User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 32

  1. #21
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    Well, it's just based on experience and observation. (which seems to be your experience as well)

    Like I said in one of my above posts, I don't think a "hyposthesis" in psychology can be proven because it's a "human" science and thus not subject to experimentation. So observation along the course of life is the closest we get to testing a hypothesis in psychology, since reproducing the same conditions in order to test a hypothesis would be problematic...
    I think it is possible to pretty much prove it. There does seem to be a correct answer to the question of what type a person is (though I've found that there are some complications to the question), and if people can be validly typed, then it becomes possible to determine the nature of the social chemistry empirically, even by simply doing an observational study of who tends to hang out with who, but then preferably having a way to also determine which pairings are best energetically.

    It's difficult to properly determine type, especially if you're not sure of your own type. I've had times when I thought that the socionics pairings were correct, but then I realised I had the typings wrong. I used to think I was an ISTJ, so when I noted that I knew quite a few ENFPs, I thought that that validated the socionics model, but after realising I was an INFJ instead, then the evidence for the model was reversed. Now I notice that I seem to hang out only with Feelers irl. INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ, ESFP. And I'm much better at typing people than I used to be. So I believe in the model of Feelers getting on best with other Feelers etc. rather than Fe getting on best with Ti. There seem to be communication issues with myself and INTPs, and I think it's the difference in prioritising of Thinking that is responsible for that. Of course my sample size is too small to really base conclusions on scientifically.
    the lone star flies alone

  2. #22
    Junior Member Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    845 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LIE Ni
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    I think it is possible to pretty much prove it. There does seem to be a correct answer to the question of what type a person is (though I've found that there are some complications to the question), and if people can be validly typed, then it becomes possible to determine the nature of the social chemistry empirically, even by simply doing an observational study of who tends to hang out with who, but then preferably having a way to also determine which pairings are best energetically.

    It's difficult to properly determine type, especially if you're not sure of your own type. I've had times when I thought that the socionics pairings were correct, but then I realised I had the typings wrong. I used to think I was an ISTJ, so when I noted that I knew quite a few ENFPs, I thought that that validated the socionics model, but after realising I was an INFJ instead, then the evidence for the model was reversed. Now I notice that I seem to hang out only with Feelers irl. INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ, ESFP. And I'm much better at typing people than I used to be. So I believe in the model of Feelers getting on best with other Feelers etc. rather than Fe getting on best with Ti. There seem to be communication issues with myself and INTPs, and I think it's the difference in prioritising of Thinking that is responsible for that. Of course my sample size is too small to really base conclusions on scientifically.
    Isn't this logic you are using circular?

    If you find out others' types through your own self-typing, but then change your self-typing because of your relations with others, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Your typing or others'?

    For what it's worth, you do come across as an ILE to me. Intuition of possibilities backed up by a flexible theoretical logic. I know you weren't asking for it, but there you go.

  3. #23
    Senior Member asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    13,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    If you find out others' types through your own self-typing, but then change your self-typing because of your relations with others, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Your typing or others'?
    Ah yes, you're referring to the eternal dilemma (or paradox?) in typology communities.

    I see this a lot on socionics boards, people saying things like "this person is my dual because I like them" or "you can't be X type because it doesn't fit the intertype relations with Z type" or similar circular sort of statements justifying their typings of themselves and others based on supposed intertype relations.

    Unless there were some way to prove ones' type beyond any doubt, I don't think this sort of reasoning will ever go away. It's all built on very shaky ground. Maybe I should just stick to Big 5 and alignments.
    “Some people underestimate how erotic it is to be understood.” -Mary Rakow
    “In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order.” -CG Jung
    “I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.” -Baruch Spinoza
    Likes cascadeco liked this post

  4. #24
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    Isn't this logic you are using circular?

    If you find out others' types through your own self-typing, but then change your self-typing because of your relations with others, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Your typing or others'?

    For what it's worth, you do come across as an ILE to me. Intuition of possibilities backed up by a flexible theoretical logic. I know you weren't asking for it, but there you go.
    No, the logic's not circular. I didn't say that I base others' typings on my own, or that I base my own typing on that of others. There's a bit of checking with the social dynamics of type to see if typings make sense, but that can only come from already having an idea of what those dynamics are.

    No, I base my own typing from observing my thought processes in terms of cognitive functions, as well as applying methods I use for typing others, such as: identifying function order in forum posts, identifying vocal signals, overall personality assessments, vibes, reminders between people (the reminders between people indicate that two people are likely the same type, not what their type is, so it's not circular either). My self-typing is actually incredibly solid, not really up for debate.

    When looking through some of your posts, I got an impression of INFJ. I was seeing Ni-Fe and Ti-Se posts, the post quoted here being a Ti-Se post (logic followed by actuality).

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic
    Unless there were some way to prove ones' type beyond any doubt
    I've pretty much accomplished this. It took me 7-8 years but I have basically become certain. There are the occassional doubts as to whether my reasoning was correct, but I'm able to check it again and those doubts subside.

    (the main doubt I have is as follows: people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, as well aspects of the other types, some more than others. It's also possible to activate the cognition of a secondary type temporarily, potentially even using it a lot. So the doubt is that maybe I've gotten it so deeply in my mind that I'm an INFJ, that I've ended up using INFJ cognition so frequently that I end up being indistinguishable from an INFJ, when I'm really some other type. I don't see that as a reasonable possibility though.)
    the lone star flies alone

  5. #25
    malade Norrsken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    MBTI
    enfj
    Enneagram
    216 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    4,490

    Default

    I don't know, but I like it, somehow.
    I just don't like how hyped up the type descriptions sound.
    S’io credesse che mia risposta fosse
    A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,
    Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.
    Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo
    Non torno vivo alcun, s’i’odo il vero,
    Senza tema d’infamia ti rispondo

  6. #26
    Senior Member asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    13,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, as well aspects of the other types, some more than others. It's also possible to activate the cognition of a secondary type temporarily, potentially even using it a lot.
    I've speculated this might be the case, that type might be a lot more fluid and less static than is widely believed in the typology community.

    Although on the other hand an argument could be made that we have one type and this supposed fluidity is just a result of personal growth as we age and mature into more rounded individuals.
    “Some people underestimate how erotic it is to be understood.” -Mary Rakow
    “In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order.” -CG Jung
    “I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.” -Baruch Spinoza

  7. #27
    alchemist Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    I've speculated this might be the case, that type might be a lot more fluid and less static than is widely believed in the typology community.

    Although on the other hand an argument could be made that we have one type and this supposed fluidity is just a result of personal growth as we age and mature into more rounded individuals.
    Well yeah, even if we're all purely on type each, there's still fluidity, because everyone has all 8 functions to some degree, and could use more of any given one of them than usual at any time.

    The difference is in function sequences. Can we change the order of functions, such that we start with something other than the dominant, yet such that it takes the role of the dominant? And so on.
    the lone star flies alone
    Likes asynartetic liked this post

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    -
    Socionics
    - None
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    Psychology itself is a pseudoscience, for lack of a better term, much like history or economy.
    I strongly disagree with this, judging it at least literally incorrect understanding.
    The term psychology consists of two word, Psyche and greek "logos" . Psyche loosely defined as the soul, logos, a greek word for reason.

    But I do think that some so called scientist wants to put it into scientific observations and claimed it to be their psychology which might make the subject has totally lose its meaning.
    It may have been the scientist problem anyway that they wish to develop theoretical explanation observed empirically to psyche. It must have been the scientific method that scientist wants to follow that makes them not to be able to answer their problem. Therefore, The problem should be returned to the scientist.
    They should realize that scientific method, even if followed, would not make the scientist able answer all questions. Scientist rely on getting to conclusion by observation, experimentation of observable by the five senses data, but I wonder whether they have raised the question whether the psyche is observable? hence they would be correct, when they decided to follow the scientific method to study the psyche.
    They should raise the question if scientific method was followed, would they be able to answer psychological questions?. So, I question the reason behind following scientific method for studying the psyche. They should realize that it is human behavior that is observable, so they can follow their scientific method just to study human behavior. If they insisted, I would suggested to change the name of their science become a behavioral science; not to use the term psychology anymore so that they won't confuse themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    The foundation of socionics, as with any other system of Jungian typology, is the assumption that repression is real and that we are led by unconscious thoughts.
    Is that a Freudian repression that you mean? If that is so, I comment AFAIK, although Jung once followed Freudian psychoanalysis, Jung was no longer in agreement with Freud eventually. Historically Jung left Freud to develop his own psychology. However, I don't really know which Freudian teaching that Jung completely abandon nor whether there are remaining freudian teaching that Jung still adopted. If we want to answer it, we should do some research.
    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    Those are assumptions that may turn out to be wrong,.....
    Unfortunately, you did not make clear which ones that you identify as assumptions and reason why they were wrong. I guess you may have only been getting suspicious.

  9. #29
    Senior Member raskol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Socionics
    SEE Se
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by typologyenthusiast View Post
    I strongly disagree with this, judging it at least literally incorrect understanding.
    The term psychology consists of two word, Psyche and greek "logos" . Psyche loosely defined as the soul, logos, a greek word for reason.
    That line of reasoning constitutes an etymological fallacy, as psychology in its contemporary context has nothing to do with the original construction of the term. It is as pointless as claiming that Islamophobes suffer from a phobia or that botulism is a mere "ism."

    ... I question the reason behind following scientific method for studying the psyche. They should realize that it is human behavior that is observable, so they can follow their scientific method just to study human behavior. If they insisted, I would suggested to change the name of their science become a behavioral science; not to use the term psychology anymore so that they won't confuse themselves.
    Behaviorism was the attempt to churn out an empiricist and reductionist understanding of psychology, but it turned out to be even less scientific than its predecessor. Neuroscientists have been able to point out direct correlations between brain activity and mental states, from "flow" to "deep focus," which ultimately renders behaviorism rubbish.

    Is that a Freudian repression that you mean? If that is so, I comment AFAIK, although Jung once followed Freudian psychoanalysis, Jung was no longer in agreement with Freud eventually. Historically Jung left Freud to develop his own psychology. However, I don't really know which Freudian teaching that Jung completely abandon nor whether there are remaining freudian teaching that Jung still adopted. If we want to answer it, we should do some research.
    Anyone involved with socionics, or Berens's and Beebe's models for MBTI, relies on Freudian assumptions. As Viktor Gulenko put it in his elaboration on Model A, the "ego, superego, super-id and id ... are analogous to the components of the human psyche elaborated on by Sigmund Freud. The only difference is the fact that Sigmund Freud never examined the super-id block, which is the antipode of the superego."

    Unfortunately, you did not make clear which ones that you identify as assumptions and reason why they were wrong. I guess you may have only been getting suspicious.
    I was referring to every assumption, from repression in general to the unconscious and subconscious to mental states in the form of function blocks. I can't know whether they are actually there, but I can study the theoretical model that relies on them (Model A, B, G, or T) and consider the conclusions. And since socionics is highly predictive, I can pragmatically utilize the theory without necessarily accepting all of its underpinnings.

    As for the subtype system, I don't see how it adds very much to either model, since there is already extensive wiggle room within the type itself.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    -
    Socionics
    - None
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    That line of reasoning constitutes an etymological fallacy,
    it doesn't seems so.

    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    as psychology in its contemporary context has nothing to do with the original construction of the term.
    Which one are the "contemporary psychology" you refer to? what you refer to as a psychology may be not psychology at all. Who recognizes the your term "contemporary psychology that you mean" as a "true psychology" anyway? May be just you.

    As long as don't refer to the meaning of the "psyche" and "logy", no true psychologist will recognize it as a psychology. As long as they fail to understand the psyche, it is not a true psychology. It can only be as I said "a behavioral science" that explains nothing more than a human behavior. In the end, behavioral scientist could only predict how human behave; but not the psyche.
    I elaborate more about my points.
    Psychologist examines psycho-phenomena like Jung's consciousness and unconsciousness, memory, Freud repressions, dreams. How do we say we are conscious of something? how do we say we are unconscious of something; that's their investigations. Memory, dreams , consciousness, repressions can't be observed using the five senses.
    What problem that behavioral scientist wish to investigate? are they the same as a the psychologists?


    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    It is as pointless as claiming that Islamophobes suffer from a phobia or that botulism is a mere "ism."
    Nope. This sounds more like a false analogy fallacy.

    I argued what you referred to as a psychology is not a recognized psychology since the method that they follow actually cannot be followed to learn about psyche.Scientist following Scientific method may only be able learn behavior; but not the psyche.

    You should not confuse between science and Psychology. They are not the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    Behaviorism was the attempt to churn out an empiricist and reductionist understanding of psychology, but it turned out to be even less scientific than its predecessor.
    Then?
    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    Neuroscientists have been able to point out direct correlations between brain activity and mental states, from "flow" to "deep focus," which ultimately renders behaviorism rubbish.
    Then?

    Quote Originally Posted by raskol View Post
    Anyone involved with socionics, or Berens's and Beebe's models for MBTI, relies on Freudian assumptions. As Viktor Gulenko put it in his elaboration on Model A, the "ego, superego, super-id and id ... are analogous to the components of the human psyche elaborated on by Sigmund Freud. The only difference is the fact that Sigmund Freud never examined the super-id block, which is the antipode of the superego."
    I was referring to every assumption, from repression in general to the unconscious and subconscious to mental states in the form of function blocks. I can't know whether they are actually there, but I can study the theoretical model that relies on them (Model A, B, G, or T) and consider the conclusions. And since socionics is highly predictive, I can pragmatically utilize the theory without necessarily accepting all of its underpinnings.
    I have no comment about socionics and enneagram, Beebe.
    But for Isabel Briggs Myers MBTI, it was Jung Psychological types that Myers refer to and develop further the MBTI. I have never read Myers even mention Freud's name. Myers can't have referred to freud's teaching.
    About the mental states with every functions, some hint that you should note that, When you are not aware of the states of mind, it signifies that you are not conscious of it. You should consider that the functions are useful for self identification.

    But some comment of your own usage of theory. Is there anyone who force you to accept about all that you refer to as "assumption", and "underpinnings" anyway?
    Last edited by typologyenthusiast; Yesterday at 11:11 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. What Exactly is the Temperament System?
    By Smilephantomhive in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-08-2016, 08:05 PM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

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