Why hitta's system is so polarizing

[Jonathan]

It's interesting that hitta's system is so polarizing. Despite the fact that he has obviously worked hard and thought very carefully about his system, people who are usually very mild-mannered on this forum suddenly react with extreme anger when confronted with his system. Other people tend to defend him.

NON-NEUTRAL DEFINITIONS MEANS POLARIZING
Actually, the reason is quite simple. It's not just because of the theoretical underpinnings I've mentioned in the past and hitta's insistence that a person typed correctly in traditional Socionics should come out the same in his system.

What's so polarizing is that his understanding of the +/- IM elements, or at least his wording for them, isn't value-neutral.

Typically in Socionics and Jungian typology in general, the intent is to understand every dichotomy in such a way that people on both sides can think of their side as better (at least for them). That's why Socionics uses the term "values." Expat and others, for example, have discussed why they like Te>Fe, but someone could just as easily defend liking Fe>Te. It's equal.

But in hitta's system, we've found that fully half of the types value Fi-/Fe+, which means that although they seem outwardly nice, they don't understand "true love." Clearly, most people, including people of those types, would agree that it would be much better to be Fi+/Fe-, that is, actually being able to love people even if one may appear cold externally.

To compound the non-neutrality here, every single type that "doesn't understand what love is" according to hitta also tends to make assumptions and stereotypes rather than truly "understanding" things. Now although hitta has hedged and said that "stereotyping" is just "systemmic logic," the fact is that with the words he has chosen (which I believe reflects the way he understands it), it's clearly better to really understand things than to merely make assumptions and stereotypes. Even the types whom he sees as stereotyping would agree.

LEFT-SHIFTING
So, fully half of all types sound really bad, and those are all Gamma and Beta types. In Reinin terms, this would be the "resolutes" as opposed to the "reasonables." Now one may wonder why being resolute (valuing Ni/Se as opposed to Ne/Si) would cause one to stereotype and not love. One way to view this is to understand hitta's system as merely a "left-shifting" of the Socion. That is, if you reinterpret + to means "values" and - to mean "doesn't value," then every type is equivalent to the type to the left of it in a standard chart. By this interpretation, the "bad" types are actually the merry/subjective types (people who value Ti, which is systemmic logic, and don't value Fi, which hitta associates with being able to love).

IDEA VS. ANTI-IDEA PEOPLE
Furthermore, hitta has characterized all Gammas and Deltas (serious/objectivist) in a way that paints them as conformist and blockers of all the great ideas coming from the Alphas and Betas. (In the left-shifted interpretation, it's actually the Betas and Gammas, or resolute types...or people who value Ni>Ne.)

ANGELIC ALPHAS VS. BIG BAD GAMMAS
The end result is that in hitta's system, Alphas look great, and every other type looks bad, with the Gammas coming out the worst. Although there's some history of Alpha-centrism in Socionics, hitta takes it to a new level. Alphas are idea people who understand true love and really try to understand things. Gammas are conformist idea-blockers who don't truly love and just make assumptions and stereotypes. No wonder people are upset.

[Jonathan]

BTW, one quick word on this left-shifting concept. Clearly, I'm not saying that hitta's descriptions sound like the left-shifted ones (i.e., the ILI description doesn't sound like IEI). This is in part because his descriptions seem partly based on his personal observations. However, it's interesting that the "left-shifted" types are similar to a certain subset of cross-types in Tcaud's old system. For example, hittian-ILI would have Beta values but NT club strengths, thus being sort of like Tcaud's old "NiTi" cross-type. If one considers the possibilities of shifting quadra values relative to strong/weak functions, one has 64 types (or possibly 16*16 types if one tries to weight quadra values more individually all model A, which may be similar to Tcaud's dual-type concept).

[FDG]

Great analysis.

[Gilly]

Heart-wrenching.

And probably the most intelligent thing you've ever said on this forum.

[tcaudilllg]

If one considers the possibilities of shifting quadra values relative to strong/weak functions, one has 64 types (or possibly 16*16 types if one tries to weight quadra values more individually all model A, which may be similar to Tcaud's dual-type concept).

Actually if one really does have 64 types (!?) then one would get ... my god, factoring in dual-type would make such a system unmanagebly large given our current population levels. (65K types!?!?!?) There is no need for a system of differentiation so complex in our time. At the very least, we would not have the understanding required to use it effectively.

I actually think hitta's system is illuminating. He's projecting his dislike of authoritarian/conformist method and process (the domain of empiricists and libertarians) onto his weaker functions. I believe I do the same, although I try to stay clear of partisan connotations when I write about functions. If you notice, his system seems like a marked contrast to the Socioscope.com descriptions, which clearly approach the subject from an authoritative political dimension.

[krieger]

If one considers the possibilities of shifting quadra values relative to strong/weak functions, one has 64 types (or possibly 16*16 types if one tries to weight quadra values more individually all model A, which may be similar to Tcaud's dual-type concept).

I don't see how you arrive at that number.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Logos]

It's interesting that hitta's system is so polarizing. Despite the fact that he has obviously worked hard and thought very carefully about his system, people who are usually very mild-mannered on this forum suddenly react with extreme anger when confronted with his system. Other people tend to defend him.

[Then Jonathan says some insight stuff here]

You have some good points, but you can definitely tell that you are a Victim. But your explanation fails to take into account that there are also Alphas and Deltas who also cannot stand to read the stuff that you think makes them written out to sound like saints (which I do not see as much).

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

I agree with Diana.

ANGELIC ALPHAS VS. BIG BAD GAMMAS
The end result is that in hitta's system, Alphas look great, and every other type looks bad, with the Gammas coming out the worst. Although there's some history of Alpha-centrism in Socionics, hitta takes it to a new level. Alphas are idea people who understand true love and really try to understand things. Gammas are conformist idea-blockers who don't truly love and just make assumptions and stereotypes. No wonder people are upset.

I think your analysis has a lot of merit, but not about your conclusion - "people are upset". Your analysis could be interpreted as saying that hitta's understanding of the types is in the main sound, even if with a "left-shift" or whatever, or not being "value-neutral". I'm all for not being value-neutral. I'd welcome a description of ENTjs, and other Gammas, from the point of view of Alphas that would make them look like jerks - provided that the description still made sense and was recognizable, similar in intention to the "uncovered" descriptions in Ganin's site.

But that's not what happens - hitta's descriptions just show that he doesn't understand the types, or classical socionics, even if he thinks he's parroting Gulenko, and probably not even the real-life people he uses as input.

For instance, he says that "ISFjs don't understand true love" which he of course knows since he "lives with an ISFj". Now, if that were a true PoV of an INTj about a true ISFj, that would be very interesting, especially if with a description of what an INTj understands to be "true love". But I don't think it's not useful, not even to that extent.

[FDG]

How could anybody like non neutrality? The mean of a biased estimator is NOT an unbiased one...

[Expat]

How could anybody like non neutrality? The mean of a biased estimator is NOT an unbiased one...

Let me put it this way.

I prefer neutrality as a goal to be aimed at. However, at the same time I am aware that myself, and others, tend not to be neutral.

Thus, I find it interesting to have biased viewpoints from others, since those will tend to color, now and then, even their unbiased views.

[Gilly]

If someone has a bias, and you are aware of their motivations, then you can at least, in part, get a potential window into what they actually know by taking that bias into account with regards to their opinions.