discussion on smilexian socionics

[Smilingeyes]

From what I remember, at some point smilingeyes described his "system" (esp. the easy behavior tracking graphs & co) as based on Si.

Yes. It's the simplest way to solve a number of problems in the more common model-A. It's a Si quick-fix.

On other matters:
@Labcoat: I've currently reached the situation you describe as "the point when you revert" or something like that. I'm finding substantial obstruction in going forward with increasing Si in my life and I'm not sure I want to proceed that way. I'm feeling like taking a giant leap back towards ENFj-Niness and doing a rerun of the ENTj phase. I wouldn't describe it as necessary. I've been Si-ego in my life and I feel strongly that I could go further into that direction, but I feel also that it would not be wise to continue that-a-way, that I would lose something of myself that I'm not quite yet willing to part with.
I wanted to say this because I think your experiences of reverting back to INTjness are probably the most common thing that happens to people and I wanted to support your observations of the cyclical, restart again and again view of psychic change. I personally am actually in some way wishful that your view was more true, because it would allow me to continue on with certainty that I'd just revert back to a "normal state" eventually. Currently, I dare not.


...
The picture in this thread is not of me. In comparison with me, that person seems kind of ... complacent.

...

As for smilexian socionics... I continue to use it with great success in my daily life. I don't really see a reason to continue with the abstract discussion here, because I have a tool that works perfectly fine. I sometimes still peruse other people's type descriptions because they often contain individual observations that can't instantly be derived from the model itself and are nevertheless true and useful. So sometimes I lurk.

Finally it's a bit premature, but Merry Christmas everyone anyway.

[Simon Ssmall]

Glad to have you back. And Merry Christmas to you too in case you wont be around!

[Trevor]

Glad to have you back. And Merry Christmas to you too in case you wont be around!

Yeah.

[Park]

Happy premature Christmas ejaculation everyone. Let's have a good one.

[Park]

The picture in this thread is not of me. In comparison with me, that person seems kind of ... complacent.

That's... a very suitable word to describe him. I am amazed at your assessment.

[Minde]

I split the old thread for the sake of keeping that article less bloated and more to the point.

Good choice.

On other matters:
@Labcoat: I've currently reached the situation you describe as "the point when you revert" or something like that. I'm finding substantial obstruction in going forward with increasing Si in my life and I'm not sure I want to proceed that way. I'm feeling like taking a giant leap back towards ENFj-Niness and doing a rerun of the ENTj phase. I wouldn't describe it as necessary. I've been Si-ego in my life and I feel strongly that I could go further into that direction, but I feel also that it would not be wise to continue that-a-way, that I would lose something of myself that I'm not quite yet willing to part with.
I wanted to say this because I think your experiences of reverting back to INTjness are probably the most common thing that happens to people and I wanted to support your observations of the cyclical, restart again and again view of psychic change. I personally am actually in some way wishful that your view was more true, because it would allow me to continue on with certainty that I'd just revert back to a "normal state" eventually. Currently, I dare not.

I'm not labcoat, but hopefully you won't mind an interjection. I would ask about the particulars of your obstructions in terms of increasing Si, out of curiosity, but you probably wouldn't like that. Actually, I have several questions, but I feel they might be too personal so... yeah, I'm not sure why I'm even writing this. I guess I'll just say I wish you blessings in wherever you go or end up.

As for smilexian socionics... I continue to use it with great success in my daily life. I don't really see a reason to continue with the abstract discussion here, because I have a tool that works perfectly fine. I sometimes still peruse other people's type descriptions because they often contain individual observations that can't instantly be derived from the model itself and are nevertheless true and useful. So sometimes I lurk.

Cool.

Finally it's a bit premature, but Merry Christmas everyone anyway.

The same to you.

[Words]

The best way to use this typology is through flexibility. Jung spoke about 8 aspects of processing information, and that attributes such as will power and memory were not connected to these. Jung spoke about functions developing in different strengths in the same person depending on what they are doing in life. Jung also said that type change is possible.

Jung was a trained professional with a vast array of experience from life and from patients.

Ashura was a woman who had issues with getting on with people. Ashura also had issues with her marriage. Ashura had a large ego. Ashura had no real qualifications in the subject of psychology. Ashura created a rigid system of humanity which does not apply to the real world, ie LSIs with powerful Ti and puny Ni, what about the ones who have weak Ti and strong Ni, what are they? Don't ask model A, but they are still people that exist.

Anything with a greater degree of flexibility is going to be useful when it comes to this typology so yes to whatever it is smilex is trying to do here, I can see how he applies it succesfully as it allows for greater flexibility than model A.

Personally I see the functions as little more than archetypes, which become stronger or weaker in a person going through life, indeed when we're aware of them we can call upon the idea of these archetypes should we wish, and put the rest to people making the effort to get on with each other or not - which is the main part.

[Suz]

text

WOW!! Smilingeyes speaks!!

Welcome back! I know you're busy with your surgical residency and all but dont be a stranger...

[Creepy-]

Reinin dichotomies are sheer . People on this forum who are very interested in them:
Labcoat - INTj
Crispy - INTj
Brilliand - INTj
hkkmr - ENTp
Pied Piper - ENTp
me - INTj

I don't have an opinion on whether the Reinin is Ti or not, but to correct a misunderstanding of yours. I am not interested in "The Reinin Dichotomies", but there are some of them that make sense to me, while others don't. You make this mistake (from my POV) of taking them all for granted as a whole - and so do some other people in your list who can't conceive the possibility that some can be real and others false, as long as they're determined by the same author through the same reasoning (and BTW, you forgot Trevor). The fact is that these dichotomies were just predicted by Reinin by combining the four "basic" ones, they're formal, conventional, arithmetic. Makes sense that many Logical Rationals tend to relate to them instantly, since RD make "part of Socionics", they often aim to tell whether they're in or out.
---

Comparing to those who just adopt them (instead of concluding them), I:

- dismiss quite a lot of them, the ones that don't make sense with the Model and/or real-life observations; these don't exist to me as of today: Yielding/Obstinate, Tactical/Strategic (*), Constructivist/Emotivist, Carefree/Farsighted, Positivist/Negativist, Process/Result, Asking/Declaring. So 7 out of 15, almost 50%.

- (*) think that Tactical/Strategic has a basis IRL, but it corresponds to External/Internal set of the Creative function of types; therefore SLI and SLE would be what Reinin calls "Tactical" (to me: Tp and Sj) while IEE and IEI are what he calls "Strategic" (to me: Fp and Nj). So mine does not make part of the Reinin convention, though my observations partially match the ones of the St. Petersburg confirmation squad. I don't have a strong opinion and clear descriptions of these traits, though.

- consider some of them to be the same dichotomy - or a combination of others, so they're not all on the same level. For example T/F and S/N are the same dichotomy (External/Internal) that, although it's fundamental to the Information Aspects, it's ignored by the RD because RD uses the old Jungian dichotomies as a fundamental given. Another example is Merry/Serious and Judicious/Decisive - they're a combination of this missing dichotomy with j/p.

- acknowledge the existence of other dichotomies with the same importance as the ones that make sense from Reinin (eg that one that I was calling in 2008 as Suggestible (Ti, Fe, Ni, Se)/Non-Suggestible(Te, Fi, Ne, Si) - or something)

- have my independent view on the traits of these dichotomies, both by using information and types, my descriptions are based on analyzing the real traits of these types (of people and information) so they naturally gravitate around the descriptions of Reinin; however, my descriptions often radically differ from the ones made by others, whose ones are based on Reinin's frugal and cryptic descriptions, often simply the keywords alone, instead of observations, making them purely formal and usually inaccurate, depending on what keywords and ideas from Reinin they emphasized. For example, I view Serious and Decisive as very similar and I often extracted what they have in common, while no one I know developing over Reinin ever accomplished that.

related:

Take for example your understanding in Aristocratic/Democratic - an understanding based on the general meaning of these notions (words, not observations):

Democratic / Aristocratic: (replaced with individualist / collectivist)
...
Democratic / Aristocratic -> Individualist / Collectivist
...

They consider that everyone has got talents and they try at least not to interfere.

Democratic. Aristocratic types may believe other people don't have talents...
...

ENFjs also have tendency to behave aristocratically. They can give the impression that they are from noble families.

Aristocratic.
...
democratic/aristocratic: Groups. Do you identify with your nation, you race, your sports club or not?
...
intuitive*ethical*aristocratic = Humanitarians

So you think this dichotomy is necessarily society-related, just because that's where these terms apply in the general sense. Then you try to make it somehow match the type and Quadra descriptions, overlooking anything that could be inconsistent, being confident that they will "fit together somehow in the end". Your last example is even a contradiction in itself - those racist aristocrats are humanist, hmm....

I view it differently and while the trait of having an aristocratic air can be considered a subset of the real traits, it can have nothing in common with most of these fantasies based on Reinin's terms alone (eg Individualist/Collectivist). To me, "aristocratic" is an irrational (in the general sense), type-related tendency to possess an awareness of "belonging". Examples: the feeling that a woman should be more justified and motivated to talk about estrogen and contraception, a male about beer, a native English speaker about English, someone on-duty about the duty, and so on.
This "aristocracy" is the schism between the External (S,T) and Internal (N,F) valued Information Elements, it can be considered socially true for Beta, because of Se/Ni (symbolic image, impression), but Delta is out of the question - in fact most egalitarian people are Delta while the most elitist ones are Beta. How can this be correlated to the whole story of "aristocracy"?

I think you're onto something, but that is an inclination of Tj's, not Ti's - Logical Rationals, the types who (think they) live in a "perfectly logical" world, where everything is already explained or can be explained at will, types to which a theory or concept can be either valid or invalid - in a nutshell, people incapable or barely capable to comprehend the notion of "partially correct". You may safely use this as a definition for "Logical Rational".

off-topic:

No surprise that most Socionics authors are extremely reserved into using "open-minded" and Rational/Judging in the same sentence. Besides, if you comprehended how insane I view ideas like "brainstorming" (or any kind of controlled creativity and controlled understanding, technically defecating "ideas" and "solutions" on-demand), you could realize that if this view was a government policy, virtually all LIEs and LSE would be socially marginalized or even confined to asylums .

I'm not like this, I explained my view above all the time when I used to post, and I'm telling you, JohnDo that you're currently incapable to understand it, to understand me and therefore understand certain types (in this case Tp). I do think that your dogmatic view is somewhat type-related but I still think that you can get over it if you really intend to advance, your current Socionics understanding is an almost exclusively semantical set of indiscriminate compilation of different writings of different authors (including subjective connotations, eg your bogus understanding of "serious"), which you struggle to forcibly make fit together, speculating and ignoring the inconsistencies. Smilingeyes has done the same mistake, adding some quick and dirty "solutions" to cover up the things he could not explain (eg. inventing changing types).

Concluding, there's little to no connection in understanding, usage and selection of these dichotomies between me and most other people in that list, unless some of them changed their view that I'm aware of. Also, I'm not using the "Reinin Dichotomies", but some of the dichotomies I acknowledge coincide with some of Reinin's, if you brazenly choose to ignore this fundamental aspect and label me as a "Reinin user" it's only your problem and your mistake.
(Not trying to suggest that I discovered all these dichotomies I use by myself, from scratch. I did investigate Reinin too, and often started off from it - in fact this is how I managed to have an opinion on which of these dichotomies I accept and which I reject.)

--
Pied Piper

[krieger]

For those interested, Trevor and I recently found a way of framing the claims of Reinin that renders the old terms obsolete. The large cycle Reinin dichotomies denote value-focus clubs and stength-focus quadras:

Stength-focus on a trait means that when the Strong functions of a type (ego functions and ego functions of the Contrary type) are examined, functions of the trait in question are always Focal (aka Limiting).
Value-focus means the same thing for the Valued functions of a type (ego functions and ego functions of the Dual).

Focal (aka Limiting) means Accepting/Dynamic or Creating/Static
Diffuse (aka Empowering) means Accepting/Static or Creating/Dynamic

Emotivism: strength-focus Serious
Constructivism: strength-focus Merry
Strategical: strength-focus Reasonable
Tactical: strength-focus Resolute

Carefree: value-focus Sensing
Calculated: value-focus Intuitive
Obstinate: value-focus Ethical (interest protecting)
Comliant: value-focus Logical (method protecting)

Type		Strength Focus	Value Focus
INTj		Delta (Ne,Te)	NF (Ne,Fe)
ESFj		Beta (Se,Fe)	NF (Ne,Fe)
ENTp		Beta (Ni,Ti)	ST (Si,Ti)
ISFp		Delta (Si,Fi)	ST (Si,Ti)
ISTj		Gamma (Se,Te)	SF (Se,Fe)
ENFj		Alpha (Ne,Fe)	SF (Se,Fe)
ESTp		Alpha (Si,Ti)	NT (Ni,Ti)
INFp		Gamma (Ni,Fi)	NT (Ni,Ti)
ISFj		Beta (Se,Fe)	ST (Se,Te)
ENTj		Delta (Ne,Te)	ST (Se,Te)
ESFp		Delta (Si,Fi)	NF (Ni,Fi)
INTp		Beta (Ni,Ti)	NF (Ni,Fi)
INFj		Alpha (Ne,Fe)	NT (Ne,Te)
ESTj		Gamma (Se,Te)	NT (Ne,Te)
ENFp		Gamma (Ni,Fi)	SF (Si,Fi)
ISTp		Alpha (Si,Ti)	SF (Si,Fi)

Also worth noting:
Rationals have Focal Object functions
Irrationals have Focal Field functions

This gets at the real substance of the large-cycle Reinin dichotomies and explains why they are relevant and how they connect to the rest of the model instead of being a bunch of disjoint names without a context. Of course you need an understanding of Focal/Diffuse to understand this, so if you don't have one you have some catching up to do.

If you don't like the emphasis on Focal, you can get the Diffuse traits by inverting the ones displayed here.

[Creepy-]

Focal (aka Limiting) means Accepting/Dynamic or Creating/Static
Diffuse (aka Empowering) means Accepting/Static or Creating/Dynamic

In case that your "Creating" is the same thing with "Producing", I think there's something wrong in that (intended to use another dichotomy?). Each Dynamic and Static are to be found as both Accepting and Producing, as long as one block can have only one Dynamicality.

[And as far as I can tell, the positioning of the Dynamic (and therefore Static) functions won't affect the type as a separate dichotomy, apart for the S/D partition of the Ego:
- each block is either fully Dynamic or fully Static, Accepting/Producing make no difference;
- each D/S can be found in both Valued and Subdued blocks;
- each D/S can be found in both Strong and Weak blocks.]

Am I missing something?

--
PP

[krieger]

I think your confusion consists in how you missed somewhere that Focal/Diffuse is a trait of functions, not types or blocks. Other than that, your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and maybe you should explain your difficulties again.

[Creepy-]

I think your confusion consists in how you missed somewhere that Focal/Diffuse is a trait of functions, not types or blocks. Other than that, your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and maybe you should explain your difficulties again.

There's no confusion, you used Dynamic/Static in your post.

I was expecting that you won't be able to justify the existence of Focal/Diffuse through Dynamic/Static. If you remember our first clash on the forum - "which is the most fundamental dichotomy" - it was based on the same thing: while I acknowledge that Dynamic/Static as a fundamental one (it's a damn information aspect), you said that it's a mere combination of j/p and E/I. This mistake of yours drives you into such dead-ends, it appears to me that no matter how much you try (like a rat in a glass jar, someone would say) you won't be able to change this, unless you reject the fact that Reinin's Dynamic/Static is the same with Dynamic/Static information aspect of the functions/IEs (aka "denying the reality").

I previously demonstrated to you that the usage of the four dichotomies as a base by Reinin made room for error, for redundant combinations and inexistent dichotomies, but you failed to understand, trying to justify all Reinin through all sort of complicated formulas, operations and definitions, so check mate! I'm glad you confirm my other post that you live in a reality built on paper. You continue to be wrong and build your whole understanding on this clay foundation - the only way out requiring you to admit that I am right.

Like Trevor would answer labcoat: "neat!"

--
PP

[krieger]

There's no confusion, you used Dynamic/Static in your post.

Which can be both a trait of functions and of types. I tire of explaining the basics to you.

I was expecting that you won't be able to justify the existence of Focal/Diffuse through Dynamic/Static. If you remember our first clash on the forum - "which is the most fundamental dichotomy" - it was based on the same thing: while I acknowledge that Dynamic/Static as a fundamental one (it's a damn information aspect), you said that it's a mere combination of j/p and E/I.

Wrong. I have never said anything along those lines and I have never believed anything in that general direction. I believe introvert/extrovert to be the most superficial dichotomy of the three temperament dichotomies (by far), so I generally understand that to be the derived one and the other two to be fundamental.

This mistake of yours drives you into such dead-ends, it appears to me that no matter how much you try (like a rat in a glass jar, someone would say) you won't be able to change this, unless you reject the fact that Reinin's Dynamic/Static is the same with Dynamic/Static information aspect of the functions/IEs (aka "denying the reality").

I previously demonstrated to you that the usage of the four dichotomies as a base by Reinin made room for error, for redundant combinations and inexistent dichotomies, but you failed to understand, so check mate! I'm glad you confirm my other post that you live in a reality built on paper. You continue to be wrong and build your whole understanding on this clay foundation - the only way out requiring you to acknowledge that I am right.

All you ever have to offer is accusations and bombastic rejections of the possibility that the error you see is manifest on your side of things.

[Creepy-]

Which can be both a trait of functions and of types. I tire of explaining the basics to you.

I understand now what you mean. It's your fault for my misunderstanding, because you tried to subvert the fact that this new function dichotomy of yours is not justified by anything known, like Dynamic/Static, but those are just the rules of how to identify what you call as Focused/Diffuse. This apparently is an arbitrary choice of yours to justify Reinin, as usual, which tell nothing new about the types, dear. You can pick an infinity of such "dichotomies" out of the Model.

This is not basics, this is your invention, a formal convention, apparently the point in my first post in this thread - works on paper, but what is it's empirical support? The issue of the Reinin dichotomies asks for whether they're justified or not. You can of course prove me wrong, in case you can justify it against real world and type descriptions, can you?

So, for example, how does this "Focus" on the Creative (Ti) manifests in ILE and how it manifests on the Demonstrative (Ti, too) in ILI? (you may use other pairs if you like, but at least two or three would be required, I suppose) I'm talking about observations on people or emergent conclusions from classical descriptions.

The same problem applies to your list of "proven" Reinin dichotomies: they don't stand when applied to types, to their described personality. No matter what formula you'll find for each, it is still mandatory to justify them, time when you'll be put in the most embarrassing situations. For example the idea that LIE is a Carefree type is simply ridiculous and it contradicts the most fundamental and strong traits of this type. Same with SLI = Strategic and so on.

Wrong. I have never said anything along those lines and I have never believed anything in that general direction. I believe introvert/extrovert to be the most superficial dichotomy of the three temperament dichotomies (by far), so I generally understand that to be the derived one and the other two to be fundamental.

You're right. I forgot what information aspect you deny, it's not one but the other .

--
PP

[krieger]

I have spoken at length about the significance and the interpretation of Focal/Diffuse in the past and have no interest in repeating myself. Also, I offer the above presentation as a different way of framing the claims of Reinin. The fact that Focal/Diffuse condenses these claims in an orderly and meaningful way is proof enough of it's significance to those that already consider the Reinin model worth considering.

As a general rebuttal of your argument, there are tons of terms in socionics that don't meet the criteria that you demand, the only thing differing being that these are supported by community consensus whereas mine are not. The type descriptions that you talk about are themselves engengered by these consensi and so comfirm these circularly. Meanwhile, the only real argument for the significance of any term in socionics is in how it simply makes sense to it's interpreter. For my case as to how Focal/Diffuse is meaningful in this way, do a search on my posts about it.

[krieger]

I'd also like to point out that all you INTjs who use DCNH subtype theory to emphasize NF functions in yourselves by typing yourselves INFp or something in that area (like 90% of all INTjs around here do), may find explanation of this phenomenon in the fact that INTj is a Focus NF type. The INTj's Valued Focal functions are Ne and Fe.