The theory of Socionics is largely Ti in nature

[Joy]

I'm referring to the theory of (classsic) Socionics, of course.

Obviously there are going to be many different aspects to the subject of Socionics, but I'm talking about the theory itself. It's a very intuitive theory, but it's also largely Ti in nature.

This is an example of a Ti system:

• There are three components of information (internal vs. external, etc.). There are eight combinations of these components, and these combinations of components are called information aspects.
  
  There are two types of information aspects, rational and irrational, and there are two axes of each. This makes four axes, two rational and two irrational. Everyone values one rational axes and one irrational axes. There are 4 combinations of valued axes, and these combinations are called quadras.
  
  Each quadra has fours types, each led by one of the information aspects it values. The types are grouped into dual pairs based on whether their leading function is rational or irrational.
  
  All types are divided into introversion or extroversion based on their leading function.
  
  The rest of the theory revolved around model A (or another model), which is a set of functions. Each type has a different arrangement of functions, and types interact with each other in different ways based on these arrangements. These interactions are called intertype relations.

Of course, there are many other Ti systems in Socionics, more than I feel like getting into right now.

[FDG]

I think socionics is just what it is, and it works

[Joy]

I think socionics is just what it is, and it works

Wait, Socionics is what it is?

Since when? Why wasn't I told?!

[FDG]

I think socionics is just what it is, and it works

Wait, Socionics is what it is?

Since when? Why wasn't I told?!

Maybe it's like then, it's just what does?

[Creepy-bg]

if socionics works then it's

[Joy]

[Ezra]

What about Se?

[reyn_til_runa]

Joy, is it the dialectical nature that says Ti to you?

[Joy]

Joy, is it the dialectical nature that says Ti to you?

I'm not sure I follow.

It's the structures that define Socionics that are Ti.

[Logos]

And?

[Logos]

::double post::

[snegledmaca]

I agree with reyn. I think it's your perspective that makes you say socionics is .

[Blaze]

reyn is right it is the dialectic that makes it Ti.

but the application of socionics is much more dynamic and has to take into account all kinds of relational and contextual factors.

[Ezra]

Yeeeahhh man.

[krieger]

I'd say Socionics has a major component of a concrete Creating function as well, though... Socionics is pretty much presented as 'fiction' that should either be believed or disbelieved. IMO this is what a Creating function signifies: an established belief, an interpretation (static function) that is assumed to be 'real' (limiting) even though not taken in as such.

Hence why we see Result type NT's, INTj's and ENTj's, "utilizing" the theory (+ Creating: building forth on belief) and Process type NT's, ENTp's and INTp's, validating or criticizing it (- Creating: deconstructing belief).

[aestrivex]

i strongly, strongly disagree with joy. the theory is fundamentally based on information aspects and interconnectedness between information elements. the information elements describe different aspects of reality because they exist and not in order to reflect a mathematical consistency of a 2x2x2 model. part of this claim is made on the whole a "Te = external dynamics of objects" or whatever. imo this is such total bullshit that it isn't even worth talking about in the context of socionics.

[Ezra]

niffweed, socionics theory was created by an ILE. How is it not Ti?

[aestrivex]

niffweed, socionics theory was created by an ILE. How is it not Ti?

model A was created by an ILE. honestly i don't know a damn thing about anton kepinski other than the name, so i'll keep my mouth shut on his theory.



most of the aspects of the underlying structure of socionics are Ti, including model A. but the actual practice of identifying and making use of the information elements is anything but Ti.

[tcaudilllg]

There are scattered resources concerning Kempinsky on the 'net. From what I've been able to discern, Kempinsky's theory was of the aspects vs elements, and its immediate philosophical ramifications.

Augusta said the aspects/elements corresponded directly to Jung's type theory. From there she apparently conceived of asking the elements what they thought of each other, by questioning people who were strong in them.

[Ezra]

most of the aspects of the underlying structure of socionics are Ti, including model A. but the actual practice of identifying and making use of the information elements is anything but Ti.

I agree with you on this one. Perhaps a better statement from Joy would be "the structure of socionics theory is largely Ti in nature".

[Joy]

part of this claim is made on the whole a "Te = external dynamics of objects" or whatever. imo this is such total bullshit that it isn't even worth talking about in the context of socionics.

Go talk to Augusta and ask her to base her theory on something else then.

Seriously, if you think that "Te = external dynamics of objects" (etc.) is total bullshit, you think Socionics itself is total bullshit. I'm not talking about one version or another here either. All "versions" of Socionics, including splinter theories, must be based on Augusta's definitions of the information aspects (Te = external dynamics of objects, etc.) or they're not Socionics.

Also, even if you took this part out of my example, the theory of Socionics is still largely Ti. There are still axes and intertype relations and dichotomies and quadras and models, etc.

[Joy]

most of the aspects of the underlying structure of socionics are Ti, including model A. but the actual practice of identifying and making use of the information elements is anything but Ti.

I agree with you on this one. Perhaps a better statement from Joy would be "the structure of socionics theory is largely Ti in nature".

Read my initial post again.

[Logos]

part of this claim is made on the whole a "Te = external dynamics of objects" or whatever. imo this is such total bullshit that it isn't even worth talking about in the context of socionics.

Go talk to Augusta and ask her to base her theory on something else then.

Seriously, if you think that "Te = external dynamics of objects" (etc.) is total bullshit, you think Socionics itself is total bullshit. I'm not talking about one version or another here either. All "versions" of Socionics, including splinter theories, must be based on Augusta's definitions of the information aspects (Te = external dynamics of objects, etc.) or they're not Socionics.

Also, even if you took this part out of my example, the theory of Socionics is still largely Ti. There are still axes and intertype relations and dichotomies and quadras and models, etc.

We call this the Phaedrus Argument. :wink:

[Joy]

part of this claim is made on the whole a "Te = external dynamics of objects" or whatever. imo this is such total bullshit that it isn't even worth talking about in the context of socionics.

Go talk to Augusta and ask her to base her theory on something else then.

Seriously, if you think that "Te = external dynamics of objects" (etc.) is total bullshit, you think Socionics itself is total bullshit. I'm not talking about one version or another here either. All "versions" of Socionics, including splinter theories, must be based on Augusta's definitions of the information aspects (Te = external dynamics of objects, etc.) or they're not Socionics.

Also, even if you took this part out of my example, the theory of Socionics is still largely Ti. There are still axes and intertype relations and dichotomies and quadras and models, etc.

We call this the Phaedrus Argument. :wink:

How can you say you believe in Socionics if you don't believe in the Socionics definitions of Te, Fe, Se, Ne, Ti, Fi, Si, and Ni?

(And again, I'm not the one defining Te as the external dynamics of objects. I did not write the theory. Augusta did.)

[Gilly]

Joy is right.

[aestrivex]

How can you say you believe in Socionics if you don't believe in the Socionics definitions of Te, Fe, Se, Ne, Ti, Fi, Si, and Ni?

(And again, I'm not the one defining Te as the external dynamics of objects. I did not write the theory. Augusta did.)

call it absolutely whatever you like. you know me well enough to know that i have an understanding of what the IM elements mean in reality that at least in some areas roughly matches yours (unless you think i'm a complete moron, but i don't think anyone that any of you, at least who are arguing this, do. if you do, say so, so i can stop wasting time arguing with you.)


i categorically and unequivocally deny the usefulness of external dynamics of whatever. it has absolutely no bearing on understanding what the functions actually do and is therefore meaningless.

i remember the issue getting brought up in the conference in new york; steve kept talking about the external dynamics of whatever. in truth, he seemed to have a very limited view of a lot of aspects of socionics. he did look like an obvious ILE, but most of the stuff he said on the first day was seriously similar to the sort of shit that is thrown around by infamous parties on this forum (and he has continued his illustrious career of making no sense over at socionix. including the claim that steve somers, who is the first ILI who hath come down from the great beyond to lead us all, is ILE.) anyway, steve left after the first day i think because he had a busy schedule. after that time, somebody brought up the topic of what external dynamics of whatever actually meant and asked for an explanation. rick basically said that, as a Ti vulnerable type, he chose not to try to think about postulations such as that. it was actually a surprise to me how much rick and i agreed on what aspects of socionics were important and what were non-essential (my code word for BS). i thought that all of this was very telling.


if you think all of that this means that i don't believe in socionics at all, then by all means go ahead and think that.

[Joy]

"too confusing" or "not important to understand the use of" is different than "total bullshit"

[aestrivex]

"too confusing" or "not important to understand the use of" is different than "total bullshit"

not significantly.

[aestrivex]

i would love to stay and chat but i just got this intense, overwhelming feeling that my IQ is 7000, yours is -35, and that you live in a dumpster. since it's all necessarily true i don't see any reason to continue this conversation.

[Joy]

k

[liveandletlive]

i would love to stay and chat but i just got this intense, overwhelming feeling that my IQ is 7000, yours is -35, and that you live in a dumpster. since it's all necessarily true i don't see any reason to continue this conversation.

geez niffweed, idk... i'm starting to question your self-typing of an ILI

[liveandletlive]

i hate to be the one to throw in the monkey wrench in this thread but can't you make the argument that most theories and classification systems are ?

[Gilly]

i hate to be the one to throw in the monkey wrench in this thread but can't you make the argument that most theories and classification systems are ?

One step in the right direction!

[munenori2]

liveandletlive, yeah, I think for the most part you probably can say they have a primarily influence.

As to the 'dialectics' of the theory, I actually think this is a fairly telling descriptor. The IM elements as varying types are wont to use them at first glance do have an apparent contradiction to them. I think the virtue of socionics is that it is able to explain how it merely seems that way, and that these are all just parts of a synthetic whole. In that respect, I don't think the theory gets off the ground without a primarily intuitive perception of things (as Joy wisely pointed out). This isn't to say that the other elements don't come into play. There are aspects which, if the theory is correct, would demand the use of the other elements, in areas such as the actual typing of others, applying the theory towards some concrete plans, as well as coming into play with whatever it is we do (perhaps as lesser components, but components none the less). Everything has its proper place and time. Everything has its own contributions to make, sometimes (even often) in unexpected or unanticipated ways. I think most objections to threads like this are because someone feels that this is being forgotten or denied, that things are being over-simplified. FWIW, I don't think that was what was thought or intended.

Though with these thoughts, I defer to those of you who have a stronger grasp of the theory than I do. Just calling it like I see it.

[Joy]

i hate to be the one to throw in the monkey wrench in this thread but can't you make the argument that most theories and classification systems are ?

Theories, no. Classification systems, yes.

(though I would say "largely Ti in nature" rather than "are Ti")

liveandletlive, yeah, I think for the most part you probably can say they have a primarily influence.

As to the 'dialectics' of the theory, I actually think this is a fairly telling descriptor. The IM elements as varying types are wont to use them at first glance do have an apparent contradiction to them. I think the virtue of socionics is that it is able to explain how it merely seems that way, and that these are all just parts of a synthetic whole. In that respect, I don't think the theory gets off the ground without a primarily intuitive perception of things (as Joy wisely pointed out). This isn't to say that the other elements don't come into play. There are aspects which, if the theory is correct, would demand the use of the other elements, in areas such as the actual typing of others, applying the theory towards some concrete plans, as well as coming into play with whatever it is we do (perhaps as lesser components, but components none the less). Everything has its proper place and time. Everything has its own contributions to make, sometimes (even often) in unexpected or unanticipated ways. I think most objections to threads like this are because someone feels that this is being forgotten or denied, that things are being over-simplified. FWIW, I don't think that was what was thought or intended.

Though with these thoughts, I defer to those of you who have a stronger grasp of the theory than I do. Just calling it like I see it.

Yeah, though I think it sounds a bit contrived the way you're explaining it (in that I wouldn't call it synthetic).

For everything that exists, there are infinite aspects to it. Humans generally perceive/understand eight of these aspects. The theories names them and uses a model to explain how they work as information elements, but it can be compared to the classification of nature.

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species... While the system may have been described and named by documented by humans, one could argue that it's always been there (well, at least as long as things fitting into the system have existed). It's not a synthetic system, in mind, as creating a synthetic system would involve fabricating or changing things to fit into different parts of the system. If they're already there, then the system is just an aspect of an existing reality. A system of government would be a better example of a "synthetic" system because the system was created at some point and the people who fill different positions in the system are there (and their interactions with the system take place) only because that system had been created. Socionics would be a synthetic classification system only if after it was made people were created or changed to think and interact the way the systems describes.

Now, I would not say that nature is "largely Ti in nature". This classification system is just part of the Ti aspect of nature. Similarly, I would not say that humans are "largely Ti in nature". Socionics is (largely) just part of the Ti aspect of the human race, specifically human psyche and interactions. Of course, there are many other aspects to the human race, psyche, and interactions.

Even as an aspect of the human race, Socionics itself (the framework of which is Ti) also has other aspects to it, of course.

Obviously there are going to be many different aspects to the subject of Socionics, but I'm talking about the theory itself. It's a very intuitive theory, but it's also largely Ti in nature.