What socionics is and what it is not

[Absurd]

How can it happen if the person hasn't yet been introduced to the theory?

Now you made laugh out loud for following reasons:

a) no prior encounter with socionics means no soconics to talk about, think about, etc.,

a1) me for one, didn't know about socionics few years ago which means I didn't take a socionics test,

a2) not taking a socionics test means I couldn't falsify the result,

Bias happens when following criteria are met:

a) person is introduced to socionics, which means

a1) he or she answers honestly or not and of course latter is more prevalent,

a2) person finds some other person desirable in some way and falsifies the result resulting in "duality", that is, is not true to him/herself,

a3) people get genuinely confused at some point due to the fact that some tests are worded badly, resulting in a deviation from norm (other tests).

Having said that, every test you're going to take, is going to give you a result. Thing is, it's up to you how you're going to answer any of it.

[Absurd]

In other words, a test won't tell you mate you got it all wrong, go back and re-check some things to get your true one and only sociotype. You have to know how you behave in reality with other people and how you process info.

Tests do not know you. You do, but I'm beginning to doubt in it...

[ambivalent existence]

Why do you think you are an ILE? You do not remotely seem to be one...

Anyway, in socionics, the closest thing to falsification is intertype relations. That still has some fuzzy parts, but if you do not "fit in" with Alpha, you are something else. Socionics (and the MBTI and Jung) are not that far from philosophy.

Who said I think I'm ILE? I don't think I'm ILE. A few people don't agree with me on this and a few do agree.

As for intertype relations: yeah, I don't have anything against the theory trying to make predictions AND then testing these, in a specific way. Without the second part, I have an issue.

If it's philosophy, don't try to use it for practical goals.

[ambivalent existence]

Now you made laugh out loud for following reasons:

a) no prior encounter with socionics means no soconics to talk about, think about, etc.,

and who said one has to do any of that before filling out a test?

In other words, a test won't tell you mate you got it all wrong, go back and re-check some things to get your true one and only sociotype. You have to know how you behave in reality with other people and how you process info.

Tests do not know you. You do, but I'm beginning to doubt in it...

I think we are not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about researchers making people fill out tests, you are talking about people on this socionics forum and me in your last sentence.

[Absurd]

and who said one has to do any of that before filling out a test?

I did. I really doubt your devotion and commitment to socionics and reading comprehension skills.

I think we are not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about researchers making people fill out tests, you are talking about people on this socionics forum and me in your last sentence.

Never met "researchers" making me fill out tests.

[ambivalent existence]

I did. I really doubt your devotion and commitment to socionics and reading comprehension skills.

Devotion and commitment... sounds like a religion.

Anyhow, I noticed you keep trying to insult me personally. I did ask you before whether you had a personal issue with me and you avoided answering directly. I will have to assume that you do have one, though.

While attempting to insult me, you forgot to argue for why on earth someone who fills out a test needs to study socionics before doing so.

Never met "researchers" making me fill out tests.

And just because you didn't meet something, it shouldn't need to exist? I think you totally misunderstand my point here.

Originally I asked why socionists don't like to use tests, your argument was that people already knowing socionics will be biased when filling the test out, but you added the assumption that they would have to even study socionics first. From the socionist's viewpoint (the person who makes the people fill out the test) it is unnecessary and actually even better if the test subjects don't study socionics.

[Absurd]

Devotion and commitment... sounds like a religion.

I can organise a meeting so you can talk with the Socionics Grand Dragon Himself.

Anyhow, I noticed you keep trying to insult me personally. I did ask you before whether you had a personal issue with me and you avoided answering directly. I will have to assume that you do have one, though.

Go ahead and assume.

While attempting to insult me, you forgot to argue for why on earth someone who fills out a test needs to study socionics before doing so.

Most tests out there are Reinin based and I'm sure some newbie is going to know what he or she is answering, not. For fucks sake, some people on here are dying an unimaginable pain, death and decapitation when faced with Reinin and guess what, they study socionics.

And just because you didn't meet something, it shouldn't need to exist? I think you totally misunderstand my point here.

El oh el.

Originally I asked why socionists don't like to use tests, your argument was that people already knowing socionics will be biased when filling the test out, but you added the assumption that they would have to even study socionics first. From the socionist's viewpoint (the person who makes the people fill out the test) it is unnecessary and actually even better if the test subjects don't study socionics.

That is not my argument, you're twisting my words once again even though I wrote something else in this thread.

[The Ineffable]

Whatever is officially called as socionics. I know there are different socionics "schools", but that doesn't matter, my reasoning applies to all of them.

It does matter, because you made an ascertainment, your conclusion is applied to certain methods for which you can't find empirical confirmation. You claim for instance that Socionics does not predict anything about people in practice, yet this is not my experience. You may just have not the proper information. It predicts nothing concrete most of the time, yes, but it isn't even supposed to do so. I give you an example that I used before to assess this point: other types of people exists, unrelated to a specific research field, like child/adult idealist/pragmatist, often male/female and so on. According to you, if I understand you correctly, we should either try to measure the psyhological traits of all these types and predict their actions in concrete terms (which is obviously not really possible), or dismiss them entirely as a completely useless madeup.

Socionics is not supposed to be an organized collection of data about people, it is a model of cognition... even less so, the Socionics types are merely a preference for different manners of interpreting the information (strength, value, etc). There is not even a fundamental difference between sociotypes but this preference, and this is very important because for instance, collective behavior can be explained this way, the induction of a mass of people with a style of perception normally specific only to some. Welcome to the entangled fields of psychology and sociology .

What is strict in Socionics is the understanding, the model, the rules of cognition. For example why Ne Base necessarily implies Ni Ignoring, Se Role and so on. I studied this and it makes sense, not yet easily to articulate, because it's something totally new, but still... some people are right now working on it, as others before did about metaphysics, logic or mathematics. In fact I believe that Socionics' information metabolism will merge, at least partially, with epistemology. You will still not be able to wet the flowers in your garden using it, though... it really matters if you expect from it to be something that it is not.

In comparison with Socionics, does logic (or any field dealing with information and knowledge) satisfy your requirements for an useful discipline? How? How do you measure it objectively?

(to continue...)

[The Ineffable]

The only thing we can say for sure is your understanding reflects some patterns that are not verified to be NOT imaginary. There is this big assumption too that functions exist, without even attempting to reify them. And I don't even see a way to do so but the real point is that it has not been done anyway, and as long as it hasn't been done, it does not matter for me whether there is a remote possibility for it or not.

The reification is made when people try to find physical support for these so-called functions, and such similar attempts. For instance, I heard some hilarious hypotheses around - findings that claim that different functions are objects, even more so, that they are located in different parts of the brain. But this is not an issue of Socionics per se, but of the idiots who make these claims in its name. The content of functions does not exist in reality as "things", pretty much like the time (not sure about the space). They are just a way we can understand how we understand shit.

BTW, the existence of the perception of time in humans, which is itself a mental function, was never proven by measuring something or whatever manner you required, as far as I know. And I don't think this will ever happen... Again, I think it matters what you expect, what you think these functions are, your understanding might be wrong, don't blame it on Socionics.

[The Ineffable]

I had answered the rest but some new bad settings (of the forum or the browser) wipe out what I leave between the sessions... On short:

Sure, those two are not logically equivalent. Not sure however what your point was there?

That mistakes in interpretation interfere in the correlations that should be made betwee the types and real people.

I only mentioned two main assumptions in my first post in this thread but it is pretty obvious that anyone who believes in socionics needs to accept these assumptions. If it is not the case for you, can you tell me which one(s) do you not use as an assumption?

I guess I don't use them... The first is not something I can conceive, what means "big part" of communication. If someone for example uses the entailment from messages, while someone else takes implicatures as if they were necessary, how different these people would be? I can tell the difference, but I don't know how "much" this means.

Reminds me of a question I was often asking myself, what is "greater" between two things, their similarities or their differences? I mean it sometimes does matter, for example when we need to know whether it's ethical or not to eat meat. But then how much different and how much similar is the chcken to us humans? If you take a shrimp or a fish as a reference point, you just can't do it, the cicken is "too much" like us, looks like it has some feelings, familiar body language & shit, but if you use the apes, then it becomes merely a walking meatball . This can't be told, I guess it depends on the mood or conventional principles of the observer what attributes to focus on.

I generally disagree with the second maxim as well, that there are direct links between the type and behavior. It matters very much to understand the context and not take the described traits literally, out of it - because really, they can mean many things by themselves. I used to notice many such mistakes, but nothing comes to my mind right now. Let me search the forum for my posts containing "context", perhaps I find something.

Oh yeah, here there is a discussion about the alleged strict dependence of Ne types on novelty. This is a misconception I often wrote about. Something on the same subject, of interpreting the behavior, here.

I also heard claims of "unhealthy types" - types that don't fully match our behavioral expectations about a type. I believe that these expectations merely consider a stereotype of a type, not the type itself, and these observed ablations from the stereotype actually do not change one's type, but it make you understand better what the type is. This prejudice stems from the same misunderstanding. (something about it here)

I also don't understand why socionists are against tests. Do you know the official reason for that?

They instead seem to prefer VI, which is a lot worse idea than even using a half-assed test would be. I hope I do not need to explain how the assumption that IE's are by god knows what kind of mechanism visible about the face is completely unverified and thus superfluous. I cannot even begin to imagine a way to reason about a biological mechanism that can make IE's visible in the face of a person. Especially if we go as deep in completely unfounded speculation as certain socionists including Aushra have done, about how elements of physical facial structure reflect subtleties like one of the vital functions is strengthened or something (I'm too lazy to look up these specific examples but you probably already read about these speculations anyway).

Seriously when I read about that part, it almost made me abandon the whole socionics thing right there and then. Instead I chose to ignore those parts though. OK, sorry about ranting here, I got really emotional for a second.

It is merely your misconception that correct methods of typing in Socionics are either tests or VI. That is completely wrong. I use the analysis of the type/function descriptions and the Model, then the personality of the subject and eventually interaction with other individuals. Someone can be typed based on his or her writings, or based on depictions made by others - Don Quixote was not even a real person... Please read the table on the right of the page: http://socioniko.net/en/1.begin/index.html.

Although not 100% reliable, I sometimes find VI useful, but it requires much experience by typing using the usual means. In fact I recently dated someone who was recommended to me by a friend as SEI, but who I VI'ed in the pictures as Fi (or at least Static) - very similar to the actress who plays Galadriel in LOTR (Cate Blanchett), just much younger. I ignored the VI for the sake of objectivity, then I found out in the end that she is actually IEE, which I found to be another confirmation for my VI insights.
---

GTG - I will probably continue with the rest, but I don't know if at this point it really matters, I think I brought sufficient arguments for why the assertions made in this thread by you are in my opinion incorrect, and perhaps make you change your mind.

[ambivalent existence]

Most tests out there are Reinin based and I'm sure some newbie is going to know what he or she is answering, not. For fucks sake, some people on here are dying an unimaginable pain, death and decapitation when faced with Reinin and guess what, they study socionics.

Irrelevant.

That is not my argument, you're twisting my words once again even though I wrote something else in this thread.

You keep getting off on tangents to different directions from the original point. You have not managed to reason for how it's better for socionists to not use tests, instead using even more subjective methods.

[ambivalent existence]

It does matter, because you made an ascertainment, your conclusion is applied to certain methods for which you can't find empirical confirmation. You claim for instance that Socionics does not predict anything about people in practice, yet this is not my experience. You may just have not the proper information. It predicts nothing concrete most of the time, yes, but it isn't even supposed to do so. I give you an example that I used before to assess this point: other types of people exists, unrelated to a specific research field, like child/adult idealist/pragmatist, often male/female and so on. According to you, if I understand you correctly, we should either try to measure the psyhological traits of all these types and predict their actions in concrete terms (which is obviously not really possible), or dismiss them entirely as a completely useless madeup.

I see a contradiction here... if socionics is not supposed to predict anything relating to behaviour (that is, concrete), then how can you state that your experience is the opposite, that is, it does predict such things?

OK, that contradiction is resolved by saying that it is nothing concrete it predicts - but then what is it that it predicts? So far, to avoid running into a contradiction, I can conclude from your statements that it doesn't predict anything that is related to behaviour, but then what does it predict? Can you put this into distinct terms? Surely it is not something indescribably vague?

Sure, the notion of certain stereotypes do have some basis to them, but it is not guaranteed (or even attempted to be proven) at all that it is due to these cognitive functional structure differences and that is what I also talked about in OP.

Yes, to properly research this instead of sticking to personal subjective ideas, you have to define concepts that are defined so as to be measurable to check on them. Standardize instead of refining abstract ideals of definitions. This way the theory can move forward, and yes it will face the risk of getting changed or discarded too. The tough rules of evolution...

Yes, you can measure traits according to some standard and see how weak or strong the correlations are between themselves (the different traits), or between them and actions of people or interactions with other people. You can even use VI to do this. Or even functional imaging. The point is it should be an established standard. Then instead of running in circles, you can move forward based on the observed (or NOT observed/too weak) correlations, but still staying careful about assuming causality.

Socionics is not supposed to be an organized collection of data about people, it is a model of cognition... even less so, the Socionics types are merely a preference for different manners of interpreting the information (strength, value, etc). There is not even a fundamental difference between sociotypes but this preference, and this is very important because for instance, collective behavior can be explained this way, the induction of a mass of people with a style of perception normally specific only to some.

This (last sentence) is an assumption that is unverified. This assumption uses the first assumption mentioned by me in OP. (Which was that interaction is to a big degree defined by the socionics preferences.)

Yes, it is a model in theory. In practice, a lot of data collected together.

What is strict in Socionics is the understanding, the model, the rules of cognition. For example why Ne Base necessarily implies Ni Ignoring, Se Role and so on. I studied this and it makes sense, not yet easily to articulate, because it's something totally new, but still... some people are right now working on it, as others before did about metaphysics, logic or mathematics. In fact I believe that Socionics' information metabolism will merge, at least partially, with epistemology. You will still not be able to wet the flowers in your garden using it, though... it really matters if you expect from it to be something that it is not.

Is it just philosophy? That is fine by me. But, then, why do people attempt to use it for practical goals such as finding duals? See, I can't reconcile this contradiction here.

In comparison with Socionics, does logic (or any field dealing with information and knowledge) satisfy your requirements for an useful discipline? How? How do you measure it objectively?

By "logic" do you mean mathematics? Or what? Sorry, I can't answer until I know what you meant exactly.

The reification is made when people try to find physical support for these so-called functions, and such similar attempts. For instance, I heard some hilarious hypotheses around - findings that claim that different functions are objects, even more so, that they are located in different parts of the brain. But this is not an issue of Socionics per se, but of the idiots who make these claims in its name. The content of functions does not exist in reality as "things", pretty much like the time (not sure about the space). They are just a way we can understand how we understand shit.

My problem with that is that it is not guaranteed whatsoever if this understanding does describe anything really. Much like pulling analogies out of thin air. Socionics does use those physics analogies too, a lot of the theory is based on them, and that also doesn't help at all in verifying it really works that way. You can make an analogy between any two unrelated things easily. This is the reason why I don't trust analogies; they don't necessarily illuminate anything for me, because they are never real explanations. Sure it can sound "cool" but that's not enough for me.

BTW, the existence of the perception of time in humans, which is itself a mental function, was never proven by measuring something or whatever manner you required, as far as I know. And I don't think this will ever happen... Again, I think it matters what you expect, what you think these functions are, your understanding might be wrong, don't blame it on Socionics.

Oh, not sure why you think time perception is not measurable. Even with a simple google search, you will find information about the role of a biological structure, the suprachiasmatic nucleus in maintaining circadian rhythm in animals and humans. If you want, you can dissect the brain in a pretty concrete manner to find this structure. But of course the circadian rhythm is not the only method of time perception, there are other systems in the brain responsible for short time interval perception. The perception of somewhat longer intervals is more complex, of course. (And subject to a lot more errors in humans.) There is also fun research on how subjective our perception of event succession is, you can devise experiments where our mistakes about it will be shown easily, how you will feel like event X occurred after your response Y to it. Anyhow, I won't go on about this, but the point is that all this is concrete research. Time perception can be defined in terms of such research, it isn't just a mental function.

Again the old argument, my understanding must be wrong if I find some issue with socionics... so why isn't socionics officially part of any scientific discipline yet? Mental constructs of the theory inside the brain of a socionist is not accessible by anyone else in an acceptable way. It involves subjective reinterpretation... that is just the nature of the thing. So then yeah, if someone doesn't agree with you it must mean their understanding is wrong. But see, by definition/nature of it, it can never be the exact same as yours, so I see no point in blaming someone for their "incorrect understanding". I'd rather blame the topic itself for being too subjective.

I guess I don't use them... The first is not something I can conceive, what means "big part" of communication. If someone for example uses the entailment from messages, while someone else takes implicatures as if they were necessary, how different these people would be? I can tell the difference, but I don't know how "much" this means.

You do seem to use some of it; I pointed it out a few lines above in this post too.

"Big part" simply means big enough to define interaction styles in detail between types... and then letting people rely on that.

I generally disagree with the second maxim as well, that there are direct links between the type and behavior. It matters very much to understand the context and not take the described traits literally, out of it - because really, they can mean many things by themselves. I used to notice many such mistakes, but nothing comes to my mind right now. Let me search the forum for my posts containing "context", perhaps I find something.

OK, this one point is unclear about your expectations of causality between type and behaviour, I asked you about it above in this same post of mine, so I'll just wait for your reply on that.

Oh yeah, here there is a discussion about the alleged strict dependence of Ne types on novelty. This is a misconception I often wrote about.

I do see what you mean here... yeah, seeking out novelty is just a behaviour and it is even perhaps only in one specific situation as well, and can be interpreted within as many kinds of theory frameworks as one wishes.

Btw, that link is interesting about how you said "Ne Egos receive empirical information in analogies, interconnected". I do understand that this way of seeing the world could be useful at times but I usually just don't take in most information by searching for analogies or parallels. I take in information by focusing on the data itself as it is on its own. Then if I happen to need it in a bigger picture, I will take the details I know about the topic so far and try to understand all of them inside some logical system... beyond actual experience with the thing, clarifying the exact definitions and the implications is very important for me in this process, analogies would just distract me from my focus on seeing the thing itself. I'm not saying that parallels between two very different things are completely useless, I can see the point of them, because *if* it is logically sound too, then it can be helpful - it's just something I don't strive for by default. An example where I do consciously utilize such strategies is learning the vocabulary of a new language: a word can have several seemingly very different meanings but I can connect them together by finding something common between them and so I can learn all of them in one go.

OK, I described all this to show to you why I don't think that in terms of this theory, I can be categorized as Ne ego. It is only relevant because you think my conviction that I'm not "ILE" even though I'm "ILE" according to your analysis, contributes to my views on socionics. (Now of course you could still argue that even though I'm not "ILE" after all, I could still be mistyping myself.)

It is merely your misconception that correct methods of typing in Socionics are either tests or VI. That is completely wrong.

I did not say anything like this. You thought I said thing A and thing B, and so I must have implied thing C. But I didn't. I don't even think that VI is "correct" in any sense of the term. These two are things that can be standardized, though, so yes they do have this advantage at least.

I use the analysis of the type/function descriptions and the Model, then the personality of the subject and eventually interaction with other individuals. Someone can be typed based on his or her writings, or based on depictions made by others.

Whoa, nice subjective methods, not easily repeatable by others.

Although not 100% reliable, I sometimes find VI useful

Do you not mind that there is no real basis for VI whatsoever? Just because sometimes the VI result falls in line with your typing does not mean it is not utter bullshit.

But okay, if you do know of some basis for VI beyond the "it sometimes seems to work" line, I'd like to hear it. In what way(s) can IE's manifest themselves in facial structure?

To me right now it just seems like something that humans like to resort to intuitively. MBTI/JCF systems also have their VI systems by several different groups. But just because something seems intuitively good it doesn't mean it is true. The Earth seemed intuitively to be flat.

I will probably continue with the rest, but I don't know if at this point it really matters, I think I brought sufficient arguments for why the assertions made in this thread by you are in my opinion incorrect, and perhaps make you change your mind.

Sorry, some things are not clarified sufficiently enough yet. It would be nice to get on the same page in terms of understanding at least even if not in opinion.

Some things I mentioned are not as relevant as others, it's OK if you focus only on the most relevant points.

Also, if you have the time, I would really like you to respond to these parts from my previous post (the rest of that post is not so important indeed):

1. Also, my typing can't really be correct or incorrect as the theory is not falsifiable anyway so everything and its opposite can be supported by arguments.

2. Of course, another thing adding to this chaos is that a few other people typed me as "LIE". They had the same input, and yet, a different output. Completely different valued functions, too (when comparing to "ILE"). And there is no method to determine which opinion is the final one, which authority is the real one. Again, chaos.


One last thing I find important. You said somewhere:

I understand the type as merely a preference

I wanted to ask here about one finding. That was with MBTI tests, though, but they found that the replies were not distributed in a way that would have supported distinct function preferences (functions: T/F, S/N, in MBTI terms and also E/I). There is apparently no evidence of bimodal distribution for them, instead, most people score towards the center, between the two extremes. The meaning is that someone who scores a T preference could easily be very similar to someone who gets tested as having F preference. What if the same is true for socionics function preferences? I see no reason why it wouldn't be, tbh. I actually see this as most likely. So anyhow, if this is true, what is the idea behind types then?

[Gravolez]

I wanted to ask here about one finding. That was with MBTI tests, though, but they found that the replies were not distributed in a way that would have supported distinct function preferences (functions: T/F, S/N, in MBTI terms and also E/I). There is apparently no evidence of bimodal distribution for them, instead, most people score towards the center, between the two extremes. The meaning is that someone who scores a T preference could easily be very similar to someone who gets tested as having F preference. What if the same is true for socionics function preferences? I see no reason why it wouldn't be, tbh. I actually see this as most likely. So anyhow, if this is true, what is the idea behind types then?

The preference towards certain IM exists even if people are not aware of it and prefer to think that they are strong in things in which they are weak or which they find unimportant.

[Absurd]

Irrelevant.

?

You keep getting off on tangents to different directions from the original point. You have not managed to reason for how it's better for socionists to not use tests, instead using even more subjective methods.

I'm not a socionist, never was and never will be so you better look for answers in people who call themselves such - start with Gulenko first or any other article producing person on here. As for this subjectivity you speak of - can you prove or disprove this theory called socionics? I don't think you can, it's the same as trying to prove or disprove the existence of god.

Go go scientifically proven factual accuracy...

[mu4]

I see a contradiction here... if socionics is not supposed to predict anything relating to behaviour (that is, concrete), then how can you state that your experience is the opposite, that is, it does predict such things?

OK, that contradiction is resolved by saying that it is nothing concrete it predicts - but then what is it that it predicts? So far, to avoid running into a contradiction, I can conclude from your statements that it doesn't predict anything that is related to behaviour, but then what does it predict? Can you put this into distinct terms? Surely it is not something indescribably vague?

Socionics doesn't predict behavior, esp specific behavior, as behavior is highly influence by non-type related factors. Only within a certain narrow context can it give a prediction of behavior and that requires knowing a lot of variables which socionics doesn't have. The main socionic prediction is intertype relations and the characteristics of intertype relations.

It's more like weather prediction, it cannot tell you specifics of individual locations or such but can tell you, "40% chance of rain", temperate environment, desert, etc. Because the personality is a complex phenomena, specific predictions are not always available but sometimes they are.

[ambivalent existence]

The preference towards certain IM exists even if people are not aware of it and prefer to think that they are strong in things in which they are weak or which they find unimportant.

So you are saying it's been definitely proven that in socionics these preferences are always strong, that is, if we were to measure it somehow, it would be a bimodal distribution when comparing the preferences of two opposing functions?

[ambivalent existence]

?

The Reinin stuff was irrelevant to the discussion. Though your style of complaining about certain people having issues with trying/wanting to delve into those deeper parts of the theory was funny.

I'm not a socionist, never was and never will be so you better look for answers in people who call themselves such - start with Gulenko first or any other article producing person on here. As for this subjectivity you speak of - can you prove or disprove this theory called socionics? I don't think you can, it's the same as trying to prove or disprove the existence of god.

Go go scientifically proven factual accuracy...

Alright, you voiced an opinion so I assumed you had some thoughts behind the opinion supporting it.

See, I said it was like a religion. Really all I'm saying with all those long lines is it should be made into something that has the potential to be disproven. Religion can't be improved, scientific theory can and should be improved even if it means discarding the original ideas. I'm saying no less, no more.

[ambivalent existence]

Socionics doesn't predict behavior, esp specific behavior, as behavior is highly influence by non-type related factors. Only within a certain narrow context can it give a prediction of behavior and that requires knowing a lot of variables which socionics doesn't have. The main socionic prediction is intertype relations and the characteristics of intertype relations.

It's more like weather prediction, it cannot tell you specifics of individual locations or such but can tell you, "40% chance of rain", temperate environment, desert, etc. Because the personality is a complex phenomena, specific predictions are not always available but sometimes they are.

Ok, with socionics, is there anything that tells us how much chance is there for a prediction? Is there even a proper chance at all? Btw the requirement for narrow context is understandable, but even it if is applicable there (which I have my doubts about), then there is this problem of allowing people to assume way too much, not emphasizing this narrow context. Like I said, decide already if it is philosophy or something to be applied practically.

Also with weather prediction, there is objective research behind the theory. So the analogy kind of fails there too.

I do know you want to get this objective measurement tool developed and I hope it will take off even if it may result in having to change a lot of things about the theory.

[mu4]

Ok, with socionics, is there anything that tells us how much chance is there for a prediction? Is there even a proper chance at all? Btw the requirement for narrow context is understandable, but even it if is applicable there (which I have my doubts about), then there is this problem of allowing people to assume way too much, not emphasizing this narrow context. Like I said, decide already if it is philosophy or something to be applied practically.

Also with weather prediction, there is objective research behind the theory. So the analogy kind of fails there too.

I do know you want to get this objective measurement tool developed and I hope it will take off even if it may result in having to change a lot of things about the theory.

Weather prediction has tools, which is the main difference between weather prediction and socionics. Just as there are tools to predict what sort of ads will show up in your Google search or on many websites, which is more like what a tool to predict sociotypes would be like.

However, still the tool that would be used would have zero bearing on specific behavior and deal more with, say predicted average longevity of relationship between these certain couples of different sociotype. Statistically maybe dual relationships will only be 1.2x that of a activity relation but that is the sort of results you will likely see vs something like dual relationships = infinity vs conflictor relationships = 1 month. You'll find some relationships might have high longevity and low quality which would be a different way to assess it.

Anyways, if you understand philosophy of science you'll find scientific advancement is not a product of objective research but goes on in a much more chaotic and unmanaged fashion, and that objective research is usually navel gazing orthodoxy closer to religion than exploration. Yes this could be a big mistake, but it probably isn't and philosophically I don't see many problems with it. As I have noted to you, the avenues of objective research is already coming to the same conclusions as socionics, such as AI research, information preference analysis as well as other means of categorizing. The simple leap to go from these studies to socionics is how to interpret Freudian and Jungian psychic blocks, which are observed in psychology but have no real explanation of why they exist.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...853#post857853

I have made a attempt to explain it here.

Once you have categorized information preference in some way, given it a functional structure, you'll find you'll have the basis of extrapolating a number of types based on that logical construct, and that's all it takes for modern information science and AI research to create a functional simulation that would prefer one categorization of information vs another.

Information categorizations + Structure = Type of individual

[Absurd]

The Reinin stuff was irrelevant to the discussion. Though your style of complaining about certain people having issues with trying/wanting to delve into those deeper parts of the theory was funny.

I wasn't complaining. Throughout the thread it is you who is complaining about me insulting you and socionics is this or that and, objective, subjective, tests and blahblah.

Alright, you voiced an opinion so I assumed you had some thoughts behind the opinion supporting it.

See, I said it was like a religion. Really all I'm saying with all those long lines is it should be made into something that has the potential to be disproven. Religion can't be improved, scientific theory can and should be improved even if it means discarding the original ideas. I'm saying no less, no more.

And in English?

[ambivalent existence]

I wasn't complaining. Throughout the thread it is you who is complaining about me insulting you and socionics is this or that and, objective, subjective, tests and blahblah.

You took that "complain" word too literally

And in English?

Sorry I won't rephrase it for the umpteenth time

[ambivalent existence]

Weather prediction has tools, which is the main difference between weather prediction and socionics. Just as there are tools to predict what sort of ads will show up in your Google search or on many websites, which is more like what a tool to predict sociotypes would be like.

However, still the tool that would be used would have zero bearing on specific behavior and deal more with, say predicted average longevity of relationship between these certain couples of different sociotype. Statistically maybe dual relationships will only be 1.2x that of a activity relation but that is the sort of results you will likely see vs something like dual relationships = infinity vs conflictor relationships = 1 month. You'll find some relationships might have high longevity and low quality which would be a different way to assess it.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

Anyways, if you understand philosophy of science you'll find scientific advancement is not a product of objective research but goes on in a much more chaotic and unmanaged fashion, and that objective research is usually navel gazing orthodoxy closer to religion than exploration. Yes this could be a big mistake, but it probably isn't and philosophically I don't see many problems with it.

Not every scientist can start big paradigm changes, but it doesn't make their work equal to navel gazing. And advancement is still based on previous results, which come from the so called objective research. Not pulled out of thin air. So we disagree here, sorry.

In a way we do still agree, science is still based on human thinking with all its issues (just a better refined version really - though this difference does matter a lot too), so yes, the way science goes about advancement is not something linear either.

Btw, I'm not sure whether I lost track here: what did you refer to when you mentioned a possible big mistake? The nonlinearity of advancement?

As I have noted to you, the avenues of objective research is already coming to the same conclusions as socionics, such as AI research, information preference analysis as well as other means of categorizing.

Er, do you have an example of such similar conclusions e.g. in terms of intertype relationships? (I know you mentioned the example of chunking but that's not quite a conclusion about anything like that.)

The simple leap to go from these studies to socionics is how to interpret Freudian and Jungian psychic blocks, which are observed in psychology but have no real explanation of why they exist.

That's easy, they don't really exist in the way of "function blocks", so nothing to be explained there. I believe this notion just comes from the peculiar way human perception of categories works. (I can elaborate on this if this was not clear, I think this is important.) I believe other frameworks work better for explaining stuff that these functions try to explain.

Once you have categorized information preference in some way, given it a functional structure, you'll find you'll have the basis of extrapolating a number of types based on that logical construct, and that's all it takes for modern information science and AI research to create a functional simulation that would prefer one categorization of information vs another.

Well yes sure you can make a simulation of any idea. Not sure though what it would show if we are bent on doing this different preferences stuff. How about just modeling all the kinds that the human brain in general uses, disregarding any idea of distinct types.

[mu4]

Not every scientist can start big paradigm changes, but it doesn't make their work equal to navel gazing. And advancement is still based on previous results, which come from the so called objective research. Not pulled out of thin air. So we disagree here, sorry.

In a way we do still agree, science is still based on human thinking with all its issues (just a better refined version really - though this difference does matter a lot too), so yes, the way science goes about advancement is not something linear either.

Btw, I'm not sure whether I lost track here: what did you refer to when you mentioned a possible big mistake? The nonlinearity of advancement?

I'm not sure if naval gazing is a bad thing, but you need to step outside of it eventually. Which is where philosophy comes in. The great scientists are also great philosophers.

Er, do you have an example of such similar conclusions e.g. in terms of intertype relationships? (I know you mentioned the example of chunking but that's not quite a conclusion about anything like that.)

Any modern approach to information preference would produce the same structure as socionics, as socionics structure is a logical deduction of 8 complementary and opposing elements. The only thing not provided from the analysis of the raw data would be the structure of the psyche as outlined in socionics.

That's easy, they don't really exist in the way of "function blocks", so nothing to be explained there. I believe this notion just comes from the peculiar way human perception of categories works. (I can elaborate on this if this was not clear, I think this is important.) I believe other frameworks work better for explaining stuff that these functions try to explain.

Well yes sure you can make a simulation of any idea. Not sure though what it would show if we are bent on doing this different preferences stuff. How about just modeling all the kinds that the human brain in general uses, disregarding any idea of distinct types.

I simulation that would pass for a human would fullfill the turing experiment and I would view that as adequate proof for some validity to the structure of socionics or any other model which works similar to socionics. I think the model is more important than the definitions as the definitions will shift and change due to more accurate simulations.

A few AI models I've seen are either 2 state algorithmic processors or 4 stage feedback loops. Socionics model is a 4 stage feedback loop. Socionics is a top down look at it vs AI creation which is a bottoms up simulation. I would say the fact they come to similar conclusions is good.

[ambivalent existence]

I'm not sure if naval gazing is a bad thing, but you need to step outside of it eventually. Which is where philosophy comes in. The great scientists are also great philosophers.

The "navel gazing" is kind of the menial part of the job. It needs to be ensured that it is done before you can go on, or all you will have achieved while thinking will be nothing more than just mental masturbation. But yes, if you mean philosopher in the sense of the scientist being capable of seeing his/her discipline from a bigger picture/framework, from a bit further distance, then sure yes, that is important too.

Any modern approach to information preference would produce the same structure as socionics, as socionics structure is a logical deduction of 8 complementary and opposing elements. The only thing not provided from the analysis of the raw data would be the structure of the psyche as outlined in socionics.

I disagree, I think you can produce different structures. These 8 elements are categories too broad and too generic. You can easily make up different elements, different categories, different number of them (that is, not 8) and we can go beyond the idea of just "complementary" and "opposing" relations.

I simulation that would pass for a human would fullfill the turing experiment and I would view that as adequate proof for some validity to the structure of socionics or any other model which works similar to socionics. I think the model is more important than the definitions as the definitions will shift and change due to more accurate simulations.

I'm afraid that for a simulation that passes the turing test you need a lot more than the one generic idea in socionics. The devil is always in the details.

A few AI models I've seen are either 2 state algorithmic processors or 4 stage feedback loops. Socionics model is a 4 stage feedback loop. Socionics is a top down look at it vs AI creation which is a bottoms up simulation. I would say the fact they come to similar conclusions is good.

Please give me a concrete example of such a conclusion. I hope you don't mind me asking that again. ("logical deduction of 8 complementary and opposing elements" is too generic)

[mu4]

I disagree, I think you can produce different structures. These 8 elements are categories too broad and too generic. You can easily make up different elements, different categories, different number of them (that is, not 8) and we can go beyond the idea of just "complementary" and "opposing" relations.

I'm not sure the 8 elements are broad or generic at all, considering most other topics only make 2-4 divisions, but socionics is model A not 8 functional categorizations, that would just be Jung. I would say you need to do more research into philosophy and Model A before you make this assessment, because there is a lack of understanding which you have in both topics. Unfortunately, without certain prerequisites, you will simply be unable to understand imo. I can try and explain it to you, but imo at this time, even if I explained it 100 times, you wouldn't understand.

I could give you book recommendations such as Schopenhauer, Jungian typology is heavily influence by Schopenhaur, and I'm actually kinda of sad I missed it myself but am getting my self acquainted with this. I do think you have the capacity to understand this topic very well.

I'm afraid that for a simulation that passes the turing test you need a lot more than the one generic idea in socionics. The devil is always in the details.

Please give me a concrete example of such a conclusion. I hope you don't mind me asking that again. ("logical deduction of 8 complementary and opposing elements" is too generic)

I don't think the technology is there yet to pass the Turing test as no one's done it. Most AI architectures are even more simple than Socionics. Because Socionics is approaching the problem from a top down perspective vs AI development which is approaching it from a bottoms up perspective, it offers a lot of detail that doesn't exist in AI models. I've given you 2 concrete examples of AI architectures which can solve small problems already, and which philosophically are compatible with socionics. These could only be used to simulate parts of an AI that could pass the Turing experiment.

There are no AI architectures out there that offers a more complex model that socionics, as these are bottoms up development processes which start simple and move into higher levels of complexity, while socionics is dealing with the complex behavior of humans and attempting to simplify to a lower level of complexity.

[ambivalent existence]

I'm not sure the 8 elements are broad or generic at all, considering most other topics only make 2-4 divisions, but socionics is model A not 8 functional categorizations, that would just be Jung. I would say you need to do more research into philosophy and Model A before you make this assessment, because there is a lack of understanding which you have in both topics. Unfortunately, without certain prerequisites, you will simply be unable to understand imo. I can try and explain it to you, but imo at this time, even if I explained it 100 times, you wouldn't understand.

I could give you book recommendations such as Schopenhauer, Jungian typology is heavily influence by Schopenhaur, and I'm actually kinda of sad I missed it myself but am getting my self acquainted with this. I do think you have the capacity to understand this topic very well.

I talked about 8 elements because that was the topic, of course I know there is a model arranging their relations. I'm not sure what understanding I lack about it, I know the Model-A as written on the most commonly used socionics sites. If it is not explained correctly on any of these sites, then yes my understanding of it would be lacking. Do let me know if that's the case, that is, inadequacy of the easily available materials.

If the prerequisite to proper understanding of Model-A is reading several philosophy books first, then I would like to ask if the point(s) of those books can be condensed into some shorter form that can then be added onto these socionics sites to allow people to gain the understanding that is not possible right now?

I may have the capacity to read through a lot of philosophy and understand it but not the motivation right now because I don't have a specific goal to achieve. Don't misunderstand me, I can reflect, including reading philosophy or anything deeply theoretical, without a specific goal, it's just that sooner or later I must have something that I can do with it or I will lose any motivation to go on with it.

With socionics it's the same... previously I did have two goals: one was a practical one, apply the socionics knowledge in practice for myself (e.g. the intertype relations), but I found too many contradicting experiences in real life and it's admitted by others too that the theory is pretty limited in terms of practical use, and unproven anyway... so I dropped that goal; the second one was checking if I can use any of this in terms of a research project at university, but to take the theory seriously for that, and to even start making it falsifiable (which would have to be first step), I realized I would have to change a lot about my way of thinking and obviously, trying to change that is not feasible for me.

To accept the basis of socionics, it seems like I'd first have to accept certain analogies why the basis of the theory is the way it is, but that's not enough for me, I have to see a way that directly supports the basis of the theory itself. I originally assumed there was more to it than a few intuitive analogies, and perhaps I just didn't find a source that does offer more than that, but... So anyway, other people here either have no issue with fully accepting the basis of the theory on such vague terms, or they just don't take the whole theory too seriously anyway, though then I would ask why they're spending time on it. Or it could also be that they see enough potential in it even on such vague terms so they take it seriously and willing to spend the time, but I personally need something more certain to work with it.

Another thing where it's incompatible with my approach is that I really need to have a way to relate the abstract theory to the observable and with socionics that seems impossible by definition. I was dealing with socionics with the assumption that it is relatable and I approached the whole thing through that, using my own observations a lot. I guess I was wrong when I assumed that. There actually seems to be a lot of controversy on that, some people think socionics theory is only about a skeletal map of certain parts of the mind but it is completely abstract and thus cannot be really related to observations in general or to personal life, and some people think they can actually rely on it in practice, that is, assign types to people, and then try to find a duality relationship and whatnot.

All in all, the theory itself is nice, I'm just wary of assuming all those things in it for all these reasons I've listed/explained so far here (OP and all the other posts in this thread), so overall wary of taking it seriously and spending a lot of further time on it to try and achieve some goal with it.

I don't think the technology is there yet to pass the Turing test as no one's done it.

That's also what I meant. But when it will be here, the parts, where you assume socionics is relevant, can be implemented without any socionics, because, at least so far, I've only seen only general ways in which it can contribute, but those ways, being generic, can also come from different theories and models.

Most AI architectures are even more simple than Socionics. Because Socionics is approaching the problem from a top down perspective vs AI development which is approaching it from a bottoms up perspective, it offers a lot of detail that doesn't exist in AI models.

The problem with top down perspective is that it needs to be supported from the bottom up, because otherwise it can just be an imaginary pattern. As I said, other, different patterns can be created with ease.

I've given you 2 concrete examples of AI architectures which can solve small problems already, and which philosophically are compatible with socionics.

I found the compatibility too generic, I think our notion of this is different.

There are no AI architectures out there that offers a more complex model that socionics, as these are bottoms up development processes which start simple and move into higher levels of complexity, while socionics is dealing with the complex behavior of humans and attempting to simplify to a lower level of complexity.

I do like simplifying the complex into the simple, but I think that going from the high level to the lower level, without taking any of the lower level into account *first*, is not the correct approach.

[mu4]

I do like simplifying the complex into the simple, but I think that going from the high level to the lower level, without taking any of the lower level into account *first*, is not the correct approach.

We currently access to the low levels and access to the higher levels, it's the middle that is unknown. However you approach this topic, either from the highest level and the lowest level you are taking a stab at the middle. It's not socionics is not taking into account the lowest level, it's simply what is being discussed is hypothetically what would connect the lowest and highest level. The fact that both approaches produce similar result is a good sign, beyond that, simply nobody knows.

As far as things you can study to advance your understanding, I would say socionics isn't where you should start, but philosophy, it's almost impossible to understand the unknown without being able to think about it in a constructive fashion. Otherwise you might as well do trial and error brute force approach, which is not a bad way to go either.

[Ryan]

I realized I would have to change a lot about my way of thinking and obviously, trying to change that is not feasible for me.

I relate to this a lot. Often times I was worried about getting into some things as it would disturb my already existing understanding (even when I was little - lol, I thought I knew everything), so if I felt like it would bring a major shift into my worldview I would hesitate.

Especially if I had other things that I had to attend to, like college. I couldn't care less about my relationships to be honest. I was doing fine before I got into the theory. But I couldn't change the way I think in the middle of all that and risk fucking with my degree. It's the reason I didn't get into Socionics two years ago. It was too much of a distraction. I got into it only when I went into Internship and basically took a semester off. The funny thing is, I will be graduating soon and I've found it to be very enlightening in many ways that are related to my degree. I didn't expect that.

Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith and just do things even if they seem irrational or very different than what you're used to. Understanding comes afterwards, always. Strangely, you don't seem very Se base. ESTps usually do things without knowing what consequences they bring and they would rarely think in this context. They learn by analyzing what happens not what might happen.

[ambivalent existence]

We currently access to the low levels and access to the higher levels, it's the middle that is unknown. However you approach this topic, either from the highest level and the lowest level you are taking a stab at the middle. It's not socionics is not taking into account the lowest level, it's simply what is being discussed is hypothetically what would connect the lowest and highest level. The fact that both approaches produce similar result is a good sign, beyond that, simply nobody knows.

As far as things you can study to advance your understanding, I would say socionics isn't where you should start, but philosophy, it's almost impossible to understand the unknown without being able to think about it in a constructive fashion. Otherwise you might as well do trial and error brute force approach, which is not a bad way to go either.

Yes I know what you mean about the unknown middle... However, the low level to me means the physical brain, and while socionics had this idea about cognition, it interested me as anything related to human cognition interests me, but ultimately I see it as assuming things it shouldn't be assuming (reminder about occam's razor here too), going too far from this low level. (I listed previously what things.) There are a lot of high level approaches in this topic that do not assume these things (even though I do see these as not the best approach either on their own). I suppose you don't mind assuming those extra things, for some reason.

OK, you think that those generic similarities are a strong enough sign, well, I don't.

As for philosophy, a science philosophy book is what I started on last time, and I do see a lot of point in studying that as it directly relates to the areas I'm focused on.

Btw, can you answer the question I had about whether you really meant that all the socionics material on the english sites is inadequate without the philosophy background?

[ambivalent existence]

I relate to this a lot. Often times I was worried about getting into some things as it would disturb my already existing understanding (even when I was little - lol, I thought I knew everything), so if I felt like it would bring a major shift into my worldview I would hesitate.

Especially if I had other things that I had to attend to, like college. I couldn't care less about my relationships to be honest. I was doing fine before I got into the theory. But I couldn't change the way I think in the middle of all that and risk fucking with my degree. It's the reason I didn't get into Socionics two years ago. It was too much of a distraction. I got into it only when I went into Internship and basically took a semester off. The funny thing is, I will be graduating soon and I've found it to be very enlightening in many ways that are related to my degree. I didn't expect that.

Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith and just do things even if they seem irrational or very different than what you're used to. Understanding comes afterwards, always. Strangely, you don't seem very Se base. ESTps usually do things without knowing what consequences they bring and they would rarely think in this context. They learn by analyzing what happens not what might happen.

No, I think you misunderstood this a bit. It wasn't about my worldview, as I don't really have a very overarching worldview... By "my thinking" I meant my requirements for enough certainty and for observability. Trying to give those up would make me too uncomfortable. I explained that in my post, maybe you didn't have time to read it all.

Not sure what you meant by socionics being a distraction in terms of your relationships? Maybe because I don't have an issue with spending time with people even while working on my degree. (This doesn't mean everything is great with me vs people.)

Yep, I did take the leap of faith when I started dealing with socionics (that is, willingness to check it out). I don't think anyone learns by analysing stuff about what *might* happen...

Btw, what degree did you do that you can relate with socionics?

[mu4]

Yes I know what you mean about the unknown middle... However, the low level to me means the physical brain, and while socionics had this idea about cognition, it interested me as anything related to human cognition interests me, but ultimately I see it as assuming things it shouldn't be assuming (reminder about occam's razor here too), going too far from this low level. (I listed previously what things.) There are a lot of high level approaches in this topic that do not assume these things (even though I do see these as not the best approach either on their own). I suppose you don't mind assuming those extra things, for some reason.

OK, you think that those generic similarities are a strong enough sign, well, I don't.

As for philosophy, a science philosophy book is what I started on last time, and I do see a lot of point in studying that as it directly relates to the areas I'm focused on.

Btw, can you answer the question I had about whether you really meant that all the socionics material on the english sites is inadequate without the philosophy background?

I would say all material you will get anywhere would be inadequate without the philosophical background. Socionics is a social science, psychology, sociology, proto-science. The thing about the physical brain is that it has many parts which are going to be unexplained by socionics. There's a multitude of different brains in the world, where is the human brain different and the same with other brains. How socionics relate to the brain and AI research as well is the cortex of the brain, and primarily the neo-cortex.

One of the features of the neo-cortex, which is being investigated is how it takes complex sequences and form invariant abstractions.

What is this act that the brain is doing.

Representation

Now you don't have to understand philosophy to understand the mechanism of the neo-cortex, but knowing the philosophy will allow one to connect this to other philosophical concepts such as Will. And know that philosophical concept will allow one to make a connection to another low level study, maybe the neo-cortex study which will explain Will at a low level.

[Ryan]

No, I think you misunderstood this a bit. It wasn't about my worldview, as I don't really have a very overarching worldview... By "my thinking" I meant my requirements for enough certainty and for observability. Trying to give those up would make me too uncomfortable. I explained that in my post, maybe you didn't have time to read it all.

I read it. It's the same thing. You've got nice structured objective way you view life through. Maybe some rules here and there, a few standards that should always be available, etc. Socionics is not something you find objective enough to integrate into all of that, am I correct? You are not special. I reject a lot of things, as most people do, especially things as shady as this theory. But maybe I misunderstood.

Not sure what you meant by socionics being a distraction in terms of your relationships? Maybe because I don't have an issue with spending time with people even while working on my degree. (This doesn't mean everything is great with me vs people.)

In terms of my work. Pure mental work. Not relationships.

Yep, I did take the leap of faith when I started dealing with socionics (that is, willingness to check it out). I don't think anyone learns by analysing stuff about what *might* happen...

I do.

Btw, what degree did you do that you can relate with socionics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Systems

[ambivalent existence]

I read it. It's the same thing. You've got nice structured objective way you view life through. Maybe some rules here and there, a few standards that should always be available, etc. Socionics is not something you find objective enough to integrate into all of that, am I correct? You are not special. I reject a lot of things, as most people do, especially things as shady as this theory. But maybe I misunderstood.

No, it's not the same thing. I was talking about attitude, not existing worldview contents. Though, I do have some specific worldview stuff too, of course. It's just not absolute ideas.

So, while building an understanding of socionics, it wasn't threatening any existing worldview. I'm not really structured anyway. Standards, eh, available if needed, not always needed.

The one specific thing that did have to change temporarily about my usual view was that I was willing to consider there were types (by default I don't categorize people deeply beyond the superficial stuff, e.g. intelligent or idiot, etc.). But even that didn't threaten anything or whatever.

So I think we are a bit different there. You, using socionics, could even view this as you being a rational (Ti leading, right?) and me being an irrational (not T/F leading).

Um, special? I didn't say my requirements were anything special...

In terms of my work. Pure mental work. Not relationships.

Okay, I got that... so let me ask, what was it about your thinking that had to be changed by socionics and that was so fundamental that it jeopardized other things (getting your degree)? Sounds a bit strange.

I do.

Experience makes me learn rules a lot faster.