Socionix

[Gilly]

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

I hear over and over again the accusation of "adhering to a model," that somehow rejecting a model and "observing" the functions "objectively" is the way to go.

The people who make these claims are not practicing Socionics. Socionics specifically refers to the theory of information metabolism types as defined by Augusta in her cubic model and theory of intertype relationships. Anything that attempts to redefine this basic set of assumptions, or work outside, beyond, or in lieu of them, is no longer Socionics. That's as simple as it gets.

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? And why do they derive the name of their home forum from the word "Socionics?" What's the problem here? Are you not rebellious enough to just go out and give it your own name, start your own personality theory? Do you feel the need to cling to the name for some sense of security, credibility, or whatever? Get your own name! I should think that you'd prefer to, given your penchant for "rebellion" and "freedom of thought" and all of those other nice sounding chant-starters.

In short, stop hiding behind the guise of crudely smushing Jungian typology and Socionics together as though it forms some perception of reality that is still able to be coherently interpreted alongside Socionics, and have the balls to call it your own theory.

[Christy B]

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

I hear over and over again the accusation of "adhering to a model," that somehow rejecting a model and "observing" the functions "objectively" is the way to go.

The people who make these claims are not practicing Socionics. Socionics specifically refers to the theory of information metabolism types as defined by Augusta in her cubic model and theory of intertype relationships. Anything that attempts to redefine this basic set of assumptions, or work outside, beyond, or in lieu of them, is no longer Socionics. That's as simple as it gets.

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? And why do they derive the name of their home forum from the word "Socionics?" What's the problem here? Are you not rebellious enough to just go out and give it your own name, start your own personality theory? Do you feel the need to cling to the name for some sense of security, credibility, or whatever? Get your own name! I should think that you'd prefer to, given your penchant for "rebellion" and "freedom of thought" and all of those other nice sounding chant-starters.

In short, stop hiding behind the guise of crudely smushing Jungian typology and Socionics together as though it forms some perception of reality that is still able to be coherently interpreted alongside Socionics, and have the balls to call it your own theory.

Interesting Gilly....

[Khola aka Bee]

Dude I'm just here for the people ^.^

[Gilly]

The people I'm talking to aren't.

[Khola aka Bee]

The people I'm talking to aren't.

You just became a paradox.

[anndelise]

I was wondering who was going to be first to start critiquing some of the ideas of those who got banned. Seeing as how they can't answer any questions nor respond.

I wasn't sure if it was going to be you or one of the clique.
This thread answered my curiosity.

[JRiddy]

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

I hear over and over again the accusation of "adhering to a model," that somehow rejecting a model and "observing" the functions "objectively" is the way to go.

I hope that you have not understood me to be claiming some great degree of objectivity in my observations. I do not claim to approach socionics without a model of any kind. What I do suggest is that there is an over-emphasis on some very specific claims of Model A and the cubic model that makes it easy to reify the rather abstract and subtle concept of informational functions and aspects into something far more easily ostensible than they are. Of course you have to have some kind of "model" to interpret information you see. What I do question is the validity of models employed by so-called "classical socionics," as I question the validity of any model that suggests extremely discrete and discernible connections between abstractions as though they were some sort of imminently observable reality.

The people who make these claims are not practicing Socionics. Socionics specifically refers to the theory of information metabolism types as defined by Augusta in her cubic model and theory of intertype relationships. Anything that attempts to redefine this basic set of assumptions, or work outside, beyond, or in lieu of them, is no longer Socionics. That's as simple as it gets.

Gilly, while I find your zealous defense of Augusta admirable in a sense, I think you go too far in suggesting that the extent of "socionics" is defined explicitly and finally by Augusta. This is analogous to claiming that Physics was defined by Newton and Galileo, and therefore relativity and quantum mechanics, which question central assumptions made by those great minds, are not within the scope of physics altogether. I'm not claiming that I am an Einstein or Heisenberg or Bohr, but I am claiming that you can question assumptions and remain firmly and decidedly within the same field, and that this is in fact crucial to the advancement of understanding in these fields.

I think you misunderstand my criticism of the "model" as well. Though I do find Model A to be overwrought, and the cubic model unnecessarily complex, my biggest qualms are not with the models per se, but with a reliance on a faulty epistemology that ignores the complexity of human interaction. The reason why many of us "Socionix" people talk about "observing" functions is because we see this as the way in which the human brain works best. You simply cannot account for every single variable in personality. It is manifestly impossible. So what we do instead is observe people and let our minds find patterns that are more "felt" than explicitly thought out.

How did you learn to drive? Did you learn by determining models and equations for how the accelerator reacts to how hard you push it? Did you learn how to explicitly calculate distances between cars to judge how much room you have? Or did you, like most people, get out there and do it, after learning some of the ground rules, and let your mind's incredible capacity to learn teach your body how to do this extraordinarily complex task? If you are like most people, you don't even have to "think" about driving that much, especially not at a computational level. Though you can certainly learn ostensible, explicit things about driving, the real meat of the learning comes through doing it and feeling it out.

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? And why do they derive the name of their home forum from the word "Socionics?" What's the problem here? Are you not rebellious enough to just go out and give it your own name, start your own personality theory? Do you feel the need to cling to the name for some sense of security, credibility, or whatever? Get your own name! I should think that you'd prefer to, given your penchant for "rebellion" and "freedom of thought" and all of those other nice sounding chant-starters.

I've already explained why this is completely irrelevant, but let me reiterate: there exists no great definitions czar who defines what is and isn't socionics.

In short, stop hiding behind the guise of crudely smushing Jungian typology and Socionics together as though it forms some perception of reality that is still able to be coherently interpreted alongside Socionics, and have the balls to call it your own theory.

There are elements of all sorts of models within what is commonly seen as the "socionix" viewpoint. Jung certainly plays a role, as he has in Socionics and MBTI. Also there is a lot of Kepinski, who was the guy who kinda came up with the whole "information metabolism" idea. I wouldn't discount some people like William James and Husserl either. I would throw Kierkegaard in as well, but that applies to me more than some of the other guys. I really don't understand how trying to incorporate more influences makes any less "Socionics" than Augusta's work, as she herself incorporated dozens of different ideas and philosophies into her work.

The people I'm talking to aren't.

What are you here for, Gilly?

[anndelise]

I was wondering who was going to be first to start critiquing some of the ideas of those who got banned. Seeing as how they can't answer any questions nor respond.

I wasn't sure if it was going to be you or one of the clique.
This thread answered my curiosity.

Dummy.
Allie and JRiddy are still here to 'defend' the views of others.

[Slacker]

I agree with Gilly. If we are going to have any kind of useful discussion at all, we have to have a set of definitions we agree on, at least to some extent. If they've got something better, then I want to hear about it, but it would be based on a different set of assumptions and definitions and therefore wouldn't be Socionics. Even if it turns out to be better and more useful, it's something else.

I said in another thread that talking to Strrrng et. al. is sometimes like talking to someone about art but having different definitions of colors and shapes. "Look at that blue triangle." "That isn't a blue triangle! It's a green square! Why are you so set on these definitions of "blue" and "triangle"? They're wrong!" I think they're right, but regardless, if I'm discussing such things with other people we have to agree on things like "blue" and "triangle" in order to talk about the subject at all. If we have "blue" and "triangle" definied wrong, that's an entirely different argument and the discussion has to take place at a different level.

[JRiddy]

Dummy.
Allie and JRiddy are still here to 'defend' the views of others.

I'm here to present an argument for what I believe is correct. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do, however, take issue when individuals claim to be some kind of authority for what I see as arbitrary reasons.

I agree with Gilly. If we are going to have any kind of useful discussion at all, we have to have a set of definitions we agree on, at least to some extent. If they've got something better, then I want to hear about it, but it would be based on a different set of assumptions and definitions and therefore wouldn't be Socionics. Even if it turns out to be better and more useful, it's something else.

I said in another thread that talking to Strrrng et. al. is sometimes like talking to someone about art but having different definitions of colors and shapes. "Look at that blue triangle." "That isn't a blue triangle! It's a green square! Why are you so set on these definitions of "blue" and "triangle"? They're wrong!" I think they're right, but regardless, if I'm discussing such things with other people we have to agree on things like "blue" and "triangle" in order to talk about the subject at all. If we have "blue" and "triangle" definied wrong, that's an entirely different argument and the discussion has to take place at a different level.

I like this analogy. I agree with you that we have to have a set of definitions we can agree upon, or all arguments will just turn into shouting matches and pissing contests, as they often have.

What I do not agree with is this notion that my beliefs are something wholly different from socionics. While I do question some assumptions that are commonly held to be true on this forum, I also seek to explain human cognition, behavior, and interaction with information metabolism. Let me stress that the issue is not so much centered on whether we choose to use Model A, B (+/-), C (cubic), T (Talanov), or X ("Socionix" model), but on how we define functions and their role in psychology. I could relate each one of these models to one another, including the Talanov, and there still could be a tremendous amount of disagreement. This is because functions are inherently difficult to define. How many threads have we seen and how many wikisocion disputes have arised over different interpretations of functions? It is difficult business, and I in no way assume that I could hope to describe any function in such a way that the description, upon interpretation, would not yield significant misunderstanding, if approached from an extremely literal mindset.

I actually would like to for the discussion to "take place at a different level" so that we can try to ascertain what really are the core assumptions that we make. We are all often very ignorant of many of the assumptions we take for granted in our reasoning, and I am certainly no exception to this. I think we can talk about socionics at this level, and doing so would yield very positive results. If you would rather just assume you are right, please by all means ignore this challenge. But if you are not satisfied knowing that there are stones left uncovered and assumptions left unquestioned, then please, let us discuss those things.

[FDG]

Obviously, the system being used at socionix is exactly the same system which is being used here, given that in the real world the essence of what we are watching is unchanged by the nature of the forum we partake in mostly.

[Slacker]

I actually would like to for the discussion to "take place at a different level" so that we can try to ascertain what really are the core assumptions that we make. We are all often very ignorant of many of the assumptions we take for granted in our reasoning, and I am certainly no exception to this. I think we can talk about socionics at this level, and doing so would yield very positive results. If you would rather just assume you are right, please by all means ignore this challenge. But if you are not satisfied knowing that there are stones left uncovered and assumptions left unquestioned, then please, let us discuss those things.

Maybe that would be the good start of a new thread. There are lots of assumptions I take for granted as I discuss Socionics, and I find them useful, but I'm up for re-examining them. Just not in every freaking thread. But a thread for that purpose sounds like a good idea to me. We could even have a seperate section specifically for threads discussing whether the inherent assumptions currently used with Socionics are valid. My biggest problem with that kind of thing is that the assumptions and definitions are based on Ti logic and that is truly hard for me to work with. It's taken me a long time just to get to where I feel confident about how Model A works. But I'm up for the challenge and will reconsider if the things I read make more sense to me than Model A does. I would probably lurk and read the discussions between others more than anything else but I would be an avid reader of those discussions.

[Expat]

What holds model A together are the intertype relationships. So, for instance, an understanding of, say, that might describe the base function of someone typed as EIE or ESE, but does not describe why precisely that "" is the ignoring function of an ESI or EII is already invalid according to model A.

If you take a system that analyzes to exhaustion what supposedly is, but does not explain precisely why an LII welcomes it and expects it from others but an ILI has no time for it, then it's not model A anymore.

Which is fine if you are not looking into intertype relationships, but, again, that's what socionics (as per model A) is about. Which is why it moved away from Jungian definitions. Try to use Jung to explain why his Introverted Intuition type has his Extraverted Sensing as dual-seeking function. It won't work.

[Khamelion]

I agree with Gilly. If we are going to have any kind of useful discussion at all, we have to have a set of definitions we agree on, at least to some extent. If they've got something better, then I want to hear about it, but it would be based on a different set of assumptions and definitions and therefore wouldn't be Socionics. Even if it turns out to be better and more useful, it's something else.

I said in another thread that talking to Strrrng et. al. is sometimes like talking to someone about art but having different definitions of colors and shapes. "Look at that blue triangle." "That isn't a blue triangle! It's a green square! Why are you so set on these definitions of "blue" and "triangle"? They're wrong!" I think they're right, but regardless, if I'm discussing such things with other people we have to agree on things like "blue" and "triangle" in order to talk about the subject at all. If we have "blue" and "triangle" definied wrong, that's an entirely different argument and the discussion has to take place at a different level.

Well put, about the definitions of colors and shapes. That exactly how I feel about it. But not only does he tell you that you're wrong based on his ideas, he has to berate you and call you names at the same time.

[tcaudilllg]

I've spoken with Ashton at length, and I can say that based on my understanding of model A and its expressed regidity as Augusta describes it, that Ashton is not defined by it. He's an ENTj who has +Fe as his role function instead of -Fe. Big, big, and undocumented difference.

It basically means he's asocial. +Fe-Si works like this (it's actually quite rational): someone cuts off assistance to me; to win people's aid I express sympathy with them; I am ostracised for my sympathy. That's its most simplistic form. It's the asocial side of ESFj, the Freudian id.

Still working on the +Te-Ni bit.

[JRiddy]

What holds model A together are the intertype relationships. So, for instance, an understanding of, say, that might describe the base function of someone typed as EIE or ESE, but does not describe why precisely that "" is the ignoring function of an ESI or EII is already invalid according to model A.

Perhaps. But is model A the be-all end-all of socionics? I don't think it is. I do agree with you that the usefulness of model A lies primarily in explaining the intertype relationships. But I fear that the emphasis on this "precision" is exactly what allows some fairly egregious errors to proliferate, because the way an "ignoring function" is described could be applied to any number of things that are not type related. Sure, ESIs and EIIs "ignore" Fe past a certain point, as it seems superfluous and unnecessary to them. But when you combine that with an (admittedly limited) view of Fe as some sort of effervescence that is commonly associated with teenage girls, you can see how any number of people would relate to this being a "persistent annoyance." This is specifically why I find the emphasis on "precision" and description problematic: because it does not give anyone a really solid handle on what the functions or functional positions really are, or what they really feel like to the individual themselves.

If you take a system that analyzes to exhaustion what supposedly is, but does not explain precisely why an LII welcomes it and expects it from others but an ILI has no time for it, then it's not model A anymore.

This is where I take an Occam's razor-informed view of model A, and ask myself why I even bother separating Fe Dual-seeking and Fi Role, or Fi Hidden Agenda and Fe PoLR. There are never instances in which these mentioned pairings do not occur simultaneously in model A. Everything that is assumed by one implies the other. So it becomes a lot easier to discuss the functions that people value and not the ones that don't, since they are implied by the existence of the value for the former. In this since, we could almost describe Fi Hidden Agenda as seeking an absence of Fe, although I don't want to over-simplify things that far.

And yes, it's not really model A in this case, but that doesn't mean it's not valid or even that it's not socionics.

Which is fine if you are not looking into intertype relationships, but, again, that's what socionics (as per model A) is about. Which is why it moved away from Jungian definitions. Try to use Jung to explain why his Introverted Intuition type has his Extraverted Sensing as dual-seeking function. It won't work.

Jung sheds some light on things, and you can't deny his influence on socionics, although I do agree that reverting completely to his definitions is not helpful. Personally, I don't even like Jung that much--I find his work dense and turgid--but I'm not going to sit here and pretend like some of what he thought hasn't made its way into my understanding through various other means.

I'm curious; how do you explain how Ni and Se relate? The common idea that seems to be shared among my friends is that they are inherently complimentary, so much so that it's hard to speak of them "existing" without another. (I don't really want to delve too deeply into the ontology of functions, as I believe most ontological discussions are hopelessly bound to personal ideals and perceptions of various phenomena which we dress up as logic, but anyways...) I can explain it better with Ne and Si, which, in a very short summary, work together with Ne dividing and aggregating inherent attributes of objects (yes, this is vague, I realize) and Si providing an "environmental" context, replete with an awareness of the various interactions that act upon a system.

What's your take?

[JRiddy]

I've spoken with Ashton at length, and I can say that based on my understanding of model A and its expressed regidity as Augusta describes it, that Ashton is not defined by it. He's an ENTj who has +Fe as his role function instead of -Fe. Big, big, and undocumented difference.

It basically means he's asocial. +Fe-Si works like this (it's actually quite rational): someone cuts off assistance to me; to win people's aid I express sympathy with them; I am ostracised for my sympathy. That's its most simplistic form. It's the asocial side of ESFj, the Freudian id.

Still working on the +Te-Ni bit.

This is actually really interesting, as it actually kinda seems to jive with model x ideas of subtypes to an extent, albeit with a much more systematic and "static" (in the IM sense) way of describing it.

Although, speaking as someone who considers Ashton a personal friend, I wouldn't consider him "asocial" in the least. Can you clarify what you mean by this?

[FDG]

Aynway, if somebody wants something better both than model A and model X, there's smilingeyes's model (not the mathematico-mechanical socionics, but the 101.2 series of threads).

[Rick]

Perhaps. But is model A the be-all end-all of socionics? I don't think it is. I do agree with you that the usefulness of model A lies primarily in explaining the intertype relationships. But I fear that the emphasis on this "precision" is exactly what allows some fairly egregious errors to proliferate, because the way an "ignoring function" is described could be applied to any number of things that are not type related. Sure, ESIs and EIIs "ignore" Fe past a certain point, as it seems superfluous and unnecessary to them. But when you combine that with an (admittedly limited) view of Fe as some sort of effervescence that is commonly associated with teenage girls, you can see how any number of people would relate to this being a "persistent annoyance." This is specifically why I find the emphasis on "precision" and description problematic: because it does not give anyone a really solid handle on what the functions or functional positions really are, or what they really feel like to the individual themselves.



This is where I take an Occam's razor-informed view of model A, and ask myself why I even bother separating Fe Dual-seeking and Fi Role, or Fi Hidden Agenda and Fe PoLR. There are never instances in which these mentioned pairings do not occur simultaneously in model A. Everything that is assumed by one implies the other. So it becomes a lot easier to discuss the functions that people value and not the ones that don't, since they are implied by the existence of the value for the former. In this since, we could almost describe Fi Hidden Agenda as seeking an absence of Fe, although I don't want to over-simplify things that far.

And yes, it's not really model A in this case, but that doesn't mean it's not valid or even that it's not socionics.



Jung sheds some light on things, and you can't deny his influence on socionics, although I do agree that reverting completely to his definitions is not helpful. Personally, I don't even like Jung that much--I find his work dense and turgid--but I'm not going to sit here and pretend like some of what he thought hasn't made its way into my understanding through various other means.

I'm curious; how do you explain how Ni and Se relate? The common idea that seems to be shared among my friends is that they are inherently complimentary, so much so that it's hard to speak of them "existing" without another. (I don't really want to delve too deeply into the ontology of functions, as I believe most ontological discussions are hopelessly bound to personal ideals and perceptions of various phenomena which we dress up as logic, but anyways...) I can explain it better with Ne and Si, which, in a very short summary, work together with Ne dividing and aggregating inherent attributes of objects (yes, this is vague, I realize) and Si providing an "environmental" context, replete with an awareness of the various interactions that act upon a system.

What's your take?

I agree wholly with the emphasis on intertype interaction. Believe me, I've seen a lot of variations on socionics. What virtually always happens is that as soon as a new theoretical "take" on socionics diverges too much from "ordinary" socionics in theory and practice, the concept and importance of intertype relations changes significantly. In extreme cases you start hearing things like, "duality is something for the chosen few that is extremely rarely observed in real life" (Tipolog et al.). Sentiments such as "sub-types exert a greater influence on intertype interaction than types do," etc. (Gulenko et al.) are also common.

Basically, I would judge the utility and soundness of any "variety" of socionics by the robustness of its concept of intertype relations. If this aspect is pushed to the periphery of the theory, then we are talking of a fundamentally new version of the theory. In classical, mainstream socionics intertype relations rightfully occupy a central position in people's minds and practice.

As Expat said, intertype interaction is the limiting factor against which definitions in socionics are "checked." For instance, whatever your definition of :Li:, it better be "dualizable" in practice by , however you define that. Et cetera.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

If someone wants to post about model X, i'll try to understand it. But some questions, will it result in an increase in typing skills, an increase in understanding intertype relations? Will it give a better understanding of the types IRL? And does it agree with the dichotomies and the temperaments?

Is it another model to explain the theory with no real practical application? (or improved practical application based on more familiar models, like model A)

[Lotus]

Gilly,

where is all of this coming from? I don't think I've ever tried to shove a model down anyone's throat, posted about it's superiority, nor have I claimed to be "rebellious" or whatever. As far as I recall, neither has Riddy.

Now that leaves "Nicky" and dolphin. Two users who were banned yesterday––which I'm sure you're fully aware of. I'm not going to argue whether this behavior does or does not apply to them. I think they'd rather do that themselves.

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

Now now, what are you? Some little kid tapping a fish tank with his face pressed up against the glass? If this thread really "goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin" then why did you choose to post it as soon as they can no longer respond?

[Rick]

(Actually, JRiddy, Model A could really be cut to 2 functions, not 4, since the first 2 determine the placement of all other functions)

[JRiddy]

(Actually, JRiddy, Model A could really be cut to 2 functions, not 4, since the first 2 determine the placement of all other functions)

I know. Which is why, as I've mentioned before, I don't really care about the ontological reality of IM aspects or functions so much as I care about which perspective provides the clearest and most unobtrusive path to understanding what they are. I can see arguments for using 2, 4, or all 8 functions for this; I just prefer 4. I have specific reasons for this, but I'm kinda cramped for time right now, so I'd be glad to get into that more later.

Thanks for responding, though, Rick. I appreciate people actually debating and discussing the issues rather than pissing matches or comings-down-from-on-high. I haven't had a really good debate in...oh it seems like years. I crave it though...argument is the purest sport. Wow do I ever sound like an ENTp.

[JRiddy]

I know. Which is why, as I've mentioned before, I don't really care about the ontological reality of IM aspects or functions so much as I care about which perspective provides the clearest and most unobtrusive path to understanding what they are.

Wow, that was a gaping self-contradiction. What I mean is the "most unobtrusive path to understanding how they determine types and intertype relations." I intend to emphasize the practical nature of seeing IM work out in the world meaningfully over some kind of metaphysics thing.

Hope that's clearer.

[tcaudilllg]

So Ashton and Freud both have [what are typically] Aristocratic sets of foreground and background functions? One may not need a new typology to explain that.

I can agree with what Expat said of intertype relations, which may go to show how valuable the Kempinski piece of theory is [or is not.]

Now that I think about it, I believe that +Te-Ne is the invisible hand concept proper. Ashton repeatedly insisted that anarchy was the ideal means of capitalism: laissez-faire for everyone, without reservation.

Given that Adam Smith's theory is one of self-interest in the context of social relationships, it seems to me accurate to surmise that he conceived of it by observing self-interest as the foundation of the invisible hand principle. However, that's a very simplistic reading of a very complicated mental device.

Let me clarify what I meant by Freud. The id of which Freud spoke is, phemenologically speaking, the counter-sign form of the ego. -Ti+Ne has a +Ti-Ne id, the purpose being to ask, "what can (we) do with this knowledge we have obtained by experiment?". Of course the id thinks not in terms of "we", being asocial, but in terms of 'I'. "My potential is increased by means of this theoretical understanding, therefore I can advance my position in so far as understanding of the theory is applicable."

Ashton has, in essence, a self-centered form of delta Te coupled with Beta Ni. So to say, a person's sense of worth is dependent on their behavior.

[tcaudilllg]

I know. Which is why, as I've mentioned before, I don't really care about the ontological reality of IM aspects or functions so much as I care about which perspective provides the clearest and most unobtrusive path to understanding what they are. I can see arguments for using 2, 4, or all 8 functions for this; I just prefer 4. I have specific reasons for this, but I'm kinda cramped for time right now, so I'd be glad to get into that more later.

Thanks for responding, though, Rick. I appreciate people actually debating and discussing the issues rather than pissing matches or comings-down-from-on-high. I haven't had a really good debate in...oh it seems like years. I crave it though...argument is the purest sport. Wow do I ever sound like an ENTp.

I understand now. You've got the same problem John McCain does: that which doesn't interest you is less important from an objective standpoint, in your view, than that which does. Which is objectively incorrect, because your information processing dispositions preclude you from working with the whole picture.

You're a purist.

[tcaudilllg]

This is actually really interesting, as it actually kinda seems to jive with model x ideas of subtypes to an extent, albeit with a much more systematic and "static" (in the IM sense) way of describing it.

Although, speaking as someone who considers Ashton a personal friend, I wouldn't consider him "asocial" in the least. Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Sure, when I know how. I've got a decent grasp of how the transcendent function works, which unites the social and asocial in common purpose. But the "rescendent" function is another story. The short answer is that Ashton's social inclinations are akin to a "mask of sanity" (I'm sure you heard of that one) which he uses to find social outlets for his asocial tendencies. You might say that he uses the cause of socionics evangelism as an outlet for his rage; but the former is also a rationale for his having rage, so it goes both ways.

Strrrng is similar, but different type.

[JRiddy]

Now that I think about it, I believe that +Te-Ne is the invisible hand concept proper. Ashton repeatedly insisted that anarchy was the ideal means of capitalism: laissez-faire for everyone, without reservation.

Given that Adam Smith's theory is one of self-interest in the context of social relationships, it seems to me accurate to surmise that he conceived of it by observing self-interest as the foundation of the invisible hand principle. However, that's a very simplistic reading of a very complicated mental device.

Let me clarify what I meant by Freud. The id of which Freud spoke is, phemenologically speaking, the counter-sign form of the ego. -Ti+Ne has a +Ti-Ne id, the purpose being to ask, "what can (we) do with this knowledge we have obtained by experiment?". Of course the id thinks not in terms of "we", being asocial, but in terms of 'I'. "My potential is increased by means of this theoretical understanding, therefore I can advance my position in so far as understanding of the theory is applicable."

Ashton has, in essence, a self-centered form of delta Te coupled with Beta Ni. So to say, a person's sense of worth is dependent on their behavior.

This post is going well outside the scope of this thread. I'd be glad to discuss it elsewhere, but I'm not sure what you want to discuss exactly, as I don't really get what you are talking about. Talk about it on Socionix; since you are discussing Ashton, it only seems reasonable that you would do it in a place where he can respond himself.

[JRiddy]

I understand now. You've got the same problem John McCain does: that which doesn't interest you is less important from an objective standpoint, in your view, than that which does. Which is objectively incorrect, because your information processing dispositions preclude you from working with the whole picture.

I work hard not to claim what things are important from an "objective standpoint," although I know all to well that I often fail in this matter. I agree that I can't see the "whole picture", and that axiom is the crux of the majority of my beliefs about socionix or almost anything. But honestly, are John McCain and I alone in this? Doesn't every one at some level consider the things they care about or that interest them more important?

Regardless, you omitted the correction I made where I tried to explain that I value finding ways to explain and transmit understanding of socionics information more than I do discerning to a high degree of precision what they are. If someone else is more interested in that, that's fine. We just have different values.

You're a purist.

What are you insinuating? From my perspective, which is the only one I can comment on meaningfully, I despise "purism." I prefer to integrate things from a broad cross-section of fields and viewpoints into my own understanding. If you want to call this purism, then please let me know what not being a purist looks like.

[JRiddy]

Sure, when I know how. I've got a decent grasp of how the transcendent function works, which unites the social and asocial in common purpose. But the "rescendent" function is another story. The short answer is that Ashton's social inclinations are akin to a "mask of sanity" (I'm sure you heard of that one) which he uses to find social outlets for his asocial tendencies. You might say that he uses the cause of socionics evangelism as an outlet for his rage; but the former is also a rationale for his having rage, so it goes both ways.

Strrrng is similar, but different type.

Again, if you want to discuss them, please do it on Socionix.

In all honesty, I was trying to offer a token of respect, and to let you know that I consider your views interesting, but only insofar as you explain them more clearly. So please, instead of throwing around your characterizations of me and my friends, attempt to explain yourself to me, to see if we have some common ground from which we can form a meaningful discussion.

[Gilly]

Predictable though it was that this thread would develop approximately as it has, I think it's entirely unnecessary. I can say with complete confidence, both from theoretical debates with Ashton and his adherents, and from observation of the methods and criteria they use for typing, that those who deviate form the essential components of the theory are not practicing the same form of classification, and the two are not compatible, either for the purpose of typing or theoretical modeling, and that's all there is to it.

[tcaudilllg]

Again, if you want to discuss them, please do it on Socionix.

In all honesty, I was trying to offer a token of respect, and to let you know that I consider your views interesting, but only insofar as you explain them more clearly. So please, instead of throwing around your characterizations of me and my friends, attempt to explain yourself to me, to see if we have some common ground from which we can form a meaningful discussion.

I speak to inform the Left, thank you very much. I also speak from a very informed opinion. I know much more about human nature than you might think.

The question, as I see it, is why you even processed that gross misaccuracy in the first place. I get the impression that you realized what you wrote after you wrote it, but while writing it didn't observe that you contradicted yourself. I would not do that, because I would realize the contradiction as I thought it. You were giving unjust weight to your viewpoint over the viewpoint of others. The functions are integral to understanding the relations. Let me show you why.

http://www.romhacking.net/forum/inde...c,7239.90.html

Conversation between users InVerse and Nightcrawler. Middle of the page.

As I've stated before, you and I have completely opposite ways of looking at pretty much everything. I believe I'm a fairly open-minded guy. I can generally understand both sides of an issue. That doesn't mean that I AGREE with both sides or that I don't think that one side or the other is populated by complete fucking morons (speaking in general terms, not directing it at this particular issue at all.) but at least I can understand why those morons believe what they do. For instance, I fully understand the beliefs of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden, I can see where their points of view come from. (And if they managed to double fatality each other, I'd donate my X-Box 360 to Toys for Tots to thank whatever God I didn't realize existed was responsible for it.)

But when it comes to you, I am at a complete loss. That's why any time I bring up an issue or ask a question, I generally fail to follow up. I flat out don't get it. Even something as simple as computer code. I look at someone who codes something in a different way from myself and at least I understand their reasoning, even if I disagree with it. But the few times I've tried to discuss the coding of this site with you, I'm left so dumbfounded that I can't even respond. That's not to say you're wrong, I just don't get it.

And if I can't fathom your reasoning on something as relatively concrete as code, there's no hope when it comes to abstract concepts.

http://www.romhacking.net/forum/inde...,7239.105.html

My explanation:

@InVerse:

I can tell you're the very desire self-conscious type who likes to rely on impulse.... In any case, your problem with Nightcrawler is that you and he are what people who study the socionics theory of relationships call "quasi-identicals". Your relation can be broken down into two parts, a "contrary" relation based on erroneous projections of intention, and a "mirror" relation in which the partners tend to pick up on the negative connotations of each the other's arguments. What this means, when both relations are together considered, is that the two of you are interpreting each other's arguments as matters of belief -- which they are not -- and observing the negative aspects of these "beliefs" besides. It's an endless cycle of misinterpretation of basis which creates a nearly impenetrable wall of misunderstanding.

My advice is to find common ground in a mutual goal and agree to work independently, without even proposing unification of efforts. I've got friends who I have this relation with and their arguments get more difficult to understand the more I study them; and I feel that I must study them because from the get-go I get a negative impression. Fortunately we have shared beliefs and can agree to state solidarity of intention if not intention to collaborate.

Because Nightcrawler is on the more social side of the spectrum and you're on the more... shall we say anti-social side (and psychologists do use that term) the misunderstandings are even worse: you're want to see the very worst in each other, and that's troubling. My advice to you, InVerse, is to ask yourself how much you really want to gain from the community over the long term. Nightcrawler is defending the interests of himself and his staff, and a lot of people are looking at him and saying to themselves "if I support Nightcrawler now, then when I'm in a similar position I can take the same kind of stance without facing social ostracism from anyone". That means they see it in their interest to support him over you. Is it really in your self-interest to try hurting the community, and risk demonization? Do you really want that, because you have a choice over whether you do or do not face it.

[Warlord]

Dude I'm just here for the people ^.^

I came here just for the free pretzels.

[kensi]

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? .

there obviously is no disclaimer to prevent one from posting a theory based very little on the concepts of Socionics...and why should there be..?...if you read some of the articles about the Socionists themselves...it seems a lot of them are unsure of a lot of things themselves.

[tcaudilllg]

there obviously is no disclaimer to prevent one from posting a theory based very little on the concepts of Socionics...and why should there be..?...if you read some of the articles about the Socionists themselves...it seems a lot of them are unsure of a lot of things themselves.

Damn right... Rick's wrote extensively on the subject of socionics "schools".

[Gilly]

there obviously is no disclaimer to prevent one from posting a theory based very little on the concepts of Socionics...and why should there be..?...if you read some of the articles about the Socionists themselves...it seems a lot of them are unsure of a lot of things themselves.

Reread. My point is pretty fucking simple.

[Gilly]

I find it easier to follow Ashton's model back to Augusta's sources, this in comparison to say, hitta's model -- which, aside from the issue of categorizing them, may also explain persistent interest in the earlier. I don't think that necessarily makes Ashton any less incorrect ultimately, though.

Ashton's model is simplistic, yes, other than how it attempts to interpret the functions, but, as you say, this doesn't make it any closer to being Socionics.

[Expat]

This is where I take an Occam's razor-informed view of model A, and ask myself why I even bother separating Fe Dual-seeking and Fi Role, or Fi Hidden Agenda and Fe PoLR. There are never instances in which these mentioned pairings do not occur simultaneously in model A. Everything that is assumed by one implies the other. So it becomes a lot easier to discuss the functions that people value and not the ones that don't, since they are implied by the existence of the value for the former. In this since, we could almost describe Fi Hidden Agenda as seeking an absence of Fe, although I don't want to over-simplify things that far.

And yes, it's not really model A in this case, but that doesn't mean it's not valid or even that it's not socionics.

It all depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to focus on specific traits, or functional use, of SLIs and ILIs that are common to them, then yes, you can describe them as "Fi HA + Fe PoLR" withouth having to split them into two.

The difficulty starts when you try to explain the differences between those types - why the EIE is the conflictor of the SLI and supervisor of the ILI, and the ESE the conflictor of the ILI and supervisor of the SLI, and not vice-versa. In order to explain that, you have to focus on their supere-ego, which is FeNi and FeSi; and it's not just a question of saying "Fe here, and Ni there" etc. That's where the concept of functional blocks comes from, because even when using just Fe, the Fe+Si of the ESE is more anathema to the ILI than the Fe+Ni of the EIE.

That is why, when focusing on intertype relationships, model A (which is actually a 16 x 16 "matrix") goes for splitting things like the Fe PoLR from Fi HA.

Jung sheds some light on things, and you can't deny his influence on socionics, although I do agree that reverting completely to his definitions is not helpful. Personally, I don't even like Jung that much--I find his work dense and turgid--but I'm not going to sit here and pretend like some of what he thought hasn't made its way into my understanding through various other means.

I have no disagreement with the above, as far as it goes.

I'm curious; how do you explain how Ni and Se relate? The common idea that seems to be shared among my friends is that they are inherently complimentary, so much so that it's hard to speak of them "existing" without another. (I don't really want to delve too deeply into the ontology of functions, as I believe most ontological discussions are hopelessly bound to personal ideals and perceptions of various phenomena which we dress up as logic, but anyways...) I can explain it better with Ne and Si, which, in a very short summary, work together with Ne dividing and aggregating inherent attributes of objects (yes, this is vague, I realize) and Si providing an "environmental" context, replete with an awareness of the various interactions that act upon a system.

What's your take?

I explained my views on that at length in my thread "My present views on the Ne-Si and Se-Ni divide". If you search for all threads started by me, you will find it very easily.

[Christy B]

I hope that you have not understood me to be claiming some great degree of objectivity in my observations. I do not claim to approach socionics without a model of any kind. What I do suggest is that there is an over-emphasis on some very specific claims of Model A and the cubic model that makes it easy to reify the rather abstract and subtle concept of informational functions and aspects into something far more easily ostensible than they are. Of course you have to have some kind of "model" to interpret information you see. What I do question is the validity of models employed by so-called "classical socionics," as I question the validity of any model that suggests extremely discrete and discernible connections between abstractions as though they were some sort of imminently observable reality.



Gilly, while I find your zealous defense of Augusta admirable in a sense, I think you go too far in suggesting that the extent of "socionics" is defined explicitly and finally by Augusta. This is analogous to claiming that Physics was defined by Newton and Galileo, and therefore relativity and quantum mechanics, which question central assumptions made by those great minds, are not within the scope of physics altogether. I'm not claiming that I am an Einstein or Heisenberg or Bohr, but I am claiming that you can question assumptions and remain firmly and decidedly within the same field, and that this is in fact crucial to the advancement of understanding in these fields.

I think you misunderstand my criticism of the "model" as well. Though I do find Model A to be overwrought, and the cubic model unnecessarily complex, my biggest qualms are not with the models per se, but with a reliance on a faulty epistemology that ignores the complexity of human interaction. The reason why many of us "Socionix" people talk about "observing" functions is because we see this as the way in which the human brain works best. You simply cannot account for every single variable in personality. It is manifestly impossible. So what we do instead is observe people and let our minds find patterns that are more "felt" than explicitly thought out.

How did you learn to drive? Did you learn by determining models and equations for how the accelerator reacts to how hard you push it? Did you learn how to explicitly calculate distances between cars to judge how much room you have? Or did you, like most people, get out there and do it, after learning some of the ground rules, and let your mind's incredible capacity to learn teach your body how to do this extraordinarily complex task? If you are like most people, you don't even have to "think" about driving that much, especially not at a computational level. Though you can certainly learn ostensible, explicit things about driving, the real meat of the learning comes through doing it and feeling it out.



I've already explained why this is completely irrelevant, but let me reiterate: there exists no great definitions czar who defines what is and isn't socionics.



There are elements of all sorts of models within what is commonly seen as the "socionix" viewpoint. Jung certainly plays a role, as he has in Socionics and MBTI. Also there is a lot of Kepinski, who was the guy who kinda came up with the whole "information metabolism" idea. I wouldn't discount some people like William James and Husserl either. I would throw Kierkegaard in as well, but that applies to me more than some of the other guys. I really don't understand how trying to incorporate more influences makes any less "Socionics" than Augusta's work, as she herself incorporated dozens of different ideas and philosophies into her work.



What are you here for, Gilly?

Thanks Riddy. You are really brilliant and I appreciate your views.... You are highly intelligent and articulate and can explain in better words than I (:/) the thoughts and feelings I have about "Socionics" and Model A.


A "+1" for Riddy's post.

[Ezra]

I wholly agree with Gilly. In fact, this shouldn't even a discussion. It should be a sticky. Everyone should either accept his initial post or fuck off and stop wasting time discussing what this forum does not endorse. This is a forum for the discussion of socionics, nothing else. If people are straying from socionics, discussion should be confined to either "Alternative or Non-socionic Based Type theories" or "Anything Goes". It's as simple as that.

Obviously, the system being used at socionix is exactly the same system which is being used here, given that in the real world the essence of what we are watching is unchanged by the nature of the forum we partake in mostly.

Is it fuck. If it was, Ashton and co wouldn't be so confused that they have no idea what they're on about when they discuss any socionically-related notion, be it the functions or Model A itself. If it was, they'd waste far less time typing everyone as a cp6 and more time thinking about intertype relations.