Talanov published an excellent criticism of Alexander Panchin
I'm just bringing this to attention; it's Talanov's words and not my own. It's in response to this video:
"Unfortunately, Alexander Panchin (whom I respect for many other things) is, as I see it, the enemy of the psychology of individual differences itself, as well as psychological tests and profiling techniques that differentiate people as such, and not just socionics. It is enough to listen to his ironic intonation at the beginning of the video, when he talks about the history of attempts to psychologically typologize people.
And, if it were otherwise, he would not repeat the same long-outdated nonsense from time to time, about the fact that socionics supposedly divides people into 16 isolated types (that is, without intermediate gradations and transitional cases) and so on...
In socionics, this has not been mentioned for 20 years, for a long time In its current mainstream, it uses absolutely the same methods and approaches as any other theory of traits in differential psychology, and comes to the same conclusions.
For a long time, modern socionics has been working only with normal (Gaussian) distributions of personality traits.
For a long time, the mainstream trends of modern socionics have completely abandoned outdated ideas about isolated, discrete psychotypes – they were peculiar only to the very first attempts to build socionic models, obviously simplified and coarsened, the simplification of which is always a common and even natural thing in the history of science. But to mention it, to delve into it at all, is to deprive yourself of a convenient object for criticism, right?
Therefore, long live the objects for criticism drawn from the "times of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea"!
The old (outdated) socionics turns out to be for A.Panchin only a convenient object to repeatedly express his negative "fear" about the very possibility of people having innate character traits on the basis of which one could predict their behavior and value orientations. Hence, by the way, his derogatory statements already addressed to Carl Jung, a man who for the first time in science identified such stable psychological personality traits as extraversion-introversion, logic-ethics, intuition-sensorics, and proposed, most importantly, an innovative apparatus of "mental functions" - oblique signs formed on the basis of the intersection of basic personality traits.
By the way, in socionics itself, such a mentality peculiar to Punchin (that is, rejection of the innate categorization of people) is also described, it belongs to the so-called "serious" or "descending" pole of personality traits. The type of ILE (the so-called "Don Quixote") in socionics does not belong to this pole, but the type of LIE ("Jack") belongs to it. Maybe that's why, according to some tests (unfortunately, not named by Punchin), he turned out to be Jack rather than a representative of ILE (some features of which Punchin also undoubtedly has).
Modern socionics differs from the BIG-5 and HEXACO personality models common in modern psychology in only one way - these models are based on 5 and, respectively, 6 personal factors, and socionics - on 15, where all these 6 factors are also included, but additional 9 factors are added to them, weaker and more for this reason, models that are widespread outside socionics are not taken into account. Everything else they have in common, including all research methods. But socionics eventually turns out to be ahead and more fruitful - because thanks to a larger set of variables (as well as thanks to the apparatus of functions missing in BIG-5), it gives much more detailed results for each person for purposes and within the framework of profiling, with much greater predictive power regarding his character and behavior. And for this purpose, automated computer procedures have long been developed in socionics, which automatically write out a predictive portrait of a person based on the passed test, and have nothing to do with the demagogy of talking heads on the Internet.
It's not nice, Alexander."
And, if it were otherwise, he would not repeat the same long-outdated nonsense from time to time, about the fact that socionics supposedly divides people into 16 isolated types (that is, without intermediate gradations and transitional cases) and so on...
In socionics, this has not been mentioned for 20 years, for a long time In its current mainstream, it uses absolutely the same methods and approaches as any other theory of traits in differential psychology, and comes to the same conclusions.
For a long time, modern socionics has been working only with normal (Gaussian) distributions of personality traits.
For a long time, the mainstream trends of modern socionics have completely abandoned outdated ideas about isolated, discrete psychotypes – they were peculiar only to the very first attempts to build socionic models, obviously simplified and coarsened, the simplification of which is always a common and even natural thing in the history of science. But to mention it, to delve into it at all, is to deprive yourself of a convenient object for criticism, right?
Therefore, long live the objects for criticism drawn from the "times of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea"!
The old (outdated) socionics turns out to be for A.Panchin only a convenient object to repeatedly express his negative "fear" about the very possibility of people having innate character traits on the basis of which one could predict their behavior and value orientations. Hence, by the way, his derogatory statements already addressed to Carl Jung, a man who for the first time in science identified such stable psychological personality traits as extraversion-introversion, logic-ethics, intuition-sensorics, and proposed, most importantly, an innovative apparatus of "mental functions" - oblique signs formed on the basis of the intersection of basic personality traits.
By the way, in socionics itself, such a mentality peculiar to Punchin (that is, rejection of the innate categorization of people) is also described, it belongs to the so-called "serious" or "descending" pole of personality traits. The type of ILE (the so-called "Don Quixote") in socionics does not belong to this pole, but the type of LIE ("Jack") belongs to it. Maybe that's why, according to some tests (unfortunately, not named by Punchin), he turned out to be Jack rather than a representative of ILE (some features of which Punchin also undoubtedly has).
Modern socionics differs from the BIG-5 and HEXACO personality models common in modern psychology in only one way - these models are based on 5 and, respectively, 6 personal factors, and socionics - on 15, where all these 6 factors are also included, but additional 9 factors are added to them, weaker and more for this reason, models that are widespread outside socionics are not taken into account. Everything else they have in common, including all research methods. But socionics eventually turns out to be ahead and more fruitful - because thanks to a larger set of variables (as well as thanks to the apparatus of functions missing in BIG-5), it gives much more detailed results for each person for purposes and within the framework of profiling, with much greater predictive power regarding his character and behavior. And for this purpose, automated computer procedures have long been developed in socionics, which automatically write out a predictive portrait of a person based on the passed test, and have nothing to do with the demagogy of talking heads on the Internet.
It's not nice, Alexander."
Comments
Post a Comment