New book related to socionics

[Rick]

Amazon.com: Principles of Typology: Aleksey Bashtavenko: Books

This one looks pretty good -- no hype at all, just boring mental stuff, and it's by a Russian author (pretty sure, judging by the name and the dismal cover) who may well be familiar with socionics. Those who have bought one or both of the two books on socionics currently available in English might find this one interesting.

[Waddlesworth]

I bought this book. Big mistake.

It is written by a neurotic, late to post-adolescent American. It is poorly written. It is the opposite of everything it claims to be. I think that the author's name is a pen-name.

There are no references, there is very little systematic thinking. It reads like a run-on stream of unconsciousness.

I have the book. If anyone wants it I'll send it to them so long as they pay the shipping and handling. It serves no purpose for me.

[Ezra]

Yeah, I'll pay for P+P, Waddlesworth. How much?

[Ezra]

By the way, if anyone wants this book, I'd be happy to do the same as what Waddlesworth is proposing.

[Jarno]

I bought this book. Big mistake.

It is written by a neurotic, late to post-adolescent American. It is poorly written. It is the opposite of everything it claims to be. I think that the author's name is a pen-name.

There are no references, there is very little systematic thinking. It reads like a run-on stream of unconsciousness.

I have the book. If anyone wants it I'll send it to them so long as they pay the shipping and handling. It serves no purpose for me.

Have you read more books on typology, how does this one compares to those?

What's the best book you've read, and what's the worst?

I'm a fanatical reader, therefor my interest...

[Rick]

I bought this book. Big mistake.

It is written by a neurotic, late to post-adolescent American. It is poorly written. It is the opposite of everything it claims to be. I think that the author's name is a pen-name.

There are no references, there is very little systematic thinking. It reads like a run-on stream of unconsciousness.

I have the book. If anyone wants it I'll send it to them so long as they pay the shipping and handling. It serves no purpose for me.

Wow, that's shocking. How did they get the decent reviews on Amazon? Hm...

[Waddlesworth]

Yeah, I'll pay for P+P, Waddlesworth. How much?

You are in England and I am in the USA, so it will cost a bit more.
I'd say $14 American, but you can send me it in pounds if you want. A silly drawing or short story by you would also be acceptable.
Interested?

By the way, if anyone wants this book, I'd be happy to do the same as what Waddlesworth is proposing.

I'd say that we can do a trade, but then I'd just be exchanging one waste-of-space for another.

Have you read more books on typology, how does this one compares to those?

I haven't read much on typology. A good book on typology would describe how type and functions are measured. It would also attempt to validate the theory on psychological types and functions. Very few books do this.

The closest to an analysis of psychological functions(other than Jung's Psychological Types) is Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is very heavy reading but it is a major influence in the development of Jung's ideas on psychological functions. If you are interested in very concise and analytical micro-details then I'd suggest Kant.

What's the best book you've read, and what's the worst?

So far the most interesting book that I have read is "The Doomed Aryan Race" by Samael Aun Weor. It is a Gnostic text.

Currently I am reading "A New Model of the Universe" by P.D. Ouspensky. I can tell that it is going to be one of my favorites.

The worst book that I have ever read is "Principles of Typology" by Aleksey Bashtavenko.

I'm a fanatical reader, therefor my interest...

I have recently found out that reading is more fun and rewarding than going out and drinking. I wish I had learned that earlier.

Wow, that's shocking. How did they get the decent reviews on Amazon? Hm...

I think you and I both guessed it. Written by Aleksey himself.

[Jarno]

Currently I am reading "A New Model of the Universe" by P.D. Ouspensky. I can tell that it is going to be one of my favorites.

oke good to hear. I'll write that one down.

But are there any good books on typology that you've read?

[Waddlesworth]

But are there any good books on typology that you've read?

No, nothing really very good that is specifically about typology. That is why I thought Principles of Typology might be worth buying. It is advertised as concise and rigorous, but it is not as it is described.

[Rick]

oke good to hear. I'll write that one down.

But are there any good books on typology that you've read?

Ouspensky's books have nothing to do with typology, but are indeed interesting. I've read, "In Search of the Miraculous."

[Ezra]

You are in England and I am in the USA, so it will cost a bit more.
I'd say $14 American, but you can send me it in pounds if you want. A silly drawing or short story by you would also be acceptable.
Interested?

Yeah, definitely. I'll PM my address.

But are there any good books on typology that you've read?

Shit loads. What about R&H, Palmer, Keirsey, Myers-Briggs?

[Creepy-bg]

Yeah, definitely. I'll PM my address.

pussy... post your address on the forum for all of us to see!

[Jarno]

I've recently ordered, "How to Find Yourself and Your Best Match. Socionics. The Modern Approach to Psychological Types" from Amazon. The author seems open to further discussions as well.

I'd be curious to read, "Principles of Typology". It's interesting to read material from someone else's perspective. I typically find some nugget of information to add to the knowledge base, so, it's not a complete waste.

Your last line is also applicable to 'how to find yourself and your best match'

[Jarno]

Shit loads. What about R&H, Palmer, Keirsey, Myers-Briggs?

I disliked the Keirsey2 and Gifts Differing was also much less then I had expected. There are good ones though.

[Ezra]

pussy... post your address on the forum for all of us to see!

For you, bg, anything:

123 FUCK YOU!
ENGERLAAAAAAAAAAAAAND

I've recently ordered, "How to Find Yourself and Your Best Match. Socionics. The Modern Approach to Psychological Types" from Amazon. The author seems open to further discussions as well.

Yep, that's the book I own. It's average. You'd probably benefit more from reading Wikisocion.

[Creepy-bg]

For you, bg, anything:

123 FUCK YOU!
ENGERLAAAAAAAAAAAAAND

[Jarno]

I've quickly read through the book. I agree there wasn't much substance. I was quite annoyed by the fact that almost every section had an invitation to email the authors to discuss further - 'infomercial' style. Also, I quickly read through the list of celebrity types. I was quite surprised to see some of the typings. Regardless, I'll take some time over the next several weeks to test out their VI techniques. After reading the book, I spent some time during a social engagement observing facial features, necks and hands. The positioning of the neck/head to determine conceptual vs perceptual is interesting. I'm curious to know the foundation of their VI system. Are these traditional socionics VI techniques?

I also own that book. It seems that their are different vi methods depending on what part of russia you live, socionics seems to have its own pecularities. They eyes description is traditional, even jung used them. The neck was new to me. Usually VI is looking at someone and seeing a resemblance, at least, that's the most used technique on this forum and I guess in general.

[Ezra]

I've quickly read through the book. I agree there wasn't much substance. I was quite annoyed by the fact that almost every section had an invitation to email the authors to discuss further - 'infomercial' style. Also, I quickly read through the list of celebrity types. I was quite surprised to see some of the typings. Regardless, I'll take some time over the next several weeks to test out their VI techniques. After reading the book, I spent some time during a social engagement observing facial features, necks and hands. The positioning of the neck/head to determine conceptual vs perceptual is interesting. I'm curious to know the foundation of their VI system. Are these traditional socionics VI techniques?

Yeah I love the way they basically say "YOU CAN TELL SOMEONE'S TYPE JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM!!!!!! ONCE YOU LEARN OUR VI THAT'S ALL YOU NEED - YOU WILL NEVER NOT SEE SOCIONICS TYPES AGAIN!!!!!!!"

[munenori2]

I disliked the Keirsey2 and Gifts Differing was also much less then I had expected. There are good ones though.

Yeah, I read that one and I didn't find it interesting or informative. Especially the parts where she was throwing around random statistics about the number of each type/percentage of each in all these different fields, schools, etc. I wanted to read more about types and the theories and reasons behind them, but it totally disappointed.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I just read the preview pages for this book. It doesn't look all that bad actually, and I kinda want it but then I don't. Hmm.

There is a tendency to believe everything you read, if it sounds interesting enough though. And I'm still not sure what this stuff actually does for people- or if it just locks us all in a kind of 'slow suicide' with our relationships.

[Ezra]

Oh yes, the statements in bold, upper case - WE THINK IT IS THE ONLY THING YOU NEED TO KNOW. I could have done without the exclamation marks as well.

Yes, I found it to be highly unprofessional. I don't know if the use of the exclamation marks to which you refer was in conjunction with that sentence, or in conjunction with another, but I was immediately put off by it. I also didn't like their use Curlz MT (I think it was the subheading on the title page).

I just read the preview pages for this book. It doesn't look all that bad actually, and I kinda want it but then I don't. Hmm.

If you're curious, perhaps you should buy it. I was curious, and I bought it. I was unsatisfied, simply because I know socionics too much for any of the relevant information in there to be new to me.