Socionics is fundamentally flawed

Socionics is about information metabolism and Jungian typology. In order to combine these two theories you must define eight kinds of information (aspects), and they must correspond perfectly with eight cognitive processes.* Unfortunately, Aushra based the information aspects on space, energy, time etc. instead of cognitive processes, and consequently they do not match up.

Here's an example:

Logical deductions (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) fit neither Socionics P nor L according to me. Socionists claim that logical deductions belong to L. Why is that a problem? A conversation between SSS and me illustrates this:

I: Which TIMs are most suited to work as an accountant according to SSS?

SSS: This one is easy. What is accountancy about? About counting. Counting is related to system logic. So the answer is - any type with L in Ego block. Like LSI, LII, SLE, ILE. Note: I understand the term 'suited' in the sense 'more capable'. However there can be other criteria of 'suitedness'. And intuitive types like LII and ILE risk to get bored and leave for lack of creative tasks in this profession.

Aushra, P = "the activity of object and subject, their ability to work."
Aushra, L = "the objective relationship between two entities and their separate properties - the relation of objects or object measurement object".
Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject

SRSI, P = Logics of actions: technology, function, action, deed, fact, knowledge, use, benefit, business, method, reason, instrument, tool, expediency, business team, effectiveness, price, movement, mechanism
SRSI, L = Logics of relationships: system, analysis, instruction, mathematics, structure, classification, register, parameter, regularity, law, synthesis, proof, understanding, right, duty, responsibilities

Wikisocion, information aspects
L: Statement X follows logically from Statement Y or does not
P: Something is useful or not

*School of System Socionics:
"The trick is that we believe that there is no information existing outside of the perceiver, hence no information can be independent from psyche. That follows from the definition of the term "information" which we use. We define information as metrics of interaction between the perceiver and the perceived."

However, this implies that either a) information can appear from nothing, or b) you must define that part of information which is stored on hard drives etc.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Socionics is fundamentally flawed