Smilexian Socionics 101.2
My question is why isn't this article used or referenced in the forum (at least recently). To me that is the best article I have encountered here, and it is very clear and logical. Also, it does not seem to contain subjective elements when analyzing the types, and it looks at the similarities between them as well by categorizing them groups, sharing a common "theme."
It's strange to me that I don't see anyone use it, is it because people here don't agree with it? Maybe I'm missing something.
A few possible reasons might be:Originally Posted by Sereno
1) Some people here do not like Smilingeyes as a person.
2) Some do not think his ideas have merit (which may or may not be related to the above)
3) Some simply do not understand what he's written, perhaps because it is complex or because they have not even read it all the way through (and, again, this may be related to the above as well)
That's interesting that you find it easy to understand - especially since you, like me, consider yourself INFj.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
I can see those possibilities being true. Also, I think they find his theory incompatible with classical socionics, which I do not think is entirely true. It seems the main reason for opposition comes from the proposition that type changes and the devaluing of the model-A
Smilexian Socionics 101.2 also happens to be one of the favourite articles in the forum and reread it frequently.
That's interesting that you find it easy to understand - especially since you, like me, consider yourself INFj.
A couple of other Deltans seem to find him and what he writes interesting as well.
On the sidenote, the article seemed to be created for an INFj. I was quite surprised at how much the interaction between the teacher and student reminded me of my own interactions with an ESTj, particularly when I was asking for some information.
What he writes and how is something I like and find interesting. What to believe in and what not is my choice, I don't feel the need to believe in every word of that theory to find useful and interesting things in it.
One way or another I like that thread, just a bit hard to understand fully (although it is written in a very nice and understandable manner).
Because the forum is full of idiots who think that they understand the types better than Smilingeyes.
And you are right.
The types are described as they really are, as they are seen by serious, competent socionists, in contrast to the deluded herd of morons occupying this forum, spreading their bullshit like dung of sheeps.
A few people are using it and accept its value. The majority is either too lazy to read anything of any value or is actively dissociating themselves from it by letting their own brains spin, spin, and spin again, creating wonderful webs of delusions.
Even if you mean just that particular article in isolation (as opposed to the whole of Smilexian socionics), I'd say it's because:
- it uses Reinin dichotomies, rather than information elements, as the starting point to develop its reasonings and conclusions, and this is an approach not everyone sees as the best;
- having started to use Reinin dichotomies, it then uses their combination to further develop its points - as in, say, combinations of narrator+obstinate etc, an approach that is unique to Smilexian socionics as far as I know and, again, not everyone sees it as the best approach.
The above is pretty straightforward, no need to even refer to people's personal dislikes.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Can't you believe that feeling, can't you believe it,
Can't you believe your eyes?
It's the real thing girl.
Personally I base all my typings and all my socionics methods upon that article, and those of the series (with the addition of gulenko thinking styles). Of course it is also largely because my own personal undestanding of socionics was aligned with that article before even reading it, but that completed everything.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I absolutely love this article. In fact it was the first thing I read about socionics from this forum! When I first came to the forum, and before posting, I spent a lot of time I reading posts by smilingeyes because I thought he explained things well.
I liked reading the Si thread especially.
hmm... Minde, do people really not like him on the forum? He seems like a great guy. I wish he posted on here these days. I think by the time I joined he stopped posting.
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
I use smilingeyes' materials extensively and occasionally reference them.
I do disagree with smilingeyes on several fundamental points:
- I do not believe type changes as a regular phenomenom (though I can entertain that it happens as an anomaly, which may have occured in smilingeyes' own case)
- I do not use the "large-cycle" dichotomies and question their validity
- I am sceptical of the introvert/extrovert dichotomy as applied to functions (not types themselves) and use it as little as possible
I do not understand.
Type is changeable. Maybe?
Last edited by Trevor; 10-11-2008 at 02:41 PM. Reason: heavy doubt
Hmmm, I'd have to look into these things. I actually have yet to even completely understand the article, hehe.
You're so pretentious...
It just occurred to me that Phaedrus is Ni-EIE...amazing...
amazingly wrong, perhaps...
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Get a grip. You are too sane.
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
