Diagnostics, identification, typing
Credit to: Victor Gulenko, Ph.D
Visit qfour.blogspot!: Diagnostics, identification, typing
These terms in socionics occur at every step, but there is no order in their use. All of them mean identifying a sociotype and, it would seem, should be equal. But everything is not so simple because of the important nuances in their meaning. Let's see what semantics is hidden in them and to what extent they are suitable for us to use regularly.
The term "diagnosis" means "distinction, pattern recognition," for example, of the same persons. In our case - hidden mental structures. Diagnosis as a regular procedure is present not only in psychology, but also in medicine. Medical diagnostics includes diagnosis, indicating both the nature of the disease and the current state of the patient. The same is true of humanitarian socionics: in the course of diagnosis, both the essential type of the communicative system and its functional profile are determined. The stable part of the functional profile, if you remember, is called a subtype. For us it is important that a particular function is amenable to some kind of measurement, most often in arbitrary units, for example, in points.
The term "identification" is usually understood as a comparison with a sample for the purpose of identification. First of all, identification aims to determine whether the object is genuine or fake. Is this the person for whom he claims to be? This is where identification is needed. It is close to medical or forensic examination. It involves accurate data (fingerprints, DNA analysis) or formal documents certified by government agencies. This term is also used in the technical field, and with the same meaning, for example, product identification by barcode. In socionics, unfortunately (or joy?), There is no bar code.
Now let's take the term “typing” - distribution by type. Obviously, it has almost the same meaning as the classification, that is, the distribution by classes. In essence, this is sorting. The term “typing” is actively used by socionic information schools. It is not used in the HS, because during the diagnostic procedures we do not sort anyone and do not distribute it by type. This has already been done before us. We only recognize these types, that is, we diagnose.
Interestingly, the fourth procedure, which is the most unsteady and irrational, is absent as a legal term. For her, just did not stick an adequate name. Let's conditionally name its decoding. For example, the “interpretation” of symbols is the extraction of archetypical images from free associations or the content of dreams. This is done by Jungian analysts. However, decoding for socionics, it seems, is the fourth ousted, since, as a type identification procedure, it is much less frequently used. And, nevertheless, it is present everywhere as an element of interpretation of the collected data.
And one more note. Identification nevertheless is closer to typing, and diagnostics - to decoding. Why? The first two actions suggest that interpretation and conclusion are just a matter of technique, since the result from the data always follows unambiguously. That is, they rely on the " + L" - the logic of clear structures. In the second case, a common feature is the evaluation of the collected data as contradictory and context dependent, as they relate to diffuse, fuzzy objects. And here, no special interpretation can be done. That is, reliance is made on “ –L” - the logic of fuzzy structures.
From here follows a simple conclusion. For modern humanitarian socionics, only one term is fully applicable - “diagnostics”, because it reflects the essence of its work with fuzzy multi-level structures. The same term, as is well known, prevails in the current psychology. Humanitarian socionics does not oppose psychology itself (as some other schools do), but cooperates with it. Therefore, we actively use this term that has stood the test of time.
Visit qfour.blogspot!: Diagnostics, identification, typing
These terms in socionics occur at every step, but there is no order in their use. All of them mean identifying a sociotype and, it would seem, should be equal. But everything is not so simple because of the important nuances in their meaning. Let's see what semantics is hidden in them and to what extent they are suitable for us to use regularly.
The term "diagnosis" means "distinction, pattern recognition," for example, of the same persons. In our case - hidden mental structures. Diagnosis as a regular procedure is present not only in psychology, but also in medicine. Medical diagnostics includes diagnosis, indicating both the nature of the disease and the current state of the patient. The same is true of humanitarian socionics: in the course of diagnosis, both the essential type of the communicative system and its functional profile are determined. The stable part of the functional profile, if you remember, is called a subtype. For us it is important that a particular function is amenable to some kind of measurement, most often in arbitrary units, for example, in points.
The term "identification" is usually understood as a comparison with a sample for the purpose of identification. First of all, identification aims to determine whether the object is genuine or fake. Is this the person for whom he claims to be? This is where identification is needed. It is close to medical or forensic examination. It involves accurate data (fingerprints, DNA analysis) or formal documents certified by government agencies. This term is also used in the technical field, and with the same meaning, for example, product identification by barcode. In socionics, unfortunately (or joy?), There is no bar code.
Now let's take the term “typing” - distribution by type. Obviously, it has almost the same meaning as the classification, that is, the distribution by classes. In essence, this is sorting. The term “typing” is actively used by socionic information schools. It is not used in the HS, because during the diagnostic procedures we do not sort anyone and do not distribute it by type. This has already been done before us. We only recognize these types, that is, we diagnose.
Interestingly, the fourth procedure, which is the most unsteady and irrational, is absent as a legal term. For her, just did not stick an adequate name. Let's conditionally name its decoding. For example, the “interpretation” of symbols is the extraction of archetypical images from free associations or the content of dreams. This is done by Jungian analysts. However, decoding for socionics, it seems, is the fourth ousted, since, as a type identification procedure, it is much less frequently used. And, nevertheless, it is present everywhere as an element of interpretation of the collected data.
And one more note. Identification nevertheless is closer to typing, and diagnostics - to decoding. Why? The first two actions suggest that interpretation and conclusion are just a matter of technique, since the result from the data always follows unambiguously. That is, they rely on the " + L" - the logic of clear structures. In the second case, a common feature is the evaluation of the collected data as contradictory and context dependent, as they relate to diffuse, fuzzy objects. And here, no special interpretation can be done. That is, reliance is made on “ –L” - the logic of fuzzy structures.
From here follows a simple conclusion. For modern humanitarian socionics, only one term is fully applicable - “diagnostics”, because it reflects the essence of its work with fuzzy multi-level structures. The same term, as is well known, prevails in the current psychology. Humanitarian socionics does not oppose psychology itself (as some other schools do), but cooperates with it. Therefore, we actively use this term that has stood the test of time.
Comments
Post a Comment