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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
No, but that’s why retesting is so important.
