"accepted by science" consensus is not science, science is a method
@dolfdervish8495
4 жыл бұрын
@Salem Saberhagen Underrated comment. Please bring your grammar to at least an unmockable level though. Cuz, that's a Science too. 😀
@dolfdervish8495
4 жыл бұрын
@BananaSugar Hmmmm...
@dolfdervish8495
4 жыл бұрын
@BananaSugar Yes, and also no. Maybe?
@dolfdervish8495
4 жыл бұрын
@bs: What do you mean.
@dolfdervish8495
4 жыл бұрын
@bs Why? It's/you're obvious. But, so what?
@Anna_Fortunka
3 жыл бұрын
I don't really care. I know socionics pretty much inside out, have lived and breathed it for over a decade and it's part of how I perceive the world and my identity. Who cares if it's scientific?
@attheranch873
3 жыл бұрын
How is it different from what Dave and Shan are doing?
@JackAaron
6 жыл бұрын
Great summary of the key issue facing personality type and especially Socionics. The big challenge is the 'pushing through' and the pushing through is going to be conducting empirical studies supporting some basic assumptions behind Jungian typology, e.g. the law of psychological asymmetry. Once that happens, the flood gates will open. One element of Socionics I think is really useful to any Jungian type enthusiast will be the Quadras and the separation of valuing the use of something, e.g. a cognitive function, from being good at it.
@zvonkofonko2673
6 жыл бұрын
Whole model A is awesome. I'm just not certain of description of some IEs ; like F("Se"). A lot of Socionists are Alpha quadra ; they don't really understand it imo.
@ajsindri2
6 жыл бұрын
This is why we need to complete the structural consistency statistical measurement.
@thepanthar
3 жыл бұрын
JACK, what do you type Dave?
@JackAaron
3 жыл бұрын
@@thepanthar LIE, like Jeff Bezos.
@vizuz
6 жыл бұрын
The strange thing with the science of psychology is that it can't really determine and predict the behavior of people. In my opinion, it can show people's unconscious behavior, and make it conscious to people. Did you have anyone tell you some kind of bad habit you have where you were unaware of? Maybe you say "ummm.." a lot, or maybe you raise one eyebrow slightly upward when you are engaged in conversation. The thing with these behaviors is, they are not innate to you. If this behavior becomes conscious to a person, they have the free will to change it, or not. Now with this MBTI stuff it gets trickier, because most people in the MBTI community do believe that a persons MBTI-type is innate. That it's fixed. Regardless is that is true or not. If a person does a test, and finds out their MBTI type. And they really get into MBTI, they start to behave more like their MBTI-type. Depending on how grounded they are in their own lives. Regardless, it has an effect on the persons behavior. No, I don't have scientific evidence for that but I think the Observer effect is huge in psychology. But what about the study of people who have zero knowledge of psychology in general? Well, that can be helpful in the way that it can help people get more conscious of their own behaviors they are unaware of. But that doesn't mean that behavior is innate to them, it's just unconscious. And everything unconscious can be made conscious. But if the goal of MBTI is to give people an "identity"; e.g. I'm an INTJ, or I'm and ESTP or whatever. Not helpful at all. Not only do I think it is not true, I think it can hurt people because it boxes people in. If you identify with a certain type, you are going to have biases against other kinds of types. That is a human thing, the brain just does that to defend itself. Sorry my comment sucks. I'm trying to say to use Psychology, regardless what model you like, to became aware of your own behavior. So that you can come closer to what is true to you so you can have a more harmonious life with the world. Don't use it to box yourself, or others, in. History has shown us that the human race tends to fall into that trap, and it has to pay a price for it, a big one.
@AustinOllar
6 жыл бұрын
Your comment doesn't suck and it is true. We love to identify with things, especially when it comes to boxing in oneself into personality types. With that said, the biggest things here, at least for me, are the patterns. When you realize there is a reflection of yourself in another person out there, it can help you become meta-aware of yourself. It's the sense of self outside of self, telling and living the story of your life foundationally, with similar demons and saviors, but at the surface may look different. Self-help in my opinion is two-fold. Self-awareness, and self-management. If you have a mentor of your type out of the 512 system, that literally can resonate with you better than anyone else, because they know your story innately better than most others, then in my opinion that is probably the best answer to a more individualistic approach to self-help, rather than the collectivist approach where motivational coaches just share a bunch of things that makes us feel good. As human's we naturally want to model and compare ourselves to others. If we are going to model or compare ourselves to others, wouldn't that be best done with other people who have the same or similar imbalances in personality functions? As long as this is done objectively, it would seem like this would be more of a benefit to people in the long run than just information that makes people feel good or things they just want to hear.
@mercurialmessenger
6 жыл бұрын
Austin Ollar Right on!
@mercurialmessenger
6 жыл бұрын
Joey MBTI is about the cognitive functions at its core. Yes, one may seem like another type at times, however when one looks at the cognitive functions and their heirichial order, one knows they are one type. One's level of honesty will determine their proper type. It's not about boxing in. Satan does not like to be boxed in. If ur a LOVER of deceipt, your he'll u will repeat. Repent and get out of ur perversion.
@caffemocca8855
5 жыл бұрын
That's why I prefer I/O branch of psychology. The scope is much more narrow therefore more controllable variables. Therefore, better predictions.
@vulpritprooze
2 жыл бұрын
@@mercurialmessenger Cognitive functions aren't everything. As many psychologists say, Jung was identifying something that's obvious. It could mean that there are more other functions out there... who knows I mean these cognitive functions are drawn from Jung's analysis of patterns.
@anneh851
2 жыл бұрын
Timestamp 0.05 shows the PERFECT graph I've ever seen in the lower right corner. Its 3D structure clarifies the axes that are measured, and makes more sense than the 2-dimensional MBTI.
@ExploringPersonality
Жыл бұрын
The difference is that socionics actually started up like science. It was created by a scientist and it was presented in a scientific journal.
@ibrahimtencer6903
5 жыл бұрын
Socionics research is continuing, by myself and others. This research mostly occurs on an individual basis. But, making socionics an empirical science is not necessary for the success of the theory. Socionics is metaphysics, not pseudoscience. Verifying some of its predictions clinically may be possible using "subjective" typings, or a test tailored based on those typings. But MBTI uses an "objective" test as well and is not nearly as valuable as socionics.
@trayson
6 жыл бұрын
Hmmmm. You should make a channel about airplanes or something like that :^)
@FrownyMascot
2 жыл бұрын
Bruh 😂
@pixelart0124
6 жыл бұрын
The "pushing it through the sound barrier" thing, how do we do that? How do you "apply science" to something like this? If you've already talked about this and I'm just being stupid, I'd love if you point me to the video(s) you've made on this. If not, I'd love if you articulate a bit further how we could go about dragging these systems to mainstream science and have them not be bullshit pseudoscience. I honestly have no clue what I could do to make that happen, even though I'd really love to do that.
@alexo.o3729
3 жыл бұрын
Scientific method.
@sheerogaming
5 жыл бұрын
informative
@rickrivers2021
3 жыл бұрын
The whole idea that psychology is science is bizarre anyways. Like, it's just a bunch of hypothesis for the most part, besides neuroscience. It will never be as consistent as physics because it involves subjectivity. Anything about people involves subjectivity. And the concept of scientific consensus having validity is bs. There was a time when there was a consensus that the sun circled the earth. Even Newtonian physics needed to be revised by Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory. Who knows how many things the current scientific community has consensus on will be overturned in the future. Getting labelled 'real science' is arbitrary.
@joan3891
6 жыл бұрын
Great job!
@davidcruz5283
3 жыл бұрын
Well said, values there whether science believes it or not, like quantum mechanics, science is bound to stumble across or cross paths with the mysterious and esoteric, peace
@Tan8ous
4 жыл бұрын
Team effort equates to breaking into the mainstream
@sirbradfordofhousejones
3 жыл бұрын
Pseudoscience is basically “philosophy.” And there’s nothing wrong with that.
@cassm7679
6 жыл бұрын
Can you do a video on Estp fears please
@malazforever8222
4 жыл бұрын
Being locked? Lol
@nickh.1110
6 жыл бұрын
3:21 did you have to scratch your nose while recording?
@Amaend8
8 ай бұрын
So basically youre saying what im thinking all the time. Stop fighting lets work togethere for the benefit pf all
@FlabbyPigLegs
5 жыл бұрын
So if Dave is lead Ni why does he respect Se???
@rutasel6726
5 жыл бұрын
Because he is an ENTJ
@SaadetOZTRK
4 жыл бұрын
he worked on his demons
@alexo.o3729
3 жыл бұрын
Because life isn't about doing what you like and what is easy for you, but about getting good at everything so you can achieve your goals. Its like trying to swim whit a single leg, doesn't matter how strong that leg is, you need the whole body.
@BenVaserlan
5 жыл бұрын
#SocionicsModelG
@zvonkofonko2673
6 жыл бұрын
Can you research Socionics a bit more and give your impressions? It's really the closest you can get to Jung(imo). Pretty applicable too, provided you ignore some more...colorful stuff. It's base, the model A, is very very nice. Very factual. Also, who cares what science thinks? They are a bunch of stuck ups who pander to each other and often push each other's theories so they reach fruition(probably money involved too). Ok, I'm not talking about Science as much as I am about Academics, but those two correlate a great deal. What scientists say is irrelevant. What ANYONE says is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that theory fits the facts(and can be proven by it, ofc). And that it is useful to people too.
@rubgreen1310
5 жыл бұрын
I think in Russia the socionics studies have a more scientific aproach. I want to search More but i don't understand Russian . Hahaha. Sorry for my english
@Recon777x
6 жыл бұрын
Who the hell _cares_ if it's "accepted by science" as if that somehow means it becomes more useful, etc. Science is about things which are testable and repeatable. Human nature has a whole lot of variables, not to mention the free will of humans themselves, which makes it less of a "science" and more of a "nature of humanity" topic. The fact of the matter is, all this stuff Dave is dismissing about "amateur MBTI" efforts is really good stuff when it is applied on a personal level and used to help each of us understand people better ourselves. Through amateur personality study, it is possible to lead a _much_ more fulfilling and productive life by being able to understand the people around us and the fact that many things they are doing are _normal_ (for them) even though they are not normal for us. That is the beauty of understanding this stuff. You can understand your little social group of friends and family and remove some of the mystery as to why people behave the way they do. Do we need this to be "mainstream science"? Do you expect it to be used by psychiatrists to diagnose things? How far do you want this to go?
@TommyZommy
6 жыл бұрын
If something is testable and repeatable, that means it is applicable to most, if not every single case there is (which in turn, makes it extremely valuable for everyone). That's why refining and optimizing your shit iis so necessary in science
@Recon777x
6 жыл бұрын
Yes, I understand that. But that does not mean everything which is too variable to be tested and repeated reliably is useless. My point is that Dave is outright _dismissing_ many things which are quite useful to a large number of people.
@KelseyStanbrook
5 жыл бұрын
I think you missed the end of the video. And the contents of it, I think. He's not talking about the value of these models to the individual, he's talking about the scientific accuracy (or lack thereof) in different personality models. He literally said at the end that these models have a lot of good, worthwhile stuff in it, but it's not as useful if it can't be offered to a wider audience. Wouldn't that be better than just a couple of people learning themselves with broken models? Pushing it through that scientific sound barrier, if you will, would open up its applications to benefit so many more people. More than that, setting standards for personality models might help reduce people doing actual damage to themselves by becoming obsessed with their perceived type, becoming arrogant or self-deprecating through a lack of understanding and guidance.
@whowillyoucallonthen4292
6 жыл бұрын
Trump should get on this ASAP! Except, Jung was a *clinically vetted* professional Scientist who saw 100's (if not 1000's) of clients. How many of them knew he was trying to figure all their cognitive patterns out in order to compose a framework to assist his clinical results? Did he even consciously know it? And, assuming they didn't know... What if they did? Would the results of their behavior been different? I'm just saying... People behave a LOT different than rats.
@vizuz
6 жыл бұрын
If the researcher has some kind of relationship with the testperson that automatically invalidates the results. At least, that is what I assume to be true in the science of psychology. Because if it isn't, the field of psychology has zero legitimacy. Meaning, of course he can be inspired by his patients to make up hypotheses for his research. But he can't actually validate the results on those patients.
@whowillyoucallonthen4292
6 жыл бұрын
Joey Aha. So, you're saying Jung was boinking his clients? Or, that people's behaviours are more authentic, real, & genuine with/for robots? Please elucidate.
@SarcasmSunshine
6 жыл бұрын
If you compare MBTI, Socionics, and Enneagram in terms of psuedoscience, Socionics mosts resembles pseudoscience. Plus it has the absolute WORST way of labeling the types.
@futureplanet6910
4 жыл бұрын
Why the most Pseudo?
@piadas804
2 жыл бұрын
Myers Briggs is not pseudoscience. Socionics is.
@averagecoolepicyoutubers1929
Жыл бұрын
Wouldn’t it be the opposite?
@piadas804
Жыл бұрын
@@averagecoolepicyoutubers1929 no
@burningsodium
6 жыл бұрын
Socionics is a really dumb system. For example, they argue that the third function is weakest. Totally wrong.
@zvonkofonko2673
6 жыл бұрын
Read: www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Model_A Also, MBTI 3rd and 4th are most likely Socio 6th and 5th. Just fyi.
@zvonkofonko2673
6 жыл бұрын
7th isn't the weakest, but possibly the most ignored. That's why it is called...IGNORING / IGNORED function. It's actually not weak at all(being 3D of 4D max), but the mere fact that it goes against BASE FUNCTION and that it is overall in the shitplace makes it ignored. Base function is person's core "program" AND it is 4D, it'll obliterate the 7th. I am pretty confident it's the least observable function for people. Funnily enough, 1st as well due to how on auto pilot it is.
@imTheAyer
6 жыл бұрын
He was talking about the 7th function in the mbti model not from model A. Example the 7th function of a ESFJ in MBTI is Ni, which is the 4th or vulnerable function of ESFJ/ESE in Model A. Makes more sense now right, heres a link to the model for mbti www.careerplanner.com/8CognitiveFunctions/Cognitive-Functions-Simply-Explained.cfm
@TheGerogero
6 жыл бұрын
Science is overrated.
@WelcomeToTheSocion
Жыл бұрын
Socionics is far superior to your model, I really enjoy your content. But for real. You have nothing on socionics. Not even close.
@jaredvaughan1665
2 жыл бұрын
WANT TO EASILY UNDERSTAND the Socionics DCNH model??? Read this condensed complete summary in plain English from pages 347 to 357 of Gulenko's "64 Types" book ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why do people of the same Socionic type behave so differently? When 3-4 people of the same type gather to put together a puzzle, for example, some will be more active, others more passive, some more resourceful, and others more reserved, etc. With larger numbers of people an ever-wider variety of behaviors appear. Creating behavioral subtypes to the primary Socionic type. Yet unlike the Socionics primary type, behavioral subtypes are not static. But can change through a person's lifetime with sufficient internal motivation or pressures from unique life experiences. The Humanitarian Socionics School (HSS) have verified four to eight types of behavior within small group collective hierarchies. But for practical purposes (such as knowing what to look for when filling a leadership position) the DCNH subtype system is based on the following 4 functional subtypes with their primarily roles, associated attributes, and leading information elements (cognitive functions): • Dominant (Leader): Competitive; often recognized as the leader; sets clear objectives; ambitious (even when claiming the contrary); agrees only to temporary compromises with an eye on winning; acts decisively in complicated situations; has a high standard of performance; able to delegate responsibility; authoritarian but not in the details; communicates with a wide range of people while possessing only a small circle of close friends. (Reinforced through the linear-assertive functions Fe and Te. Fe energy resonates with Te engagement. Conversely, physical Te movements inevitably charges Fe emotions as well.) • Creative (generator of ideas): Change oriented; searches for new directions and allies; obsessed with originality; rebellious and individualistic; have the power of originality (and sometimes folly); pugnaciousness; ignores common standards; impulsive; dislikes following lengthy procedures. (Reinforced through the flexible-maneuvering (flexible-adaptive) functions Ne and Se. Ne (opportunities intuition) simultaneously resonates with Se (force sensing.)) • Normalizing (finisher): Accurate; compliant; disciplined; efficient; seeks routine work environments that require little flexibility or important decision making; patient; pays attention to detail; conservative; has a narrow circle of trusted friends. (Reinforced through the balanced-stable functions Ti and Fi. Ti (structural logic) as a set of formal rules is supported by Fi (relational ethics) which are guided by informal norms and traditions.) • Harmonizing (corrector): Externally calm looking yet easily embarrassed; anxiously hoping for the best; frugal and simple; emotionally sensitive, compliant; avoids conflict, irritable when feeling smothered; tolerant for the sake of habitual comfort; generous and able to empathize with the weak; allusive. (Reinforced through the receptive-adaptive functions Si and Ni. These functions are enhanced as pairs because they have similar energy. A state of Si (physical relaxation) activates the flight of Ni (imagination) and vice versa.) If the group has 3 people, instead of 4, then one person combines two roles. The most successful combined roles are leaders/idea generators, and finishers/harmonizers, since they are closer to energy. Although in real life many shades of Grey exist. When a small group is made up with different primary Socionic types, the DCNH subtype is primary and the person's primary type secondary in influencing what role each person will play within the social hierarchy. DCNH subtypes measured by the following 3 Polarities of situational behaviors: 1) Under stress and facing a direct challenge: Contact: Willing to accept it with vigor and excitement. (Dominant/creative) Distant: Distances themselves from confrontation to avoid freezing or losing a foothold. (Normalizing/harmonizing) 2) Projects and relationships: Terminal: Seeks closure, following through from start to the end, and streamlining. (Dominant/normalizing) Initial: Initiates and switches easily to a new activity, multitasking. (Creative/harmonizing) 3) External environmental changes: Connective: Reacts with a lot of sensitivity. (Dominant/harmonizing) Ignorative: Pays little attention (Creative/normalizing) Combining these three polarities, we get the following DCNH subtypes: • Contact, terminal, connective - dominant (D) • Contact, initial, ignorative - creative (C) • Distant, terminal, ignorative - normalizing • Distant, initial, connective - harmonizing (H) In real life there are lots of shades of grey between each of these polarities. Similar to how in MBTI a judger may at times act like stereotypical perceiver by not always having clear plans. (Terminal/Initial being similar to the judging/perceiving dichotomy.)
Пікірлер: 78