User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 56

  1. #21
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    which unfortunately contains all the eastern mysticism that the modern psychology institutions have spent the last half a century trying to distance itself from
    If this is the case, why are they teaching meditation in psychiatric wards?

    Now I’m sure this looks like I’m just bashing socionics, but what I’m really trying to do is give it a reality check. Socionics is a form of spiritualism; it requires you take a leap of faith. The type dynamics are based on how you subjectively feel about someone, the religious symbolism, the numerology, the holistic nature of duality. Which given its origins is hardly surprising; you can take the religion away from the people, but you can’t take the religion out of people, the need will still remain. I just wish that socionists would be content with their own personal belief instead of feeling the need to come to MBTI forums and demand that others worship as they do.
    Maybe I'm too brainwashed by eastern mysticism, but I see them as different ways of talking about the same thing.

    Assuming two people with very different skill sets share the shame overall goals and value (Quadra Values), their different abilities contribute to a greater working whole which is the reason for models such as the CPI that put together different people of different roles and capabilities.
    This is why I love Socionics. The quadra is interesting and seems to have some merit. The emphasis on function stacking also allows for a great deal of variation.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  2. #22
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    Even more than Intuition, Socionics is formed from Ti. As such, after the fundamentals, the rest of Socionics is deduced by combining elements together (much like Doodle God acually). To deny Socionics you'll have to deny the fundamentals i.e. that information can be divided into the concrete and abstract, the factual and the personal.

    To deny these fundamentals means that in order to stay consistent, you can no longer claim to be ISTP or any other MBTI type. You certainly cannot uphold your position of intuition exploitation while also claiming to be of an Enneagram tritype.
    You're a ***. Enjoy your [day].
    Last edited by Coriolis; 01-02-2014 at 03:55 PM. Reason: insults removed

  3. #23
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badger055 View Post
    You're a ***. Enjoy your [day].
    Join us.
    Last edited by Coriolis; 01-02-2014 at 03:55 PM. Reason: quoted insults removed
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  4. #24
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badger055 View Post
    You're a ***. Enjoy your [day].
    You should add more ad hominems to your argument. That will at least put more words in it.

    How you can claim to be Ti-leading with that demonstration of logical critique is beyond me.
    Last edited by Coriolis; 01-02-2014 at 03:55 PM. Reason: quoted insults removed
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  5. #25
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Do you trust in the theory that facial expressions or lack thereof can be telling signs about a person's type? Not the VI utter bullshit.

  6. #26
    Chaser of Light Dr Mobius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    The loose correlation to the Big Five is in no way a justification of MBTI, a theory that must be proved on its Jungian functions rather than the superficial dichotomies. Even with that argument, Socionics bears the same loose correlation.
    No your right it is not a justification? Though what justification has to do with any of this I have no idea. I’m starting to think you haven’t read all that much about MBTI; you seem to keep mixing it up with JCF, which is theoretical and almost entirely unproven. MBTI doesn’t really use Jungian Functions it uses I, E, N, S, T, F, P, J as variables to test statistically which has been done on numerous occasions. The Big Five is basically a derivative of MBTI; it took the parts it thought could be tested and went with it. Socionics does not have the same loose correlation with The Big Five at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    I wouldn't say that Duality is an extension of the 'Oedipus Complex'. I've never heard of that comparison before and frankly it doesn't fit. At no point does Socionics claim to match young males up with their mothers. One could argue that the idea of duality stems from the Taoist concept of Yin and Yang, the idea that opposites can complement eachother when working together which I think is demonstrably true. Assuming two people with very different skill sets share the shame overall goals and value (Quadra Values), their different abilities contribute to a greater working whole which is the reason for models such as the CPI that put together different people of different roles and capabilities.
    No please don’t confuse the mythology with the complex; it’s about the relationship dynamic. I mean the names of the romantic styles say as much; caregiver/infantile (Oedipus), aggressor/victim (Electra). Then once you realise that Se and Si in socionics is tied directly to traditional gender roles it starts to make a lot more sense. Se is equated with masculine and Si with feminine, or at least archaic Russian definitions of them. Honestly had Gulenko released those into the western world, he would have been done for plagiarism.

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    Socionics has an integral structure that is coherent and definitions that are precisely defined. This means that they can be put up for experimental verification because experiments can be formed to test whether the structure holds in real life, whether, given the definitions of X and Y, the results hold that people who demonstrate X in the way that Y says do Z. This cannot be said of MBTI where the definitions are imprecise and hard to see in day to day behaviour.
    No it is arbitrarily defined; precision would require that Socionics have a complete and thorough understanding of the human psyche with a mountain of evidence to back it up. As for the experiment those are just plain terrible; have X, Y, and Z been proven to be real variables? Is X always a dependent variable of Y? On top of that you cannot assume that Z is dependent on X, which is in turn dependent on the assumption of Y that is a hell of a lot of assumptions for a scientific experiment.
    Again just to clarify this mix up with MBTI and JCF, MBTI is extremely easy to see in day to day behaviour. JCF is a theoretical concept about how the brain processes information, which you are right, you’re unlikely to be able to clearly distinguish for real world application………. because you know it’s a theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    What's wrong with the education in the soviet union compared to the majority of community college institutions in the US? If there are Harvard, Yale or MIT graduates here, then I'd say there's a gap to close but otherwise that's just unfounded snobbery. I myself am at an institution of that ilk and I think that with empirical testing Socionics can be verified. Whether it is accepted by the scientific canon is another matter but not one of empirical validity.
    Really you think that the tertiary education system jumps from community colleges to Ivy League Universities? Do I actually need to explain the difference? Okay industry application versus conceptual learning.
    Again I think you are misusing a term; empirical. Empirical sets a very high standard for evidence, its double blind tests and experiments done in completely controlled environs. Psychology isn’t empirical, because you’re dealing with humans, who are messy contrary creatures how in the world could you set controls on their very psyche? I mean it’s been shown that even the wording of questions can dramatically alter findings. Observation is off the cards for something as complex as this. Which leaves us with the possible use of MRI, EEG, and CAT as potential sources, but even they come with their criticisms.

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    If this is the case, why are they teaching meditation in psychiatric wards?
    Oh dear, (sigh) meditation has been proven to lower stress, blood pressure, and in some cases lower cholesterol. The key word is proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Maybe I'm too brainwashed by eastern mysticism, but I see them as different ways of talking about the same thing.
    And they would be if socionics was theoretical, but it’s not all the functions are directly tied to attitudes and actions. Therein lies the nib of the matter, socionics really isn’t about cognitive functions as it is observable traits; in that it is similar to Keirsey. the problem with this method is that you end up with all the inherent biases of the observer; an example of this is Se it is associated with all things masculine in Russia, you simply have to look at the SLE descriptions to see why in socionics everyone is a Beta. Which is the problem once you remove all of bias what exactly are you left with, that you can’t get elsewhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    This is why I love Socionics. The quadra is interesting and seems to have some merit. The emphasis on function stacking also allows for a great deal of variation.
    Ah now I get it, your partner is a XSFJ I assume? A new relationship if I was to guess, still a little insecure about it.
    “Brighter, now brighter, pay no mind to those who squint, burn with all your heat.”

  7. #27
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    No your right it is not a justification? Though what justification has to do with any of this I have no idea. I’m starting to think you haven’t read all that much about MBTI; you seem to keep mixing it up with JCF, which is theoretical and almost entirely unproven. MBTI doesn’t really use Jungian Functions it uses I, E, N, S, T, F, P, J as variables to test statistically which has been done on numerous occasions. The Big Five is basically a derivative of MBTI; it took the parts it thought could be tested and went with it. Socionics does not have the same loose correlation with The Big Five at all.
    You mean Keirsey Types? I suppose this is just a matter of semantics but my knowledge of MBTI has always been that it is of Jungian origin and function based but typed by dichotomies.

    Still, if you see Keirsey Types and MBTI as the same thing, then rather than update MBTI with Socionics, we should be updating MBTI with Global 5. However, I find this approach doesn't tell us anything of depth to a personality. Socionics doesn't just look at those basic dichotomies but also explains fundamental differences in how we view the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    No please don’t confuse the mythology with the complex; it’s about the relationship dynamic. I mean the names of the romantic styles say as much; caregiver/infantile (Oedipus), aggressor/victim (Electra). Then once you realise that Se and Si in socionics is tied directly to traditional gender roles it starts to make a lot more sense. Se is equated with masculine and Si with feminine, or at least archaic Russian definitions of them. Honestly had Gulenko released those into the western world, he would have been done for plagiarism.
    Isn't the complex derived from the mythology? The young male envies the father and wishes to kill him to have sex with the mother.

    The Romantic Styles are observations Gulenko made and are not an essential part of Socionics or intrinsic to Model A. I actually think they're pretty inaccurate as it only gets the Irrational types right. EIEs don't act like Victims for instance. I don't rate his Romantic Styles and don't mention them in my articles although I am a fan of his Communication Styles.

    However, I have noticed something similar to Gulenko's Erotic Attitudes... I would say however that Caregiver/Infantile are more about Parent and Child while Aggressor/Victim are more about Man and Woman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    No it is arbitrarily defined; precision would require that Socionics have a complete and thorough understanding of the human psyche with a mountain of evidence to back it up. As for the experiment those are just plain terrible; have X, Y, and Z been proven to be real variables? Is X always a dependent variable of Y? On top of that you cannot assume that Z is dependent on X, which is in turn dependent on the assumption of Y that is a hell of a lot of assumptions for a scientific experiment.
    Again just to clarify this mix up with MBTI and JCF, MBTI is extremely easy to see in day to day behaviour. JCF is a theoretical concept about how the brain processes information, which you are right, you’re unlikely to be able to clearly distinguish for real world application………. because you know it’s a theory.
    I wouldn't say it's that arbitrarily defined. The dichotomies are essentially building blocks of what makes up a skeleton personality i.e. a focus on what ought to be vs. what you want... preferring to stick to few vs. taking on more... The IM Elements are the eight different kinds of information and I don't see how you could categorise information and create new IM Elements that are different to these or even made up of these. An arbitrary category could be whether people wear blue shoes or not but when it gets as fundamental as this, I don't really see how you can categorise the basics of a personality much differently. The variable are certainly precisely defined however, precisely defined in the sense that if you see X, you know it is X and not Y which is crucial if you want to perform an experiment.

    I would certainly say that the above categories are real variables, one can see them in people all the time. However, it might be interesting to look into the regularity of a person's preference for one over the other in day to day behaviour.

    They would be dependent variables if you can see that definitionally one has nothing to do with the other. For instance, a physical sensation can be clearly distinguished from an abstract idea.

    If A is deduced from B and C, you need not assume A unless B and C are also assumed. If B and C are the case, A is.


    I would not say that MBTI/Keirsey Types is easy to see in behaviour. There's nothing fundamental about any of their scales that tells you ,YES! That's an ENTP right there! All you can do is keep a tally of how many Intuitive things they do versus how many Sensory things they do etc. and eventually you add it up to get their type. You certainly cannot explain anything about them other than tendencies towards these four dichotomies.

    With Socionics, it's easier because there are things only a certain type would say. Things that make you declare, YES! That's an ILE because only an ILE sees the world and how they fit into it that way. Here's an example:

    Stannis Baratheon - "It is not a question of wanting. The throne is mine, as Robert's heir. That is law. After me, it must pass to my daughter, unless Selyse should finally give me a son. I am king. Wants do not enter into it. I have a duty to my daughter. To the realm. Even to Robert. He loved me but little, I know, yet he was my brother. The Lannister woman gave him horns and made a motley fool of him. She may have murdered him as well, as she murdered Jon Arryn and Ned Stark. For such crimes there must be justice. Starting with Cersei and her abominations. But only starting. I mean to scour that court clean. As Robert should have done after the Trident."

    Just from the above quote, you know that George R. R. Martin's portrayal of Stannis Baratheon can only be an LSI in Socionics. He could only be a Logical IJ to see the matter as not being about wants but about law-ordained rights. At the same time, he shows an aggression-based idea of how to maintain justice seen with Sensory IJs. It's not about a set of arbitrary behaviours, but a fundamental way in which a character like this views the world. This way of viewing the world just happens to be metabolised into day to day actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    Really you think that the tertiary education system jumps from community colleges to Ivy League Universities? Do I actually need to explain the difference?
    I'm probably just ignorant here. I don't go to University in the US. My bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    Okay industry application versus conceptual learning.
    Again I think you are misusing a term; empirical. Empirical sets a very high standard for evidence, its double blind tests and experiments done in completely controlled environs. Psychology isn’t empirical, because you’re dealing with humans, who are messy contrary creatures how in the world could you set controls on their very psyche? I mean it’s been shown that even the wording of questions can dramatically alter findings. Observation is off the cards for something as complex as this. Which leaves us with the possible use of MRI, EEG, and CAT as potential sources, but even they come with their criticisms.
    Many debate whether Psychology is even a science for this reason. After all, a science is often thought to require empirical study. In which case, why are you placing such heavy demands on Socionics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    And they would be if socionics was theoretical, but it’s not all the functions are directly tied to attitudes and actions. Therein lies the nib of the matter, socionics really isn’t about cognitive functions as it is observable traits; in that it is similar to Keirsey. the problem with this method is that you end up with all the inherent biases of the observer; an example of this is Se it is associated with all things masculine in Russia, you simply have to look at the SLE descriptions to see why in socionics everyone is a Beta. Which is the problem once you remove all of bias what exactly are you left with, that you can’t get elsewhere?
    I wouldn't say that everyone is Beta. I certainly am not.

    I wouldn't say that Se stems from a Russian bias about masculinity. Some of the keywords might make it look that way but really it's to do with the external statics of objects i.e. physical information in our environment. The Se attitude is Extroverted and Irrational so Se types are best at considering the physical information of their environment and doing what can be done to get what they want. In day to day behaviour this may surface as physical aggression, going for big jobs, fancy cars etc. but these are arbitrary. It's the fundamental way of looking at the world as lots of things to be taken and conquered by one's personal resources and strength of will that defines an Se-lead, not masculinity.

    Russia might be particularly appreciative of Se because its overall type is supposedly IEI which is Se-suggestive.
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    MBTI doesn’t really use Jungian Functions it uses I, E, N, S, T, F, P, J as variables to test statistically which has been done on numerous occasions. The Big Five is basically a derivative of MBTI; it took the parts it thought could be tested and went with it. Socionics does not have the same loose correlation with The Big Five at all.
    I never heard of Big Five originating from MBTI. Are you sure? Afaik, researchers to find the Big Five just took words from lexicons and did statistical analysis on them.


    Empirical sets a very high standard for evidence, its double blind tests and experiments done in completely controlled environs. Psychology isn’t empirical, because you’re dealing with humans, who are messy contrary creatures how in the world could you set controls on their very psyche? I mean it’s been shown that even the wording of questions can dramatically alter findings. Observation is off the cards for something as complex as this. Which leaves us with the possible use of MRI, EEG, and CAT as potential sources, but even they come with their criticisms.
    And you honestly believe that there's such a thing as "completely controlled environment"? You're very naive then

    Psychology is just as empirical as any other science if you choose to use empirical research methods. It's harder to measure things in a proper way, that's the only real difference. (I'm hoping that we will have better tools for that in future, though.) Yes it can also be harder to control the experiment itself because there will be more unknown variables but that's not because it's not science... Otherwise you might as well declare biology as not being science either... have fun doing that... seriously :/


    And they would be if socionics was theoretical, but it’s not all the functions are directly tied to attitudes and actions. Therein lies the nib of the matter, socionics really isn’t about cognitive functions as it is observable traits; in that it is similar to Keirsey. the problem with this method is that you end up with all the inherent biases of the observer; an example of this is Se it is associated with all things masculine in Russia, you simply have to look at the SLE descriptions to see why in socionics everyone is a Beta. Which is the problem once you remove all of bias what exactly are you left with, that you can’t get elsewhere?
    I guess you're right about this one, about how socionics is apparently trying to mix observable traits and cognitive functioning together. Not the best idea. I've thought of this before, that using cognitive MBTI/JCF for cognitive processing and having Enneagram for various kinds of deep motivations covers most things about personality under the "surface" and then Socionics will only have the task of categorizing of concrete personality traits left... not necessarily a bad thing though.

    Btw I don't understand what you mean by everyone in socionics being a Beta?? There's 16 types, only 4 types are in Beta quadra.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    You mean Keirsey Types? I suppose this is just a matter of semantics but my knowledge of MBTI has always been that it is of Jungian origin and function based but typed by dichotomies.
    Official MBTI is not function based. I don't know if it was in the past. Current official site doesn't mention functions (they have something else instead, that's a new development, some sub-factors I think...?)


    However, I have noticed something similar to Gulenko's Erotic Attitudes... I would say however that Caregiver/Infantile are more about Parent and Child while Aggressor/Victim are more about Man and Woman.
    So what happens when the woman's the aggressor type... complicated theory eh


    I wouldn't say it's that arbitrarily defined. The dichotomies are essentially building blocks of what makes up a skeleton personality i.e. a focus on what ought to be vs. what you want... preferring to stick to few vs. taking on more... The IM Elements are the eight different kinds of information and I don't see how you could categorise information and create new IM Elements that are different to these or even made up of these.
    Honestly... an ENTP or ILE should be able to create new ones :'( Why don't any of you ENTPs or ILEs try to do so?


    An arbitrary category could be whether people wear blue shoes or not but when it gets as fundamental as this, I don't really see how you can categorise the basics of a personality much differently. The variable are certainly precisely defined however, precisely defined in the sense that if you see X, you know it is X and not Y which is crucial if you want to perform an experiment.
    I'm having a hard time seeing the Socionics variables as precisely defined in this sense.


    I would certainly say that the above categories are real variables, one can see them in people all the time. However, it might be interesting to look into the regularity of a person's preference for one over the other in day to day behaviour.
    And you know what, what I see in people all the time is, is that these "variables" get mixed with each other so arbitrarily that it messes up the theory pretty much.

    Either that or we're lacking in objective measurement tools. Yeah, that latter thing is for sure.


    I would not say that MBTI/Keirsey Types is easy to see in behaviour. There's nothing fundamental about any of their scales that tells you ,YES! That's an ENTP right there! All you can do is keep a tally of how many Intuitive things they do versus how many Sensory things they do etc. and eventually you add it up to get their type. You certainly cannot explain anything about them other than tendencies towards these four dichotomies.

    With Socionics, it's easier because there are things only a certain type would say. Things that make you declare, YES! That's an ILE because only an ILE sees the world and how they fit into it that way. Here's an example
    Stannis Baratheon? Eh, I thought it was Enneagram. :p

    Anyway, I don't think official Socionics was ever supposed to declare that X thing can be done/said only by Y type. Can you show me an official source that claims this?? I thought only hobbyists were claiming such clearly incorrect things.


    He could only be a Logical IJ to see the matter as not being about wants but about law-ordained rights. At the same time, he shows an aggression-based idea of how to maintain justice seen with Sensory IJs. It's not about a set of arbitrary behaviours, but a fundamental way in which a character like this views the world. This way of viewing the world just happens to be metabolised into day to day actions.
    Or Enneagram, huh. But sure, can work as a LSI stereotype as well.

    Question, how was Robespierre LII type over LSI? All those executions, seems aggressive to me. I'm not just mocking, I'm honestly curious how the hell that got to be LII type...?


    I wouldn't say that Se stems from a Russian bias about masculinity. Some of the keywords might make it look that way but really it's to do with the external statics of objects i.e. physical information in our environment. The Se attitude is Extroverted and Irrational so Se types are best at considering the physical information of their environment and doing what can be done to get what they want. In day to day behaviour this may surface as physical aggression, going for big jobs, fancy cars etc. but these are arbitrary. It's the fundamental way of looking at the world as lots of things to be taken and conquered by one's personal resources and strength of will that defines an Se-lead, not masculinity.
    I'm OK as far as the Se definition here without the day to day behaviour examples. The latter is apparently often explained by other things.


    Russia might be particularly appreciative of Se because its overall type is supposedly IEI which is Se-suggestive.
    Lol when I saw that ex-socionist called Rick whatever, typing countries, it kind of reduced his credibility. Some of that credibility did come back when I saw him posting about the issues with Socionics after becoming an ex-socionics. Yeah. Ridiculous idea really, assigning a type to a whole country.

    Also, Augusta, the founder of Socionics was ILE so pretty much against Se and Socionics does get this criticism a lot that Se is depicted in such a negative light.

    Contradicting stuff here, I guess it's all really subjective eh.

    I do agree with the original post saying there's bias in the theory, though. I wouldn't be able to tell you if it's bias in official theory or bias in hobbyists' interpretations of it.

  10. #30
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Mobius View Post
    No your right it is not a justification? Though what justification has to do with any of this I have no idea. I’m starting to think you haven’t read all that much about MBTI; you seem to keep mixing it up with JCF, which is theoretical and almost entirely unproven. MBTI doesn’t really use Jungian Functions it uses I, E, N, S, T, F, P, J as variables to test statistically which has been done on numerous occasions. The Big Five is basically a derivative of MBTI; it took the parts it thought could be tested and went with it. Socionics does not have the same loose correlation with The Big Five at all.



    No please don’t confuse the mythology with the complex; it’s about the relationship dynamic. I mean the names of the romantic styles say as much; caregiver/infantile (Oedipus), aggressor/victim (Electra). Then once you realise that Se and Si in socionics is tied directly to traditional gender roles it starts to make a lot more sense. Se is equated with masculine and Si with feminine, or at least archaic Russian definitions of them. Honestly had Gulenko released those into the western world, he would have been done for plagiarism.



    No it is arbitrarily defined; precision would require that Socionics have a complete and thorough understanding of the human psyche with a mountain of evidence to back it up. As for the experiment those are just plain terrible; have X, Y, and Z been proven to be real variables? Is X always a dependent variable of Y? On top of that you cannot assume that Z is dependent on X, which is in turn dependent on the assumption of Y that is a hell of a lot of assumptions for a scientific experiment.
    Again just to clarify this mix up with MBTI and JCF, MBTI is extremely easy to see in day to day behaviour. JCF is a theoretical concept about how the brain processes information, which you are right, you’re unlikely to be able to clearly distinguish for real world application………. because you know it’s a theory.



    Really you think that the tertiary education system jumps from community colleges to Ivy League Universities? Do I actually need to explain the difference? Okay industry application versus conceptual learning.
    Again I think you are misusing a term; empirical. Empirical sets a very high standard for evidence, its double blind tests and experiments done in completely controlled environs. Psychology isn’t empirical, because you’re dealing with humans, who are messy contrary creatures how in the world could you set controls on their very psyche? I mean it’s been shown that even the wording of questions can dramatically alter findings. Observation is off the cards for something as complex as this. Which leaves us with the possible use of MRI, EEG, and CAT as potential sources, but even they come with their criticisms.



    Oh dear, (sigh) meditation has been proven to lower stress, blood pressure, and in some cases lower cholesterol. The key word is proven.



    And they would be if socionics was theoretical, but it’s not all the functions are directly tied to attitudes and actions. Therein lies the nib of the matter, socionics really isn’t about cognitive functions as it is observable traits; in that it is similar to Keirsey. the problem with this method is that you end up with all the inherent biases of the observer; an example of this is Se it is associated with all things masculine in Russia, you simply have to look at the SLE descriptions to see why in socionics everyone is a Beta. Which is the problem once you remove all of bias what exactly are you left with, that you can’t get elsewhere?
    Everyone isn't a beta. I don't associate myself with really any of the things described as "Se" by socionics at all, and there are a lot of women who would associate themselves with those things and who I would associate with those things. At any rate, it sounds like your biases are creeping in.

    Ah now I get it, your partner is a XSFJ I assume? A new relationship if I was to guess, still a little insecure about it.
    Well, it isn't serious yet, but probably. Anyway, it also plays true in terms of friendships I've had, as well. In addition, my parent's relationship is another part of it. They are very different for being introverts, being composed of an SJ and an NF, and yet they've somehow stayed together in the face of things that would have been the end of a lot of other couples.

    Anyway, I would be willing to listen to your perspective if you offered anything of merit, but all you are doing is imposing distinctions and differences where they don't need to exist. I can't really see any point you are making other than that.

    One question though... are you interested in this stuff for personal development and understanding or merely ego enhancement?
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-19-2017, 05:54 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 08:28 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2014, 11:42 AM
  4. Why you should(nt) live with me. An introduction to doriusrex
    By doriusrex in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 10:10 AM
  5. An introduction to excess
    By wank in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 03:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO