General Principles of the Dominant Functions

[717495]

transcripted from Page 25 of Understanding The People Around You - An Introduction to Socionics - by Ekaterina Filatova and Betty Lou Leaver

...this program outlines the general principles that guide the conscious of the individual belonging to a certain psychological type.

- Reality comes first. In order to survive, humans have to work efficiently, producing material profit. The only value of an idea is the possibility of its realization.

- Everything in the world must comply with a certain order and system. This is the core of life on which everything else relies; if it is taken out, everything else collapses. It is crucial to understand this system, to develop and improve it, and to find everyone's place in it.

- All actions are influenced by emotions such as happiness, anger, grief, depression, etc. Emotions dictate everything a person does. Due to this, controlling one's own emotions and those of the others is very important.

- A normal life requires harmony in human relations. The most important thing is to determine the ideals of human life and human relationships. The norms of ethics and morals are crucial here. Actual relations with people must agree with these ideals.

- Life is a constant battle, full of vigorous action. It is vital to train your will and tone your body in order to be ready for immediate response and prevail in a crucial situation.

- The main condition for psychological equilibrium is balance, contentedness, and harmony in everything that constitutes a person's surroundings. For a normal life it is extremely important to have equally good physical health and perception of beauty, comfort, and content.

- The most interesting thing in life is to find something new, and exciting, discover a fresh, appealing opportunity, meet an interesting new person, or conceive an unusual project. The world is full of mysteries and secrets that have yet to be uncovered.

- The main value of the world is the infinite and abundant reign of personal imagination. This imagination will never grow boring because with its help new ideas, suggestions, and images appear so magically and easily. Imagination makes it possible to delve into the darkness of the past and the mist of the distant future, to grasp the world in its entirety, to capture the dynamics and tendencies of main events, and to predict the final result.


My note: following this page is an interesting scenario where one of each of these types is riding in a bus which hits a deer, crashes and breaks down. To be continued...

[Gilly]

I like this.

[tcaudilllg]

I don't. Makes no distinction between quadra forms. The eight elements are only a mechanistic feature... qualitatively they are a relic.

Socionists still have pitifully poor understanding of sensing types.

[Mattie]

My note: following this page is an interesting scenario where one of each of these types is riding in a bus which hits a deer, crashes and breaks down. To be continued...

The example on this page is out-right laughable- I honestly LOLed when I read it. It is probably the main reason I disliked the book as a whole, because it was the only time where you say Filatova implement Socionics... and it was just ridiculous. These descriptions doesn't really describe anything, it's so introductory that they are only good for establishing an initial context, and then the person would move on from these once they have a stronger grasp on how Socionics applies to reality. The -, -, - and -leads were especially lawl-worthy.

[717495]

I thought the scenario was interesting and outlined the types in their essential maximal distinctions pretty well. Btw, these are all descriptions, hypotheticals, so technically Filatova didn't implement them, except where you can pick up on it yourself, which is pretty easy. There are other short-diologues scattered throughout the book from others.

These descriptions doesn't really describe anything,

That's rather false.

and then the person would move on from these once they have a stronger grasp on how Socionics applies to reality.

Though yes, the book isn't supposed to teach you about life--it covers a good portion of the basics so you can identify types once reading it, gain some insight about how the types operate, and base new conclusions from it. It's much better than that Spencer Stern one, especially in the sense that its actually official, or correct, and more descriptive. I felt a lot more confident grasping Socionics once finished reading it, compared to when I finished the other book. Although of course there are plenty of other online sources.

[Suz]

Yeah i dont like those descriptions either actually.

[xerx]

I thought Filatova's book was fine. It used simplistic scenarios and was a bit redundant, but in no way is she flat out wrong about anything, except possibly a few typings. I agree with poli's assessment that she was trying to describe the maximum concentration of each type's leading function on paper, and thought it could have used more theoretical descriptions (e.g. external object statics, etc.) over practical ones.

Nevertheless, the onus should be entirely on the reader, not Filatova, to figure out exactly how and in what sense the stereotypes she was describing could occur in more realistic situations.

- The most interesting thing in life is to find something new, and exciting, discover a fresh, appealing opportunity, meet an interesting new person, or conceive an unusual project. The world is full of mysteries and secrets that have yet to be uncovered.

[MatthewZ]

If this is true, I'm IEE.

[Brilliand]

These recent element descriptions keep giving me excuses to call myself ILE.

[717495]

Maybe. However I think the main point is that these descriptions are for the dominant function placement, not the creative or other placements. So that means, you can relate to the other ones, but the one you relate to the most is your dominant, and you don't necessarily relate to your other valued functions, as shown here, until you read the lengthier descriptions of them. The book provides other basic descriptions of the "functions," being IMs. It also follows closely the dichotomies and clubs, and provides a dichotimal test that is quite insightful to helping grasp your type, imo gives me new insight into the dichotomies, however not always 100% reliable.

[Brilliand]

- Everything in the world must comply with a certain order and system. This is the core of life on which everything else relies; if it is taken out, everything else collapses. It is crucial to understand this system, to develop and improve it, and to find everyone's place in it.

Maybe it's just putting too much emphasis on what should be done with it.

[717495]

is essentially logical and analytical; dominants I know seem really into figuring out the math and logic of phenomenon or theory, into problem solving, whatever interest comes up, and a number of them are really curious to know of and have some design for life or events. I don't think it means that dominants have everything figured out, and they know what the system for all the underlying processes are, but they're the types most willing and capable to figure it out, and probably gain a lot of structural insight as they mature. They also tend to believe in that kind of thing, I know lots of people who don't even really care or think that structuredly and analytically, where as the dominants I know seem plenty interested in the logic of underlying processes and often have a lot of self-assuredness about it.

[Brilliand]

is essentially logical and analytical; dominants I know seem really into figuring out the math and logic of phenomenon or theory, into problem solving, whatever interest comes up, and a number of them are really curious to know of and have some design for life or events. I don't think it means that dominants have everything figured out, and they know what the system for all the underlying processes are, but they're the types most willing and capable to figure it out, and probably gain a lot of structural insight as they mature. They also tend to believe in that kind of thing, I know lots of people who don't even really care or think that structuredly and analytically, where as the dominants I know seem plenty interested in the logic of underlying processes and often have a lot of self-assuredness about it.

It's more the "must uphold the structure and put everyone where they belong" vibe that turned me off. I view the structure more as something inescapable to be understood.

[717495]

I think it implies "uphold" or "seek out," either being one's personal choice and depending on one's certainties, though certainly "inescapable."

[Galen]

All of those examples feel so stereotyped to the point of unrealism. I could imagine valuers identifying 100% with the description; valuing is more than just "people" or "morals", valuing is more than just "efficiency", blah blah blah etc. It feels like nobody can write a book about socionics with describing the IEs in a manner like this, and it annoys the shit out of me ughhhhh

[squark]

Take out the word "must" in the Ti description, and I'm a lot happier with it. The way it comes across is as though we're forcing everything into an artificial structure whether or not it really fits. Everything does fit into an overarching scheme, but it's a process of discovering that, and how things fit that I see as Ti, not jamming things in because they're "supposed" to be somewhere.

[ilikesex]

It's much better than that Spencer Stern one, especially in the sense that its actually official, or correct, and more descriptive.

how is it more official? there is no such thing as official socionics, you take whatever you accept that you can apply to your environment and forget the rest. it only shows what a smart observer knows which is that you have no way of evaluating what you read and your criticisms are random.

[Mattie]

All of those examples feel so stereotyped to the point of unrealism. I could imagine valuers identifying 100% with the description; valuing is more than just "people" or "morals", valuing is more than just "efficiency", blah blah blah etc. It feels like nobody can write a book about socionics with describing the IEs in a manner like this, and it annoys the shit out of me ughhhhh

This is basically how I feel. The counter-argument is always "Well, people just just intuitively understand that these are stereotypes and not apply them so literally," but when every source DOES do this and we see forum members (even the people who feel like they 'know better') apply Socionics in this manner, there obviously isn't a clear mention of this mentality and practice. Which is why I said in my initial critique, if this was the only book a person picked up in America (since there are no other advanced books available in official English translation; and on that note, there were a sizable amount of translation mistakes throughout the book, so I'm not even sure how much credibility to give it) they would be applying Socionics incorrectly or just disregard Socionics because of how unrealistic it is (as portrayed in this book).

how is it more official? there is no such thing as official socionics, you take whatever you accept that you can apply to your environment and forget the rest. it only shows what a smart observer knows which is that you have no way of evaluating what you read and your criticisms are random.

I completely agree, and this makes it difficult for me to discuss Socionics here. Does the point become "Do you have a strong reasoning for why you approach Socionics the way you do?" (which is what I'm starting to think) or "Everyone has an individualized manner of doing Socionics and there is no point of reaching a consensus until testing is done"?

[ilikesex]

I completely agree, and this makes it difficult for me to discuss Socionics here. Does the point become "Do you have a strong reasoning for why you approach Socionics the way you do?" (which is what I'm starting to think) or "Everyone has an individualized manner of doing Socionics and there is no point of reaching a consensus until testing is done"?

what i said was specifically for melody man.

[717495]

Yeah of course an type can relate in a light to the description, or any type can relate to any of the other descriptions, more or less. But to say each don't represent their type quite well seems just wrong and amateurish, like you think you know the theory any better created from your personal knowledge, one much too divergent, nonpictorial, and sketchy/partial at that. Most established Socionicists wouldn't agree with the assessment that these types of descriptions, specifically these here, are deceptive, and there is plenty more to be criticized about your unorthodox ideas I'm sure. I see no evidence of such sizable amount of translation mistakes either, aside from a few helpful changes.

Like I've said elsewhere to you guys, you can believe what you want to believe, change the theory to your liking, but in the process you're going to divide from what's already here and what has been discussed and established for a while, of that process the same conclusions via the OP being reached over and over again. There is no theoretical progression guaranteed just by dismissing the basics, and I personally don't see how its helping you with figuring out your duals and other Socionics related relationships by straying away from the norms of Socionics in general but to each his own.

[Mattie]

Yeah of course an type can relate in a light to the description, or any type can relate to any of the other descriptions, more or less. But to say each don't represent their type quite well seems just wrong and amateurish, like you think you know the theory any better created from your personal knowledge, one much too divergent, nonpictorial, and sketchy/partial at that. Most established Socionicists wouldn't agree with the assessment that these types of descriptions, specifically these here, are deceptive, and there is plenty more to be criticized about your unorthodox ideas I'm sure. I see no evidence of such sizable amount of translation mistakes either, aside from a few helpful changes.

Like I've said elsewhere to you guys, you can believe what you want to believe, change the theory to your liking, but in the process you're going to divide from what's already here and what has been discussed and established for a while, of that process the same conclusions via the OP being reached over and over again. There is no theoretical progression guaranteed just by dismissing the basics, and I personally don't see how its helping you with figuring out your duals and other Socionics related relationships by straying away from the norms of Socionics in general but to each his own.

I doubt you have much room to say this, as it is obvious you can't apply Socionics well enough with these descriptions seeing that you're a different type every week. Socionics contains all of its divergences, there are a whole bunch of noncanonical theories people accept here only on the premise that some big name came up with it, but just because some authority said it's the right way doesn't make it so, especially when they can't prove it. There is room for different takes because of how abstract it is, and listening to an authority is just one (weak, in my opinion) way to go about Socionics.

[717495]

Okay. I personally don't see it as "weak," its obviously the right way to go about it, to read the material itself and agree with why Socionics manifests how its been described many times over and over again. Obviously you can go further back in typology and change all the variables out to suit whatever abstractions you want, however I think you are probably overestimating how able you are to apply those, and idealizing your ability to think objectively by not allowing yourself any physical root. I have still been applying Socionics ordinarily, and still change my type upon learning about new sources, listening to people and keeping an open and adaptive mind. There has been some interpretation trouble on my behalf from various sources, but that's not going to keep me from sniffing out such BS as "these basics are nothing but wrong stereotypes, my ideas are better." I've been here for years too, didn't just come into this typology yesterday, and you have to be able to apply what's been given in an intelligent manner. If you fail at doing so then you try again, else change your interpretation around, to in due course fit around some other idea, but not Socionics. Even fitting well around your personal ideology, it is still of no use to others like myself who want an objective tuition. There's a lot more to it than just these descriptions, nonetheless these are essentially some of the most important, most objectifiable and most provable sources of Socionics, and all the other ideas one is to bear from it stand as designated possibilities and connections / correlations.

[Beautiful sky]

Take out "must" from Fi description; I agree with squark

[717495]

I guess that kind of depends, if you're the sensory or intuitive subtype than you might not agree with the "must" designation, as dominant subtypes take these functions with a crucial decisiveness, creative subtypes may instead prefer the word "does" or "should" with an added explanation: most of the time I am surely able, within my creative sphere. Creative subtypes need a more of a conditional balance between their ego functions and can't channel all their emphasis into the dominant.

[Beautiful sky]

I guess that kind of depends, if you're the sensory or intuitive subtype than you might not agree with the "must" designation, as dominant subtypes take these functions with a crucial decisiveness, where as the creative subtypes may prefer the word "does" or "should" with an added explanation: most of the time I am surely able, within my creative sphere. Creative subtypes need a more of a conditional balance between their ego functions and can't channel all their emphasis into the dominant.

Fi subtype. If, there is such a thing as "subtype"

[xerx]

Even Jung said that the question of extroversion/introversion could not be brought to an absolute definition, but to the relative preponderance of one attitude over another. That's a principle Model A is roughly consistent with.

- The most interesting thing in life is to find something new, and exciting, discover a fresh, appealing opportunity, meet an interesting new person, or conceive an unusual project. The world is full of mysteries and secrets that have yet to be uncovered.

- The main value of the world is the infinite and abundant reign of personal imagination. This imagination will never grow boring because with its help new ideas, suggestions, and images appear so magically and easily. Imagination makes it possible to delve into the darkness of the past and the mist of the distant future, to grasp the world in its entirety, to capture the dynamics and tendencies of main events, and to predict the final result.

Yes it's possible to see an Ne type identify with many parts of the Ni description. But looking deeper and putting them side by side, the Ni description actually suggests someone who is insular, who bases his understanding of the events in the world almost entirely on his personal imagination.

The Ne description suggests someone who is more extroverted and less reliant on an intricate and extensive personal world as a repository for knowledge. Knowledge should be "discovered." To discover something new implies that it doesn't already exist in your mind. Imagination is too limited and stagnant to tackle the complexity of the universe, and new ideas and external stimuli are always more important.

It certainly doesn't make Ne any less imaginative (in the sense of implying clever or creative), but what the description implies is that they don't apply their personal world or "imagination" with the same total focus and zealousness as Ni types.

[Mattie]

Okay. I personally don't see it as "weak," its obviously the right way to go about it, to read the material itself and agree with why Socionics manifests how its been described many times over and over again. Obviously you can go further back in typology and change all the variables out to suit whatever abstractions you want, however I think you are probably overestimating how able you are to apply those, and idealizing your ability to think objectively by not allowing yourself any physical root. I have still been applying Socionics ordinarily, and still change my type upon learning about new sources, listening to people and keeping an open and adaptive mind. There has been some interpretation trouble on my behalf from various sources, but that's not going to keep me from sniffing out such BS as "these basics are nothing but wrong stereotypes, my ideas are better." I've been here for years too, didn't just come into this typology yesterday, and you have to be able to apply what's been given in an intelligent manner. If you fail at doing so then you try again, else change your interpretation around, to in due course fit around some other idea, but not Socionics. Even fitting well around your personal ideology, it is still of no use to others like myself who want an objective tuition. There's a lot more to it than just these descriptions, nonetheless these are essentially some of the most important, most objectifiable and most provable sources of Socionics, and all the other ideas one is to bear from it stand as designated possibilities and connections / correlations.

The fact that you're steadfast in thinking your approach is objectively better than mine, while I'm observing that all of our understandings have been subjectively constructed, says it all. The part that is weak about your argument is that you think just because there is an authority on Socionics means everything they've said is correct and applicable, and that fallacious thinking. Socionics isn't based on anything that has been proven, meaning that the authority could be very wrong, and anyone else could be closer to the truth. Since there is no or little motion for this sort of provability, anyone can take any sort of take on Socionics and still be "right." And just by observing your time here, I can't say you have a lot of weight behind thinking that your way is at all better than any other persons' way.

[717495]

Socionics isn't based on anything that has been proven,

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

[Mattie]

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

Uh, no, Filatova makes false claims to Socionics being a proven process. If there was proof that Socionics actually existed, those would be the first articles we would have our hands on, that would be huge news. It would mean, for a fact, that everyone's brains are wired to receive and metabolize information that way. There is NO proof for this, and Socionics is ultimately a hypothetical. If you have been thinking that this is some fact that we all are learning here, I'm sorry to say that's not the case. Which is why anyone can take their own perspective of Socionics and be as "right" as the authorities, because there is no proof Socionics exists. I really hope no one was gullible enough to just read it from Filatova and think it was true. Model A isn't proven, the IMEs aren't proven, the Jungian functions aren't proven... Yeah, there are "some standards," and they are science and reality, both which Socionics tries to be a part of.

[717495]

It would mean, for a fact, that everyone's brains are wired to receive and metabolize information that way. There is NO proof for this,

Where does it say Socionics supports this?

[Creepy-cinq]

Uh, no, Filatova makes false claims to Socionics being a proven process. If there was proof that Socionics actually existed, those would be the first articles we would have our hands on, that would be huge news. It would mean, for a fact, that everyone's brains are wired to receive and metabolize information that way. There is NO proof for this, and Socionics is ultimately a hypothetical. If you have been thinking that this is some fact that we all are learning here, I'm sorry to say that's not the case. Which is why anyone can take their own perspective of Socionics and be as "right" as the authorities, because there is no proof Socionics exists. I really hope no one was gullible enough to just read it from Filatova and think it was true. Model A isn't proven, the IMEs aren't proven, the Jungian functions aren't proven... Yeah, there are "some standards," and they are science and reality, both which Socionics tries to be a part of.

If Socionics is so unproven, hypothetical and abstract, why then would you bother to categorize yourself as ENFp and place it in your personal stats?

[Creepy-female]

If Socionics is so unproven, hypothetical and abstract, why then would you bother to categorize yourself as ENFp and place it in your personal stats?

Mutual exclusivity strikes again lol.

[Mattie]

If Socionics is so unproven, hypothetical and abstract, why then would you bother to categorize yourself as ENFp and place it in your personal stats?

Here's the sparknotes answer provided by dolphin:

Mutual exclusivity strikes again lol.

Now if that didn't make sense to you:

Because I can entertain abstract ideas without having to cement them into my understanding of reality? How do fiction writers write? Everything they do is hypothetical, reaching from the abstract to try and be concrete, and have created an elaborate lie for people to buy into it. Why do they write? Your question is just a lash out against me in attempt for me to look hypocritical rather than genuinely placing yourself into my position. My comments don't demean Socionics or anyone's way of doing Socionics, until it comes to a "my way is objectively better than your's" which is what the issue here is. Everything you paraphrased from me is true, but those aren't prerequisite to being interested in something that has potential application. The problem occurs when people actually think Socionics is a fact, and because it exists indefinitely, there's only one way to do it correctly. I am NeFi and use it in application because it is what I understand in relation to this hypothesis, I don't go to other people, state I am NeFi in a general description about myself, and state how things should work because of this designation. I am fully aware that I have come to my own subjective understanding of Socionics, and that understanding (and honestly, it seems like this doesn't clash with anyone else) categorizes whatever appropriate aspects of me as NeFi.

Now, you can try again adding something intelligent to the conversation rather than stooping to attack someone's character.

ETA: Didn't see the response:

Where does it say Socionics supports this?

Augusta directly takes from a particular hypothesis of information metabolism and proposes Model A as the system for which it happens. I'm not sure what you consider Model A, and I'm also not sure how/where exactly you think IME interaction happens in a person.

[717495]

Augusta directly takes from a particular hypothesis of information metabolism and proposes Model A as the system for which it happens. I'm not sure what you consider Model A, and I'm also not sure how/where exactly you think IME interaction happens in a person.

Though I don't see a lot of necessary, important, basic or mainstream information about it. It's not essential to understanding Socionics. If I wanted to know if I'm telepathic with my soulmate, how my neurons affected my personality type, and what the secret of life is, I would go ask maritsa. If I wanted to learn about Socionics, the practical theory that means something in real life, then I'd read the basic material on it and apply it like it's been applied. I have enough abstract unpractical meaningless things to do, such as writing and music. I don't someone helping me turn this into another mental guessing game. Life here is short, do what you got to do, don't pretend to be something you're not. I can't pretend or afford to be a interested in these open-ended scientific questions that lead to virtually nowhere in my life. Most people aren't going to be interested in a typology that's that sketchy and unpractical, especially when they already have proof that this one works. If you really have something better, go publish a book.

[Creepy-cinq]

Because I can entertain abstract ideas without having to cement them into my understanding of reality? How do fiction writers write? Everything they do is hypothetical, reaching from the abstract to try and be concrete, and have created an elaborate lie for people to buy into it. Why do they write? Your question is just a lash out against me in attempt for me to look hypocritical rather than genuinely placing yourself into my position. My comments don't demean Socionics or anyone's way of doing Socionics, until it comes to a "my way is objectively better than your's" which is what the issue here is. Everything you paraphrased from me is true, but those aren't prerequisite to being interested in something that has potential application. The problem occurs when people actually think Socionics is a fact, and because it exists indefinitely, there's only one way to do it correctly. I am NeFi and use it in application because it is what I understand in relation to this hypothesis, I don't go to other people, state I am NeFi in a general description about myself, and state how things should work because of this designation. I am fully aware that I have come to my own subjective understanding of Socionics, and that understanding (and honestly, it seems like this doesn't clash with anyone else) categorizes whatever appropriate aspects of me as NeFi.

Now, you can try again adding something intelligent to the conversation rather than stooping to attack someone's character.

I don't see the issue as being concrete so much as dealing with categories, structures and terms . The moment someone places some form and definition, you seem adverse to it and you shoot it down. It seems you like to keep socionics undefined and nebulous. Structure of course means limitations leading to potential stereotypes. You don't like stereotypes, you've made this abundantly clear in so many ways over the last months. Yet, you have no issues categorizing yourself as ENFp - leading of course to limitations. Seems truly silly. I've read Filatova's book and I'm in general agreement with the terms. The are not too different from what Aushra proposed. I think Filatova made it explicitly clear her book was introductory. So, it seems redundant to be so critical of the elementary nature of the book's contents when the author has already admitted it to be. It's almost as if you're jealous. Is the issue the fact that someone has finally defined the functions reasonably - there is no more mystery, new newness anymore? Move on to something else, Mattie.

[Mattie]

Though I don't see a lot of necessary, important, basic or mainstream information about it. It's not essential to understanding Socionics. If I wanted to know if I'm telepathic with my soulmate, how my neurons affected my personality type, and what the secret of life is, I would go ask maritsa. If I wanted to learn about Socionics, the practical theory that means something in real life, then I'd read the basic material on it. I have enough abstract unpractical meaningless things to do, such as writing and music. I don't someone helping me turn this into another mental guessing game.

The problem you have here is that you want all the complicated stuff being worked out by other people while you take the "practical" bits and use it. So, what you're saying is Socionics is fact without looking into the claim it makes. If the hypothesis originates from the hypothesis of information metabolism, everything about it further validates (or invalidates) Socionics, as well has Jungian functions. All of what I said and am saying here is in response to this:

You mean this literally, or by some standard? Because what is written in Filatova's book is not only Socionics, but it is literally proven. Maybe not by some Einsteinian equation that you might someday discover, but in reality where most of us live, yes.

Beside you sliding in some insults, you are purporting that Socionics is true and part of reality. If information metabolism is false, Socionics is false. if Jungian function are false, Socionics is false. By you saying that Socionics is a part of reality, you are saying information metabolism is true and a part of reality, and that Jungian functions are true and a part of reality. None of this has been proven. The ambiguity that haunts this forum wouldn't exist if that was the case. Therefore, you have no more weight in your perspective in "respecting Socionics 'authority'" than any other perspective one might have when handling the applicability of the subject.

Now, what separates me from you (and cinq, see how she presented herself in this thread) is that I don't need Socionics to be proven true or false to understand the abstract ideas and how it possibly can be applied; along with this understanding, I don't put the way I think objectively over another's, because I don't have any more 'proof' than the next person, along with the 'authorities.' If they do, find the research and this is all done! There will be less ways, if not one way, to do Socionics since it is embedded into reality.

You can't just make a random claim and say something is a part of reality but not want to get into the details of how it is. In actuality, you don't know how it is a part of reality, which is why you have a weak argument here.

ETA:

I don't see the issue as being concrete so much as dealing with categories, structures and terms . The moment someone places some form and definition, you seem adverse to it and you shoot it down. It seems you like to keep socionics undefined and nebulous. Structure of course means limitations leading to potential stereotypes. You don't like stereotypes, you've made this abundantly clear in so many ways over the last months. Yet, you have no issues categorizing yourself as ENFp - leading of course to limitations. Seems truly silly. I've read Filatova's book and I'm in general agreement with the terms. The are not too different from what Aushra proposed. I think Filatova made it explicitly clear her book was introductory. So, it seems redundant to be so critical of the elementary nature of the book's contents when the author has already admitted it to be. It's almost as if you're jealous. Is the issue the fact that someone has finally defined the functions reasonably - there is no more mystery, new newness anymore? Move on to something else, Mattie.

Sounds like you more have an obsession with me. Maybe you can move on to someone else.

[Creepy-female]

Though I don't see a lot of necessary, important, basic or mainstream information about it. It's not essential to understanding Socionics. If I wanted to know if I'm telepathic with my soulmate, how my neurons affected my personality type, and what the secret of life is, I would go ask maritsa. If I wanted to learn about Socionics, the practical theory that means something in real life, then I'd read the basic material on it. I have enough abstract unpractical meaningless things to do, such as writing and music. I don't someone helping me turn this into another mental guessing game. Life here is short, do what you got to do, don't pretend to be something you're not. I can't pretend or afford to be a interested in these open-ended scientific questions that lead to virtually nowhere in my life. Most people aren't going to be interested in a typology that's that sketchy and unpractical.

Lightning strikes againnn


Maritsa is on par with Augusta. She just hasn't written a book yet

[717495]

The problem you have here is that you want all the complicated stuff being worked out by other people while you take the "practical" bits and use it. So, what you're saying is Socionics is fact without looking into the claim it makes. If the hypothesis originates from the hypothesis of information metabolism, everything about it further validates (or invalidates) Socionics, as well has Jungian functions. All of what I said and am saying here is in response to this:

What complicated stuff?

Beside you sliding in some insults, you are purporting that Socionics is true and part of reality. If information metabolism is false, Socionics is false. if Jungian function are false, Socionics is false. By you saying that Socionics is a part of reality, you are saying information metabolism is true and a part of reality, and that Jungian functions are true and a part of reality. None of this has been proven. The ambiguity that haunts this forum wouldn't exist if that was the case. Therefore, you have no more weight in your perspective in "respecting Socionics 'authority'" than any other perspective one might have when handling the applicability of the subject.

Now, what separates me from you (and cinq, see how she presented herself in this thread) is that I don't need Socionics to be proven true or false to understand the abstract ideas and how it possibly can be applied; along with this understanding, I don't put the way I think objectively over another's, because I don't have any more 'proof' than the next person, along with the 'authorities.' If they do, find the research and this is all done! There will be less ways, if not one way, to do Socionics since it is embedded into reality.

You can't just make a random claim and say something is a part of reality but not want to get into the details of how it is. In actuality, you don't know how it is a part of reality, which is why you have a weak argument here.

Wow, you are quite the clusterfuck. If Socionics wasn't proven or part of reality, I wouldn't be here either! Haha. So go on defending your little grass hut.

[Mattie]

If Socionics wasn't proven or part of reality, I wouldn't be here either!

Oh awesome, I was waiting for you to finally leave this place. Bye!

[Creepy-cinq]

Sounds like you more have an obsession with me. Maybe you can move on to someone else.

No, not an obsession. I've posted in various threads this week, and I happen to be interested in this one in particular because I've just finished Filotova's book and wanted hear others views on it. Specifically, I'm interested in Melody Man's switch to INFp after reading the book as I know he's struggled for quite a while to identify his type.