. We are not comparing Socionics to actual hard science laws.

* This includes the questionable testing done by crazy Eastern Europeans outside of proper institutions.

[Singu]

The only scientific theory that is ever taken seriously is if it has predictive power. I would argue that having an explanation is necessary for being able to predict something, but some may swear that it's not really needed. Nevertheless, if you claim to have a scientific theory, then at the very least it will be need to be able to predict something.

Scientists on science: explanatory power and predictions:

These responses suggest that, at any level in the scientific hierarchy, from a hypothesis to a fully formed theory, the ability to make testable predictions is absolutely essential to science. What constitutes a prediction, and how readily testable they are may vary from field to field, but this quality appears central. If this is truly provides a decisive border between science and pseudoscience, it raises a question that I did not think to ask when designing the survey questions: how often can the testable predictions of a field be wrong before it can no longer be considered science? To use an example from the start of this article, homeopathy makes clear predictions about what should be efficacious for a variety of complaints; testing has invariably revealed those predictions to be wrong. If its lack of explanatory power does not necessarily exclude it as science (as it may be considered a nascent field in a descriptive stage), its rejection as science is primarily a function of these failures. How much failure is enough to allow rejection of an entire field?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2006/09/5315/

The problem is that even pseudoscience and other crackpottery is capable of making "predictions". That's why explanations are really necessary.

[sbbds]

The problem is that even pseudoscience and other crackpottery is capable of making "predictions". That's why explanations are really necessary.

No. The experiment just needs to be reproduceable.

We don’t understand human consciousness. Nobody can explain it yet. Is research collected on it so far unscientific though? Of course not.

[Singu]

We don’t understand human consciousness. Nobody can explain it yet. Is research collected on it so far unscientific though? Of course not.

Then stop fucking saying that the 8 functions explain the entirety of human consciousness.

[sbbds]

Then stop fucking saying that the 8 functions explain the entirety of human consciousness.

No, never. I like seeing you whine like this.

[sbbds]

Then stop fucking saying that the 8 functions explain the entirety of human consciousness.

In all seriousness, it eventually actually might though.

[Singu]

Well this is hopeless. The problem is that the vast majority of the people on this forum are idiots.

I've been pressing that a scientific theory needs to make predictions for a while, which ajsindri has casually disregarded as being irrelevant. He clearly doesn't understand how science works.

People on this forum think that they're doing "science" by making things look all "scientific-y" by making neat graphs and so on, but what they're really doing is "Cargo Cult Science". They're just blindly copying the behavior of the scientists, but they don't copy the meaning behind it, which is really an ape's way of copying things. It's all just silly and pointless.

Explanatory power and predictive power are the gold standard of science. Without having either, then it just isn't science and it just isn't going to be taken seriously.

[sbbds]

Well this is hopeless. The problem is that the vast majority of the people on this forum are idiots.

I've been pressing that a scientific theory needs to make predictions for a while, which ajsindri has casually disregarded as being irrelevant. He clearly doesn't understand how science works.

People on this forum think that they're doing "science" by making things look all "scientific-y" by making neat graphs and so on, but what they're really doing is "Cargo Cult Science". They're just blindly copying the behavior of the scientists, but they don't copy the meaning behind it, which is really an ape's way of copying things. It's all just silly and pointless.

Explanatory power and predictive power are the gold standard of science. Without having either, then it just isn't science and it just isn't going to be taken seriously.

Sindri studies and uses science in his daily life.

I used to study and now sometimes teach science, and I’m quite successful in society tbh.

Several other people on this forum have also studied or work in STEM.

You’re basically being a screaming retard about this compared to the vast majority of others on here.

[sbbds]

But progress in understanding how personal factors affect actions and situations is best advanced through the microanalysis of interactive processes. This requires measures of personal determinants that are specifically tailored to the domain of functioning being analyzed. The study of individual differences by trait measures derived from omnibus tests is a method of convenience, which unfortunately sacrifices explanatory and predictive power.

This is exactly what Socionics is. And I thought Christmas was over, Singu Claus. Thanks

[Singu]

This is exactly what Socionics is. And I thought Christmas was over, Singu Claus. Thanks

I don't know why you didn't even bother to read the rest of the sentence, "which unfortunately sacrifices explanatory and predictive power".

[sbbds]

I don't know why you didn't even bother to read the rest of the sentence, "which unfortunately sacrifices explanatory and predictive power".

I read it. You just bolded that and not the part I did even though the latter part is contingent on the former. You didn’t notice or acknowledge that, but that’s to be expected for you. Your behaviours are fairly easy to predict and to explain.

[sbbds]

I love you Dingu.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yeah knowing peoples motivations and underlying fears is useless

I don't think it would be useless.

In regards this thread, the issue is demonstrating that you know.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Since we would be observing reality for it then it will be true by observation.

The way you suggest is no different to someone saying they are observing reality, and then attempting to prove it by referring to something that is internally consistent.

It may be internally consistent to say that a flying elephant has wings, but it does not prove the existence of flying elephants.

[Singu]

It's saying that in order to know how people act under different circumstances, you'll need to analyze the specific determinants that are specifically tailored toward that circumstance, and not just to analyze the individual differences between people, which is what personality theories do.

[Number 9 large]

When you cant detect sarcasm

[sbbds]

The way you suggest is no different to someone saying they are observing reality, and then attempting to prove it by referring to something that is internally consistent.

It may be internally consistent to say that a flying elephant has wings, but it does not prove the existence of flying elephants.

We are testing to see if there are flying elephants in reality though with set definitions so that others can do so as well.

The reason that you have gotten confused is because your logic assumes that one side would influence the other, making proving it circular. But with set criteria that is meant to be measured against reality and reproduceable, that’s no longer the case. So compared to your original question, basically we are saying Socionics types define people’s personalities. But of course 2 needs to = 2 here, otherwise the theory doesn’t match with reality.

[sbbds]

It's saying that in order to know how people act under different circumstances, you'll need to analyze the specific determinants that are specifically tailored toward that circumstance, and not just to analyze the individual differences between people, which is what personality theories do.

That’s just their unproven hypothesis technically lol.

It does sound awfully similar to IEs and ITR though anyway.

[Not A Communist Shill]

We are testing to see if there are flying elephants in reality though with set definitions so that others can do so as well.

The reason that you have gotten confused is because your logic assumes that one side would influence the other, making proving it circular. But with set criteria that is meant to be measured against reality and reproduceable, that’s no longer the case. So compared to your original question, basically we are saying Socionics types define people’s personalities. But of course 2 needs to = 2 here, otherwise the theory doesn’t match with reality.

I don't believe I assumed that one side influences the other.

Saying that Socionics types defines people's personalities would be an assumption.

[sbbds]

I don't believe I assumed that one side influences the other.

That’s what you’re saying when you say the 2=2=2 thing.

/

Saying that Socionics types defines people's personalities would be an assumption.

I’m talking about this:

Do the Socionics types define individuals, or do individuals define Socionics types?

[Not A Communist Shill]

That’s what you’re saying when you say the 2=2=2 thing.

/


I’m talking about this:

I don't make either assumption. It is possible that neither influences the other: I asked that question to try to find out if and how @ajsindri was focused on demonstrating that Socionics had explanatory power. If Socionics types are neither causes of personality or the effects of individuality, then Socionics has no substance. As it is, the situation is such is that there is no focus even on resolving how we might determine the matter of what Socionics explains: circular reasoning does not prove that Socionics types meaningfully exist in reality. But that is not a criticism of anybody in this thread: it would require a significant degree of resources to attempt to move Socionics beyond a conjecture.

It isn't clear if I am in a discussion with people who think that Socionics types are real physical manifestations, or merely useful constructs. I think that is a great part of the reason that we are not quite seeing eye-to-eye. If you want to prove something to be false, it is useful to be clear what is you are trying to prove to be false.

[sbbds]

I don't make either assumption. It is possible that neither influences the other: I asked that question to try to find out if and how @ajsindri was focused on demonstrating that Socionics had explanatory power. If Socionics types are neither causes of personality or the effects of individuality, then Socionics has no substance. As it is, the situation is such is that there is no focus even on resolving how we might determine the matter of what Socionics explains: circular reasoning does not prove that Socionics types meaningfully exist in reality. But that is not a criticism of anybody in this thread: it would require a significant degree of resources to attempt to move Socionics beyond a conjecture.

It isn't clear if I am in a discussion with people who think that Socionics types are real physical manifestations, or merely useful constructs. I think that is a great part of the reason that we are not quite seeing eye-to-eye. If you want to prove something to be false, it is useful to be clear what is you are trying to prove to be false.

No, I agree that this is useful.

Socionics is a model. As such, the types are constructs. But they are meant to be approximately accurate representations of reality, so I’m not sure what you have in mind when you say real physical manifestation.

[Not A Communist Shill]

No, I agree that this is useful.

Socionics is a model. As such, the types are constructs. But they are meant to be approximately accurate representations of reality, so I’m not sure what you have in mind when you say real physical manifestation.

A model that cannot be falsified is not much of a model. Attempting to determine if it is internally consistent will have no bearing on whether it is true in the real world.

I don't think we can make Socionics more scientific if its types are merely supposed to be constructs: when you say they are meant to be approximately accurate representations of reality, for all intents and purposes, that is the same as saying "I think they are an adequate proxy for what I think is true".

[sbbds]

A model that cannot be falsified is not much of a model. Attempting to determine if it is internally consistent will have no bearing on whether it is true in the real world.

I don't think we can make Socionics more scientific if its types are merely supposed to be constructs: when you say they are meant to be approximately accurate representations of reality, for all intents and purposes, that is the same as saying "I think they are an adequate proxy for what I think is true".

I see what you are saying but that’s meant to be prevented against by setting agreed upon working definitions to be tested for.

[sbbds]

when you say they are meant to be approximately accurate representations of reality, for all intents and purposes, that is the same as saying "I think they are an adequate proxy for what I think is true".

Also I don’t see what the problem with this is.