Model Discussion split from "New Type Representatives" thread

[Krig the Viking]

It's not a 'new way' of looking at type—you've probably never taken the time to see how much overlap of agreement there actually is. If you did, you'd likely find out that there's nothing radically divergent going on. I might disagree on a few 'mainstream' typings, but what of it? The Socionists disagree with each other often too, if you haven't noticed.

There's no 1 tried and true way of looking at this stuff and so-called "classical socionics" is far from being a coherent, established paradigm. So you may as well cease w/ the brainwashing newspeak here.

In my opinion, the differences between your typings and the "mainstream" are significant enough to say that you belong to a distinct "school" of socionics. All I'm saying is that the newbs should be aware of that when deciding who to believe. Confusion doesn't help either side.

[Suz]

In my opinion, the differences between your typings and the "mainstream" are significant enough to say that you belong to a distinct "school" of socionics. All I'm saying is that the newbs should be aware of that when deciding who to believe. Confusion doesn't help either side.

tbh i've never saw any "mainstream" typelist--most celebrity benchmark lists have quite a lot of disagreement among them.

Ashton's celebrity typings made the most sense to me (and mind you i dont always agree on all of them). We also tend to have a lot of consensus on typings using his methodology (which is still albeit vague), and typings I come up with using his school of thought do generally check out in my real life interactions. This is why i've come to trust Ashton's typelist and Ashton's school of socionics the most--because it's checked out for me in practice and I feel to date, it has been the most reliable.

I dont think Ashton's "school" is anything out of the "mainstream" it's just that socionic manifestations can be understood in many many different ways, and it's hard to actually pinpoint what is what unless we all sit as a group and analyze people and come to a consensus.

Also, for example, Fe-valuing people will be seeing the Fe whereas Fi-valuing people will be seeing the Fi, which also leads to differing opinions. I think the key is to analyze motive which isn't always easy or straightforward.

[Marie84]

You do not have to take it back just because of peer pressure, but it is a typing that you would need to defend.

agreed, and I don't think Krig meant you had to agree with him either. If you believe so-and-so is a certain type and everyone disagrees, you're entitled to that opinion, but it'll help your case if you can back-up that typing with reasoning rather than just saying "so-and-so *is* such". Even if you fail to convince anyone it never hurts to talk about it, at the very least we'll at least learn where the other is coming from

I dont think Ashton's "school" is anything out of the "mainstream" it's just that socionic manifestations can be understood in many many different ways, and it's hard to actually pinpoint what is what unless we all sit as a group and analyze people and come to a consensus.

It actually is, if by mainstream we're referring to Augusta's Socionics's aka Model A. Ashton uses Model X from what I understand

[xerx]

I think labeling people's views into various 'schools' of thought is intellectually dishonest, as it typically devolves into a means for one 'side' to bash and marginalize the other. It's like in economics debates I've heard often heard said things like, "oh don't listen to them, they're Keynesians" and so forth. Sure, the label is convenient, but it's preloaded with connotations and what not that risk prejudicially distorting what others may actually think and believe.

I disagree. Most people are mature enough not to be prejudiced when deciding on a typing. We shouldn't wear kiddie gloves just because some people choose to ignore a potentially valid typing that came from a group they dislike.

I'd rather just hear it straight from individuals themselves on what their thoughts/outlooks are per reality as they see it, not arbitrarily lump them into a subjective categorization.

Categorization into a distinct school is by essence objective if two or more people share the same typings, and is probably the first goal of any empirical effort.

[Creepy-male]

If you don't use models how do you type people

[Krig the Viking]

I don't use any model because modeling Socionics is pointless. Too many unknowns and insufficient evidence to substantially back anything. Strict adherence to any model will lead to unrealistic conclusions at the present stage of development.

DCNH seems to most closely approximate a significant chunk of my outlook though. Overall, I'm more of an eclectic who borrows components from various theories, models, and ideas that I deem useful.

Interesting -- I've been wondering for a while if your seemingly random (from my perspective) typings are in fact based on a different level of the psyche from traditional socionics, such as the Persona type (ie, the DCNH "subtype"). I haven't got around to doing any sort of detailed analysis yet, though, so I refrained from saying anything. It would also help explain your difficulty in coming up with a coherent model.

[Krig the Viking]

Like this.


The above link might interest you. It's not a complete overview yet, but it explains a great deal about where I'm coming from and contain references to what sources I generally rely upon.

Interestingly, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote at that link. And yet, our resultant typings are often radically different. It's not so much that our typings don't ever agree; there do seem to be some typings we agree on. It's just that when our typings don't agree, they really don't agree. We often assign the same person types which are not even slightly similar. Normally when I disagree with someone, the types are at least similar enough that it's understandable that one or both of us could be confused -- Mirror types, or Quasi-Identicals, or Benefit types. This leads me to suspect that, somehow, we're using almost entirely different criteria to arrive at our conclusions.

[xerx]

I don't necessarily agree with that. No two people AFAIK share 100% of the same typings.

And even if they did, it tells you nothing about the methodology they used to come to those typings. Two people may come to the same typing for entirely different sets of reasons.

They don't have to share 100% the same typing for the similarities to be relevant. Just because correlation doesn't imply causation doesn't reduce its effectiveness for understanding similarities and differences between typers.

Though for the record, most people are pretty vocal about why they choose to agree with someone.

[Aiss]

They don't have to share 100% the same typing for the similarities to be relevant. Just because correlation doesn't imply causation doesn't reduce its effectiveness for understanding similarities and differences between typers.

Especially its effectiveness at conveniently dismissing someone's typings by assigning them to a "school" they never subscribed to nor agree with in the first place. Which is the sort of reason that leads to creating most labels in the first place.

By the way, weren't you in agreement with Pinocchio about a lot of socionics stuff? I suppose that qualifies as "jxrtes is using Pinocchionics"... about as much as "being from Ashton's school" for most people it's used against.

[Marie84]

I don't use any model because modeling Socionics is pointless. Too many unknowns and insufficient evidence to substantially back anything. Strict adherence to any model will lead to unrealistic conclusions at the present stage of development.

DCNH seems to most closely approximate a significant chunk of my outlook though. Overall, I'm more of an eclectic who borrows components from various theories, models, and ideas that I deem useful.

If you don't use a Model than what do you call this?

Like this.

from that, it looks like you still follow a system to type (which is by default immanent in typology) it's just that you took bits and pieces that made sense to you and fit them into a new self-coherent approach to typing.
In other words, this isn't part of "mainstream" Socionics that WorkaholicsAnon stated it is, whether it's right or wrong, though, is debatable of course

[xerx]

Especially its effectiveness at conveniently dismissing someone's typings by assigning them to a "school" they never subscribed to nor agree with in the first place. Which is the sort of reason that leads to creating most labels in the first place.

By the way, weren't you in agreement with Pinocchio about a lot of socionics stuff? I suppose that qualifies as "jxrtes is using Pinocchionics"... about as much as "being from Ashton's school" for most people it's used against.

I don't recall ever being in agreement with Pinocchio about 95% of what he said, but if I were in full agreement about anything, I'd find it completely natural that we'd be grouped together on that position and would probably defend it as the correct one.

Statistical correlation between typers is harmless and helps us intuit where people are coming from, what assumptions they're agreeing with and what they disagree with, as well as any assumptions we maybe using or overlooking -- that's certainly true for me anyway. It's also the first step to studying cases that everyone can agree on, to understand why they're special. Arguing against generating lists is the same as arguing that ignorance of facts is better than knowledge.

I don't see it as some great taboo that needs to be avoided just because people are afraid their ideas will be stereotyped and lumped unfairly. People who'll use it to dismiss ideas will find a way to do it with or without help. People who complain that their typings aren't being accepted just need to provide better reasoning to make them stand out.

[717495]

Well yes you two come to different typings often, partly because one of you, in my opinion, base your typings on unnecessary stereotypes of how a type should be, and probably aren't aware of the external diversion there exists with people who think on similar wavelengths. That's what I've noticed, and ironically, hopefully you have too from this quandary you've discovered. There is no solution however but to accept this characteristic.

[golden]

I don't know everyone here equally well, but I find it interesting that two people whose typing abilities I especially respect so far (Krig and Ashton) are positing themselves as in regular disagreement.

Having finally seen the Socionix galleries, I would say that although many of the typings there surprised me because they seem unique in the Socio-universe, and I might disagree with a scant few, overall my sense as I explored them was, "Oh, NOW I get it." I got a clearer picture of certain types (and subtypes). Those galleries are, at the very least, coherent. I sort of sighed with relief, for example, when looking at the Beta typings, because some of those people have been very important influences on me. I also got a much better idea of what "my dual" can be like, an idea that takes me farther along the path toward my independent understanding that much of the material I've encountered on SLEs presents them in an extremely stereotyped way. I'm sure stereotyping runs rampant for every type, but I particularly want to get beyond stereotypes when it comes to identifying people of the types that are most beneficial to me and whose companionship I seem to have long been starved for.

For me, the key statement in Ashton's explanation of how he types is this: "In a nutshell: Socionics is more applicable as a theory about cognition than it is a theory about behavior. I'm less interested in what you do, I'm more interested in how you do it, and in the ways a person seems to think, feel, and perceive."

I know that as a newbie to Socionics I fall into the trap of looking at behavior, hobbies, career, etc. What I think I should be doing instead is building a composite picture in my mind for each type/subtype ... of how a person's inner world manifests in their behavior, with the understanding that it may manifest quite subtly. I think that if I learn to do that, my typings will possibly be at odds with some others', because I might ignore some of the surface factors and instead focus on something more ineffable.

[Creepy-male]

"In a nutshell: Socionics is more applicable as a theory about cognition than it is a theory about behavior. I'm less interested in what you do, I'm more interested in how you do it, and in the ways a person seems to think, feel, and perceive."

And yet:

He values temperament.
He values temperament enough to have claimed to be most closely aligned with DCNH compared to other Socionics widgets. (Not what you said Mr Ashton, feel free to correct me on this.)
He stubbornly types me as ILE seemingly because I have a bubbly extraverted persona, based off the above.

I'm not sure what he sees in me to believe I "think, feel and perceive" the same as JRiddy, Penn Jilette, Michael Moore, Ozzy Osbourne, etc.

Or even, for that matter, what in common the above even have with one another in terms of thought, feeling and perception.

[leckysupport]

Evaluating temperament isn't the same as evaluating behavior though. All I do is look at things like the person's physical poise, demeanor, muscle tension in certain parts of the face, and so forth. I'm not analyzing behavior when I do that.

IMO physical poise, demeanor, muscle tension etc. count as mannerisms and mannerisms are classed as behaviour in most dictionaries.

mannerisms - definition of mannerisms by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[Creepy-male]

I used temperament a very long time before I knew DCNH even existed. And I don't actively use DCNH much at all or anything. I just found it closely resonates in part w/ some ideas I'd thought up before.

Which is precisely why I fear you type people exclusively based on extremely superficial characteristics, considering DCNH is like a theory of surface temperament (with some additional points).

That wasn't why I type you ILE… either way, now you apparently agree you are one, so I must've been onto something lol.

Evidently the joke was completely lost on you

A lot of various subtleties. Much of it's difficult to put into words, especially without appropriate context.

I'll give you some time. Drop me a PM when you have the words.

Bear in mind these people came from radically different backgrounds and upbringings than you did. You also should factor in the enneagram differences and what not as well.

I call shenanigans on using the enneagram to justify typings. Same with subtypes.

See, here's how DCNH works: "It's subtle, but X and Y are the same type, they just have some superficial (albeit marked) differences that make them seem like a different type."

Here's how misusing subtypes or a completely distinct and discrete theory to bullshit people of different types together works: "X and Y are actually different types, but have superficial characteristics in common if you look at them through the lens of this superfluous system. As a bonus said superfluous system also justifies tiny discrepancies in said superficial characteristics."

Here's an analogy:

Good way: some apples are green, some apples are red, but at the end of the day they're still apples.

Bad way: if you paint this orange red, it looks vaguely like a really wrinkly apple, therefore this orange is now in the same set of fruit as all other apples.

[Words]

Socionics is just a hypothesis and Model A is something Ashura created to describe the hypothesis.

One model is as good as another until it's all proven.

Besides, even with model A, it seems a lot of people disagree on what constitutes a manifestation of a function within a particular position - and even if w/e it is is actually related to type.

As far as i'm aware, the main (or perhaps only) source about Model A is on wikisocion. I don't really care if someone uses w/e model...as long as I can see how it can manifest in my actual life. Models are just models not proof...and if a particular model helps explain things better, then fine.

On that... Model X as I understand it was something Ganin came up with to describe the valued functions, for instance in Model X the functions are represented at each of the crosses in clockwise order, Ti Ne Fe Si, so it's not saying anything different than what socionics mainstream says.

End of day is that with many things in psychology, it's open to interpretation, it's not like going into a shop and you know for a fact that something costs X because that's what it costs, or buying a limited edition bottle of whiskey and knowing it should increase in value over time so you can sell it and make a bit of an investment return.

Whatever model it is or not using a model, I don't mind someone doing something which makes socionics more applicable to real life.

A part of me is coming to the conclusion that Jung with his psychological types was basically describing archetypes through the functions. No ones even proven that the archetype a person uses can't change - even although Jung said it can change. People just make an assumption in socionics that "your type can't change" or Model A is God. If that's what works for a person then fine, but disagreeing with someones typing because they don't use Model A or take various assumptions as being correct isn't something I can see a particular use for. Perhaps i'm wrong too of course, I suppose i've got less energy to debate a bunch of theoretical stuff that can never be proven anyway, whether it's with a model or without a model.

So end of it, I might not agree with all of Ashtons typings...but he's a reasonable guy and he discusses things reasonably which is all I can ask for in this game, from anyone.

[Creepy-male]

My goodness, where do I even begin... it's like you're operating in a different reality, one forsaken by any kind of sanity, abandoned by the very laws of predictability I hold sacred. It is not often someone's mind takes me to a place beyond simple good and evil and abandons me there, shivering, alone, and overcome with loathing and self-doubt...

Congratulations, Ashton, yours was one such profoundly and utterly ineffable a post. Bravo, sir, bravo.

What're you wanting?

To hear why I'm ILE.

You're better off using them in concert IMO, as it gives a more well-rounded understanding. For instance, knowing that you're an Ne-ENTp 9 readily explains many differences between you and say, Ti-ENTp 7s (like Vero or something). Aside from that, it should still be obvious that you're both ENTps, simply by noting the presence of EP temperament and α-quadra values—that's all that's necessary. So you can can ditch subtypes and etypes altogether if you want. But incorporating the two will yield greater specificity and that's a good thing.

Oh please. "A more well-rounded understanding". Hollow rhetoric, and a more glamorous way of affirming that you do indeed fudge typings by layering on excuse after excuse as justified by "subtypes" and "enneagram".

More plainly stated, it's a lie.

At any rate, it's laughable to call me EP temperament. If it isn't for the bubbly extravert persona (as you so kindly clarified), I can't imagine what you'd be basing it off. You have time to gather your thoughts, so no wriggling out with "But the words don't come to me easy."

I'd like to hear how I compare with other Ne-ENTp E9s. If I am the sole proud member of my dying race, then so be it, I will hold my head high and bear my solitary legacy... with honour.

Also, to clarify, I'm not advocating simply omitting enneagram and subtype under your system. I'm saying your system is flawed to begin with because of its treatment of them--misuse of subtype on the one hand, and even incorporating the enneagram on the other.

I'm aware of many people that seem to superficially come off like an alternate type. You're actually a good example of that—often times you would appear as though you were using lots of , to a point that you believed yourself ISFp for some time… but it was obvious to me that it wasn't the of an ego. And that you were an EP temperament w/ α-quadra values, so therefore ENTp.

Protip: I still "believe" myself to be an SEI. The type in my signature is a joke. That's why it's so sparse. Also, my Fe usage has nothing to do with my self-typing. My self-typing, in summary, is based on:

Intertype relationships
The observations of close friends and family (one case who knows socionics well, and has typed me)
The workshop wiki SEI description (corroborated by intertypes)
Temperament (cyclical moods, low energy, tendency towards relaxation/inertia/a "de-mobilised" state--how this is EP is beyond me)
Base function (tied in with temperament above)

Yeah, you don't have to explain this to me. I'm well aware.

Apparently not, because earlier in that very post you actually admitted to the bungle of calling an orange an apple if you look at it the right way!! (one more time for emphasis: ):

You're better off using them in concert IMO, as it gives a more well-rounded understanding. For instance, knowing that you're an Ne-ENTp 9 readily explains many differences between you and say, Ti-ENTp 7s (like Vero or something). Aside from that, it should still be obvious that you're both ENTps, simply by noting the presence of EP temperament and α-quadra values—that's all that's necessary. So you can can ditch subtypes and etypes altogether if you want. But incorporating the two will yield greater specificity and that's a good thing.

[jughead]

Yes ashton is insane and loves using troll circular logic and always subtlety never fully explaining himself. Its always too long and difficult to write here or anywhere.