Jan 4, 2017

4 Clues that Socionics Theory Is at Least Partly False

Major Theoretical Fallacy #1: According to Model A, information is conveyed from person to person via matching functions. In other words, an ESI conveys information about introverted ethics to an SLI via the 1st function of first and the 6th function of the second. It is this information that determines the nature of the relationship between them.

No, that's just not how things work. If the SLI and the ESI are sitting together, and neither of them talks, one or both might begin to feel tense. How do you explain that socionically? If one starts talking about something of little interest to the other and goes on and on without stopping, the other will become annoyed. Which information element is being affected? If the two types are in a relationship and the ESI has a prestigious and successful career while the SLI is struggling in their much more low-paying job, this will lead to tension and a feeling that the ESI could "do better." Which function is being affected? If the SLI is more physically attractive than the ESI, the ESI will struggle more with feelings of jealousy. Which function is "acting up?"

My point is, the objective and measurable reasons of relationship tension that have been, and are being discovered, have nothing at all to do with so-called information metabolism. 

Major Red Flag #2: Socionics has been around for 40 years, and the issues being debated among professionals in the field have not changed significantly in at least 15-25 years. What's the cause of this? Are socionists not smart enough to make a big breakthrough? Is lack of funding the problem? 

I invite you to try to make a case that the cause of the stagnation of the field is anything other than the fact that the entire field is based upon a set of unprovable axioms. 

My conviction is that real progress is only possible if researchers ignore the unprovable axioms themselves, but then it's simply psychology research, not socionics research. Socionics can only exist if it has its axioms. And having those axioms makes scientific research and thus real breakthroughs impossible. 

Obvious Red Flag #3: It is virtually impossible to get even a small group of socionists to come to a unanimous agreement on someone's type. Existing tests give conflicting results. Each test was created by a socionist who thought long and hard within the context of their own understanding of socionics, which differs from that of other socionists. 

At the very least, this tells us that socionic type is often far from obvious. How obvious does type need for socionics to be useful? What is the threshold of "nonobviousness" beyond which the application of socionics loses all practicality?

Hidden Red Flag #4: Among socionics enthusiasts, a certain percentage — perhaps 30-40% — are more or less widely recognized as belonging to a particular type. These are the people you think of when reading a type description. The rest are in a gray zone where they are either 1) never fully certain of their own type due to a plethora of opinions on the matter, or 2) unable to convince everyone else that their type is indeed X. What does it say about socionics if only 30-40% of people easily identify with a certain type and are recognized as such by their associates in the community? 

I'll answer that rhetorical question for you. It means one of two things. 1) (optimistic scenario) Socionics theory itself is correct or nearly correct, but type descriptions, tests, and socionists themselves are "not good enough." 2) (pessimistic scenario) Socionics theory itself is incorrect in some significant way, and the type identification problem is the natural result of fundamental errors in the theory.

I'm a pessimist. Even if we accept scenario #1 above, what does it say about socionics if the combined efforts of hundreds of high-IQ individuals is not enough to overcome the stated problem — at least locally, within a single socionics school, — assuming the theory itself is correct? 

In other words, any way you look at it, there is something wrong with the theory (see point #1). 

5 comments:

aestrivex said...

You could reject the specificity of the assumptions inherent in point #1, as I do and have done for years, without dismissing some of the other concepts in socionics such as quadra values.

Your view that the assumptions of socionics are inherently untestable, as we have discussed before, seems needlessly limited to me. Very few people have criticized the proposed methodology of my kickstarter proposal other than to argue about the scales used for the testing method (which seems insurmountable, other than to do video interviews with all the participants) or to caution that it may not work.

Rick said...

What do quadra values derive from then, in your opinion?

If I were to concede that it's actually perfectly okay for socionics to be untestable, how would that affect points #2-4? These characteristics don't budge at all in response to debates and changes of opinion regarding the foundations of socionics. It doesn't matter what any of us think about the issue.

aestrivex said...

I don't know what you mean by "what do the quadra values derive from." They are certainly more fundamental than the specific intertype relations which form a superset of the assumptions needed for basic assumptions about compatibility based on shared quadra values.

I don't know if the assumptions about compatibility based on quadra values would truly work when tested rigorously in practice, but the hypothesis of same quadra = higher compatibility and opposite quadra = lower compatibility is straightforward enough to operationalize in principle.

Issues #2-4 which you address have to do with human error, they have nothing to do with science. I agree that the only defensible view of socionics is that the huge majority of socionists are incompetent. Unfortunately I find is considerable evidence that this may indeed be the case.

Rick said...

OK, then I'll rephrase the question: what are quadra values and why do they exist in the first place? Why are there four quadras of four types with a particular uniform pattern of intertype relations and not, say, 4 quadras of different sizes?

>> Issues #2-4 which you address have to do with human error, they have nothing to do with science. I agree that the only defensible view of socionics is that the huge majority of socionists are incompetent.

How do you tell a competent socionist from an incompetent one? Or, if no foolproof way to tell them apart currently exists, can you propose a way that would work given advances in the field or in science in general?

aestrivex said...

OK, then I'll rephrase the question: what are quadra values and why do they exist in the first place? Why are there four quadras of four types with a particular uniform pattern of intertype relations and not, say, 4 quadras of different sizes?

I don't know why there are four quadras; I am content with the explanation that Augusta suggested this model. Why does it matter? My scientific hypotheses are not focused on the individual types within quadras; maybe those individual types are guideposts to help us diagnose the individuals and make the critical predictions about compatibility, but the compatibility tests do not depend on the diagnoses.

If you were to suggest that there are many varieties of beta introvert, more than we currently categorize, but that the delta introverts are really unnecessarily separated and are basically only deserving of one category of "delta introvertness", I would have no problem with that, it does not affect any of the operational assumptions I am making.

As I have said several times and in many other comments to your similar objections on this blog, I totally dismiss, and have dismissed for years, the "particular uniform pattern of intertype relations" you mentioned, as totally inconsistent with my observations. Although of course many other socionists who I respect, and also many who I don't respect, disagree with that.

How do you tell a competent socionist from an incompetent one? Or, if no foolproof way to tell them apart currently exists, can you propose a way that would work given advances in the field or in science in general?

Your question is extremely broad, but to be brief a competent socionist could be described as a socionist that describes something that works. That is, more formally, anyone who puts forward an tractable operationalization that shows some relationship to interpersonal compatibility. By default, then, a competent socionist virtually needs to have an understanding that socionics is not science, which excludes probably 90% of Russian and Ukrainian socionists including people like Ekaterina Filatova and Aleksandr Bukalov, who have unambiguously demonstrated that they do *not* understand what is science.

Other socionists like Olga Tangemann, who do clearly understand what is science and that socionics isn't that, can be seen as incompetent in the sense that she doesn't talk or think about science, she freely acknowledges that her ideas only have to do with her own biased emotions.

But Ashton Boone, who has a splinter socionics model far outside of the mainstream, would be perfectly able to demonstrate his competency by running the same tests.

So I agree with you in a formal way that there is not currently a "foolproof" way without better operationalizations that actually test for interpersonal compatibility.

But in practice that doesn't prevent you from telling which socionists have no grasp of scientific reasoning, make no effort to present their work objectively to an independent observer at all, and are just generally pretty obviously full of shit. And those issues are obviously very common.