Fundamental Differences in Augustan Socionics and Opposition

[Ezra]

Non-classical socionics has an excessive emphasis on VI procedure, and leans towards prioritising the physiological aspects of the individual. There is a prominent defocus on the functions as related to behavioural characteristics and cognitive processes. Little weight is given to the functions as descriptive in this sense; in fact, any sort of relation of the functions to behaviour and thought is shunned in favour of physically noticeable differences and similarities in "types", which are essentially reduced to the facial and bodily structure of an individual. It takes very little - if any - of the individual's personal experiences into account, making it possible to "type" an individual without actually knowing anything about them. Ganin's theorising is a prime example of this kind of socionics. In classical socionics this is not possible - the individual's subjective thought processes are a crucial part of one's type. This is because said processes define how the individual will react to other individuals and their thought processes. Physicalities alone do not account for this, which is why non-classical socionics as described above falls short when attempting to show what socionics theory is supposed to show; that is, cognitive processes and behaviour as it is related to such processes, and how these processes are affected by others' processes and behaviour.

[JuJu]

Very good description of non-Model A Socionics' short-comings... (In the English speaking community, non-Model A equals Socionix, Ganin, and, I guess, Phaedrus' MBTI correlations.)

E.g. Socionix justifies itself in typing, e.g. Christian Bale, (ISTj in Model A,) ENTp because he "looks kinda like Steve" (albeit only if you sniff turpentine and squint.)

E.g. They justify typing me as ENFp because I look kinda like Dane Cook, (if you're heavily medicated.) Dane Cook is ENFj in Model A Socionics.

[duality is cringe]

I don't know if you're refering to "Model X" or just venting about VI, but non "Augustan socionics" simply has a different take on how psychological processes manifest through action as opposed to the tendency of many here who like to label certain behaviors as functions (ex: forceful debating style coupled with refusal to cave into an opposing opinion often erroneously attributed to Se ego and/ Ne PoLR and so forth).

[ArchonAlarion]

Non-classical socionics has an excessive emphasis on VI procedure, and leans towards prioritising the physiological aspects of the individual. There is a prominent defocus on the functions as related to behavioural characteristics and cognitive processes. Little weight is given to the functions as descriptive in this sense; in fact, any sort of relation of the functions to behaviour and thought is shunned in favour of physically noticeable differences and similarities in "types", which are essentially reduced to the facial and bodily structure of an individual. It takes very little - if any - of the individual's personal experiences into account, making it possible to "type" an individual without actually knowing anything about them. Ganin's theorising is a prime example of this kind of socionics. In classical socionics this is not possible - the individual's subjective thought processes are a crucial part of one's type. This is because said processes define how the individual will react to other individuals and their thought processes. Physicalities alone do not account for this, which is why non-classical socionics as described above falls short when attempting to show what socionics theory is supposed to show; that is, cognitive processes and behaviour as it is related to such processes, and how these processes are affected by others' processes and behaviour.

Chortle chortle chortle guffaw guffaw guffaw.

Just wrong really.

Lol the reason why you may believe that is because we're constantly occupied with either defending our theories or correcting the mistypings of others. Its rare that we get a chance to be descriptive or to describe the behavioral traits of the types.

[Ezra]

Its rare that we get a chance to be descriptive or to describe the behavioral traits of the types.

That's bollocks. You get "a chance" to be descriptive the minute you click "Post Reply". The truth is, you have fuck all to describe. Fuck all.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well I have been descriptive. I was more referring to the others who have been less so.

So yeah, w/e.

Plus due to the general hostile/stagnant/ignorant mood of the forum I have little interest in going out of my way to make nice big descriptions when they will most likely be responded with, "That's not model a"

Not that it will stop me. I have descriptions in the works.

[Steve]

E.g. Socionix justifies itself in typing, e.g. Christian Bale, (ISTj in Model A,) ENTp because he "looks kinda like Steve" (albeit only if you sniff turpentine and squint.)

E.g. They justify typing me as ENFp because I look kinda like Dane Cook, (if you're heavily medicated.) Dane Cook is ENFj in Model A Socionics.

I suggest you stop grouping people together because you're gonna end up putting words in people's mouths that they didn't say.

You need to start referencing individual people's opinions if you want to argue their points.

It was me who made the argument in the past that Dane Cook had some similarities in temperament in style to you. Currently, I'm the only one who thinks you're ENFp, not really because of the once-observed Dane Cook similarity, but for many other reasons which I have stated in other threads. Not Ashton. He's still convinced you're Fe INFp and believes he supervises you immensely. So you need to stop generalizing typings into the "socionix group" and stop saying that all the people who you put into that group type by the same criteria.

Then, you also incorrectly project Dolphin's type arguments for Christian Bale onto me. I never said that he looked like me. While I can see some vague similarities, I see Bale as much more image-focused and likely Enneagram 3, like I said. There are many other ENTps who much more closely resemble me.

Your constant need to bunch different people's opinions that differ from your own into a group which you can then make general negative characterizations about obviously shows you feel threatened and insecure by something. I don't know what it is, but it seems you're on a smear mission here because you continually evade counterarguments presented at you in a thread, only to go open up/post a new thread spewing the same ad-hominem from a position of self-righteousness mentioning specific people.

Go ahead, continue the pattern. Don't respond to this. Instead either go make some new thread about the differences between Model A and other ideas, modifying the title only slightly. Or go find another thread that someone mentions this stuff in and make the same ad hominem and generalized grouping of opposing opinions into one "socionix camp".

"They" is the most convenient pronoun in the world of propaganda.

And, as I'm sure you're realizing (or maybe you're not), most people on this board are far more intelligent than the average American, so you should keep in mind that people on here are much more likely to see through usual journalistic propaganda garbage and not buy into it like much of society does.

[Steve]

I don't know if you're refering to "Model X" or just venting about VI, but non "Augustan socionics" simply has a different take on how psychological processes manifest through action as opposed to the tendency of many here who like to label certain behaviors as functions (ex: forceful debating style coupled with refusal to cave into an opposing opinion often erroneously attributed to Se ego and/ Ne PoLR and so forth).

Precisely. Well put.

[JuJu]

lol, hkkmr, you must not come to this forum much these days.

[Tom]

DeAnte should wield the hammer of fate to decide who lives and dies on this forum.

Hand it over Gillums, I want a new sheriff.

[marooned]

So he can ban everyone who is an "idiot" and have his own special clique of like-viewed people? Plus a few extra people who don't agree with him to use as fodder?

[Ezra]

Well I have been descriptive. I was more referring to the others who have been less so.

Why use "we" then?

[Tom]

The proverbial "we" draws no arc of blame.

[717495]

In response to the JuJu issue and others like it:

People need to stop relying so much on their self-typing and actually try to take in everyones opinions. I bet there are hundreds of mistyped people who think their or , for example, is so superior to most others, and that can so easily be misconstrued in their heads and they need to be more rational and objective by listening to and hopefully accepting the reasoning of others and face the facts. If you are seriously basing part of your self image on this highly limited and structured theory, chances are there will be people better than you at typing and there will be people with much more of an idea of a specific function, and many probably have more of that function than you do.

Part of the problem is that you are saying I am definitely X. Well according to the theory of socionics, function 5 is made up of X, Y, Z, 8, and 9. You don't have much of those other things, so your function how you know it is not exactly functioning. It is incomplete and you have a much more complete function that you use the elements of more often than you do say just X.

[717495]

People need to stop relying so much on their self-typing and actually try to take in everyones opinions.

Although I imagine how this can be hard for some people. You need to figure out who and what makes sense, and a lot of people and their ideas don't. Nobody is a perfect jack of all trades either. Great points can be made, and some people usually are correct, and that doesn't mean they will be correct when you ask them something out of the blue. I'm sure you know this of course.

[duality is cringe]

DeAnte should wield the hammer of fate to decide who lives and dies on this forum.

Hand it over Gillums, I want a new sheriff.

lol, so true.

[Ezra]

I bet there are hundreds of mistyped people who think their or , for example, is so superior to most others.

lol @ choice of example functions being your role function + polr