An American Institute of Socionics

[tcaudilllg]

It's foolish to get heated over conceptual planning, but this is just plain ignorant. Socionics is more than self-indulgent theorizing. The only way you could claim that other types would have lesser importance than Alpha NTs as part of an institution, is to focus solely on the analytical abstractions that serve no practical progress.

I didn't say they were of lesser importance... I said that LII and LSI are the natural clearinghouses for such matters. Verifying others' understanding is what Ti types do.

Your claim that I see socionics as "self-indulgent" theorizing is a projection. I would agree that Keirsey, for example, is a self-indulgent theorist, but in general ILIs propose theories out of a sense of self-indulgence. ("my" truth, not "the truth") That's why you see so many ILIs "theory shopping", I think: because they don't want to come off as egotistical.

Theorizing is what alpha NTs do. It's how we contribute. We take it very, very seriously. Now you make the point of whether it is practical or not, to which I say, you are correct. I agree with that. Still, what exactly does ILI do with theory, anyway? And for what purpose would they create it on their own, if not to improve their work? LIIs generally see theoretical elegance as an end in itself.

[EyeSeeCold]

That's not the issue I had with what you said. It was the way you formed a hierarchy with LII/ILE as the top dogs. By doing so you assert that theorizing would be the most important and terminating aspect of the institution, as if LII/ILE products or judgments do not need to be checked. In the U.S., this is why there are three branches(actually four) in the political governing system(their performance and integrity are irrelevant to my current point).

[tcaudilllg]

I did not say that, I did not mean that. I meant that any theoretical proposition should be cleared by LIIs/ILEs, as a matter of principle. Like as not, we must practice what we preach. HOWEVER, political alignment is also important: for example you, as a negativist thinker, have imminently more discovery potential than an LII positivist like Spencer Stern (not that anyone arrogant enough to assert they don't need a psychology degree to be a part of such an institute, in a research capacity at least, would be invited). However, observe Discojoe's mastery of the basic theory; hell, he probably knows more details about it than I. Obviously someone like DJ is a great consistency check for propositions: while he doesn't seem to know that much beyond the basic theory, he can tell you if a proposition is consistent with it in a flash. This is what I meant by Ti authority in the research field.

On matters of practical application, I suppose gamma NT will be the ones to apply the theory, yes. However given we are the subjects of the application, they will be subject to our criticisms.

Bottom line is EyeSeeCold, we should be in agreement on everything theoretical. There is only one truth and given the facts only one truth is apparent. LIIs and ILIs need to share their facts and come to an understanding in the search for truth.

[EyeSeeCold]

Gogo gadget Demonstrative

You do realize that in a socionics institute only LIIs and ILEs would hold "real" power, don't you?

What did you imply by "real" power? Is there only one "real" power? Do not other types have abilities that would be essential to an institution?

Socionics was designed from the start to create a more Alpha SF world. Good luck with that.

I don't see how betas could lead when when it comes down to it, no one takes a ENFJ's word over an INTJ's over theoretical matters.

If "down to it" implies" theoretical matters", and you say you don't see how Betas could lead, then your view is that the theoretical aspects are dominant.

I do see a role for ISTJ and ESTP in socionics, but beta ST absorbs alpha NT input... they rarely contest it.

Of course I see gamma NTs in it too, so long as Alpha NT is permitted the last word.

Here it is again. The last word on "theory consistency and development" right? I'm sure that wasn't your original intent, which was more all-encompassing.

Though I do agree without a doubt LII/ILE should have full control of the theory's development.

[Galen]

I did not say that, I did not mean that. I meant that any theoretical proposition should be cleared by LIIs/ILEs, as a matter of principle. Like as not, we must practice what we preach. HOWEVER, political alignment is also important: for example you, as a negativist thinker, have imminently more discovery potential than an LII positivist like Spencer Stern (not that anyone arrogant enough to assert they don't need a psychology degree to be a part of such an institute, in a research capacity at least, would be invited). However, observe Discojoe's mastery of the basic theory; hell, he probably knows more details about it than I. Obviously someone like DJ is a great consistency check for propositions: while he doesn't seem to know that much beyond the basic theory, he can tell you if a proposition is consistent with it in a flash. This is what I meant by Ti authority in the research field.

Uh, why? You're implying that alpha NT mindsets are the only ones that are truly capable of understanding Socionics, and that everybody else has to answer to their seemingly superior brains. The idea that Ti has the last word in what is correct/incorrect about the field has shown itself to be wrong time and time again (see: Ephemeros, Aleksei). You're conflating "Ti" with "intelligence."

Though I do agree without a doubt LII/ILE should have full control of the theory's development.

I see absolutely zero reason as to why this has to be the case. If anybody has a new idea about it, then its validity should be tested by everybody else in the field, not just the "Almighty Alpha." That's how the scientific method works. Seriously, I don't understand the reason for this power play.

[tcaudilllg]

Uh, why? You're implying that alpha NT mindsets are the only ones that are truly capable of understanding Socionics, and that everybody else has to answer to their seemingly superior brains. The idea that Ti has the last word in what is correct/incorrect about the field has shown itself to be wrong time and time again (see: Ephemeros, Aleksei). You're conflating "Ti" with "intelligence."


I see absolutely zero reason as to why this has to be the case. If anybody has a new idea about it, then its validity should be tested by everybody else in the field, not just the "Almighty Alpha." That's how the scientific method works. Seriously, I don't understand the reason for this power play.

What's your reason for being against it? Of course we're taking common sense into account... it's the majority opinion of Alpha NTs that would prevail in a challenge. I agree absolutely that any idea offered should be considered. However, the judgment of which ideas are actually true should be left to Ti.

As for the reason why, consider the numerous attempts by Fs on this forum to demarcate "limits" to scientific investigation as regards socionics. "The model is too complex already (or complex enough). We don't need to make it more complex." The only barometer of model complexity should be amount of distinct phenomena observed. If you see six kinds of distinct phenomena of a kind and your model can only handle 4, you need a more complex model. Personal pique will have no sway in the activities of a socionics institute.

Ephemeros is intelligent. He's just unwilling to work with people to create a common model. Of course that obstinance is a count against his credibility, just as it is with Ashton.

I'm not saying you aren't intelligent, Galen, but this ad hoc modeling based on "threes" and "fives", rather than the fours and eights that the Alpha NTs insist upon, has got to stop.

Finally, there is the matter of intellectual independence. Systems created by non-Ti ego types tend to be incompatible with each other. Ti egos of all stripes tend to feel a need to "meet" each other half way (unless there is that narcissistic "me" streak running as discussed before). My point is, the same thing that holds for the worst Ti types, tends also to hold for most of the non-Ti type people in my experience. You need Ti supervision, in other words. We don't have it now and as a result, psychology-related information today is mostly a fracas.

I'm pointing the finger first and foremost at the EIEs, in case you can't tell.

Bottom line is, if you can't persuade alpha NT (the sane ones) that your proposition has merit, it probably doesn't have any and is a possible risk to the institute's reputation for quality output.

Another thing, I've looked into my crystal ball and I'm quite persuaded that the study of subelements will significantly influence the direction of social change over the next 40 years. I envision a cadre of elder Cs basically presiding over a swarm of Ds fighting for control of the future, with the Cs basically determining the winners. I think this will happen because information metabolism research will be the catalyst for the next round of social change: a number of pillars of our society are based around the principle of ambiguity over how far people can -- or will -- go to change themselves. Studying relations between subelements gives you a very clear picture of how attitudes shape people. However, the conclusions are sufficiently decisive enough (I will use that word "decisive") that they represent the potential for some cultural shifts. Ti, when well formed, is highly persuasive. It compels people to act on it, to adapt. But some of it now, I don't think we are ready for, and I don't think we will be ready... for some time. So there is the possibility of plausible deniability, and the socionics institute would have some sway over the matter of how to properly interpret information metabolism.

The future belongs to Beta, but not without Alpha supervision.

[KazeCraven]

Who is willing to pay people to do this? Anyone here? This is essentially what funding requires: people who want something enough to pay people to do it. Plenty of reputable researchers struggle to find proper funding, so I seriously doubt no-names are going to get money to research a theory which has its roots in psychoanalysis.

Which leads to the alternate question. How many people here would be willing to commit to the following work without pay:

- investigate current literature (Russian)
- refine the theory and post it on the web
- develop experimental plans to test it
- use resources (time and money) to carry out experimental plans
- come up with a way to demonstrate its effectiveness

?

[Galen]

What's your reason for being against it? Of course we're taking common sense into account... it's the majority opinion of Alpha NTs that would prevail in a challenge. I agree absolutely that any idea offered should be considered. However, the judgment of which ideas are actually true should be left to Ti.

My reason for being against it is that there is no reason to say that Ti egos are any better at coming to accurate conclusions than any other type. This is an inherent Ti bias and it's total bullshit.

As for the reason why, consider the numerous attempts by Fs on this forum to demarcate "limits" to scientific investigation as regards socionics. "The model is too complex already (or complex enough). We don't need to make it more complex." The only barometer of model complexity should be amount of distinct phenomena observed. If you see six kinds of distinct phenomena of a kind and your model can only handle 4, you need a more complex model. Personal pique will have no sway in the activities of a socionics institute.

From what I've seen, the argument isn't "we don't need a more complex model," it's that "we don't need a model that deals with seemingly superfluous information." I've heard both T egos and F egos express this same sentiment.

Ephemeros is intelligent. He's just unwilling to work with people to create a common model. Of course that obstinance is a count against his credibility, just as it is with Ashton.

Just as it is with pretty much everybody else on here. If you haven't noticed on here, there really isn't much agreement between lots of people on here, regardless of their types.

I'm not saying you aren't intelligent, Galen, but this ad hoc modeling based on "threes" and "fives", rather than the fours and eights that the Alpha NTs insist upon, has got to stop.

lol what does this mean? When have I said anything about modeling based on "threes" and "fives"?

Finally, there is the matter of intellectual independence. Systems created by non-Ti ego types tend to be incompatible with each other. Ti egos of all stripes tend to feel a need to "meet" each other half way (unless there is that narcissistic "me" streak running as discussed before). My point is, the same thing that holds for the worst Ti types, tends also to hold for most of the non-Ti type people in my experience. You need Ti supervision, in other words. We don't have it now and as a result, psychology-related information today is mostly a fracas.

Again, hyper Ti bias.

Bottom line is, if you can't persuade alpha NT (the sane ones) that your proposition has merit, it probably doesn't have any and is a possible risk to the institute's reputation for quality output.

I don't know how to express how frustrated I am with this statement.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Well, to begin with, I don't think I agree with tcaudilllg (maybe we should see if all the Alpha NTs agree with him ), because any institute that says "you are wrong because you are ____" begins to appear a bit snobby, and a bit arrogant (I'm imaging Royal Academy of Science in the 2004 film "Around the World in 80 Days", where other ideas are simply rejected because people have certain personalities) and it will probably actually just serve to hinder the creation of ideas.

To begin with, -ego's can be wrong, and they can not realise it, having Ti in your ego just means you prefer Ti explanations and trying to create them, but it does not necessarily entail you are better than other types at it. And it definitely does not mean you will always be correct.

Secondly, people, intentionally or not, may end up typing themselves as an Alpha NT either because they want their ideas appreciated or because they agree with the "Board of Alpha NTs", so they must be a Ti-ego as well.

Thirdly, at the very beginning of an institute starting, such a discriminating policy may create discontent among the non-Alpha-NTs, and cause the collapse of the institute altogether. Also, when the institute becomes stronger, it may be an overly conservative group of -egos, as the Alpha NTs that disagree with the majority of Alpha NTs would be accused of being mistyped. That is, the "Board of Alpha NTs" would consist of people who already think similarly on not type related ideas.

While it may be useful to have the -egos examine things, it shouldn't be the final word on whether something is valid or not.

[tcaudilllg]

Who is willing to pay people to do this? Anyone here? This is essentially what funding requires: people who want something enough to pay people to do it. Plenty of reputable researchers struggle to find proper funding, so I seriously doubt no-names are going to get money to research a theory which has its roots in psychoanalysis.

As I suggested, the matter can be politicized to some extent, opening channels of money that otherwise would be closed.

Which leads to the alternate question. How many people here would be willing to commit to the following work without pay:

- investigate current literature (Russian)
- refine the theory and post it on the web
- develop experimental plans to test it
- use resources (time and money) to carry out experimental plans
- come up with a way to demonstrate its effectiveness

?

The Russian literature isn't that important. It's mostly standing still. The main issue is getting hold of the Kiev institute journal in the first place. It's cheap, but very, very difficult to subscribe to.

I believe Gulenko is moving something, trying to get more research going or something. But there is still that authoritative thing about one person contributing one thing, instead of a whole bunch of things or working with many people... there just isn't a "moving force" over there.

Aside from subtypes, things haven't changed much since Augusta.

As for resources, that won't be a problem. Socionics can play a huge role in the development of cognitive psychology: we can illuminate the ways of the information processing systems in the brain and demonstrate the existence of the types at the same time. Imagine what MRIs of two conflictor type groups would reveal.

Aside from the MRIs, a number of people on these forums have done all the above without receiving a dime in compensation, for several years. Trying to make a living studying socionics comes later, I think. In the meantime, people need to be working their way up the psychology rungs (particularly in the neurological, cognitive, and industrial fields) and letting their peers know that socionics exists and proposing that they seriously consider it.

I tried to get Boukalov's support for a socionics school in the west, opening up the journals, etc. Maybe when I have more education.

[Creepy-]

The idea that Ti has the last word in what is correct/incorrect about the field has shown itself to be wrong time and time again (see: Ephemeros, Aleksei).

Thanks for pointing out that I'm wasting my time, expert.

I hope you agree that our deal, which you initiated, to not use the other as a "negative" example is consensually dismissed at this point. I'm looking forward to your acknowledgment, otherwise I'll PM you linking to this post.

-- Bolt

[Galen]

I hope you agree that our deal, which you initiated, to not use the other as a "negative" example is consensually dismissed at this point. I'm looking forward to your acknowledgment, otherwise I'll PM you linking to this post.

Acknowledged.

[Creepy-]

...

I (ILE) basically totally agree.

Nevertheless, I think Socionics study may offer one of the best methods for picking a successor in any field; it should be a compatible type (besides merit, values and other usual conditions), _if_ the goal is to prevent it being perverted. Using your example, if the purpose of the Royal Academy was to conserve itself as faithfully as possible, naturally only similar-minded people should've been accepted, you POV is one of an outsider.
Typing can be used to fulfill the opposite, too, if the declared purpose is to enrich the "gene pool" of that society, if coverage is important. I have a personal opinion on what should be applied in our case, though for reasons you seem to already understand it's better to keep them private.

-- Bolt

[tcaudilllg]

Well, to begin with, I don't think I agree with tcaudilllg (maybe we should see if all the Alpha NTs agree with him ), because any institute that says "you are wrong because you are ____" begins to appear a bit snobby, and a bit arrogant (I'm imaging Royal Academy of Science in the 2004 film "Around the World in 80 Days", where other ideas are simply rejected because people have certain personalities) and it will probably actually just serve to hinder the creation of ideas.

We're not rejecting ideas. This is, simply the alpha NTs asserting themselves: scientific integrity comes first, not some F's arbitrary whim, nor the greed of Te.

And, if there is a competition of ideas, then the idea that seems the most probable get backing. The other, left out in the cold.

To begin with, -ego's can be wrong, and they can not realise it, having Ti in your ego just means you prefer Ti explanations and trying to create them, but it does not necessarily entail you are better than other types at it. And it definitely does not mean you will always be correct.

There's more to it than that. Learn dimensionality. I already addressed the quality issue when I discussed Ephemeros. Plainly, a crackpot is a crackpot.

Secondly, people, intentionally or not, may end up typing themselves as an Alpha NT either because they want their ideas appreciated or because they agree with the "Board of Alpha NTs", so they must be a Ti-ego as well.

Ah, but VI, VI, VI! Trust me: there is no escape from a IM-EM visual identification profile database, nor the research that will be done to affirm its validity. Type ambiguity will not withstand Ti scrutiny.

Thirdly, at the very beginning of an institute starting, such a discriminating policy may create discontent among the non-Alpha-NTs, and cause the collapse of the institute altogether. Also, when the institute becomes stronger, it may be an overly conservative group of -egos, as the Alpha NTs that disagree with the majority of Alpha NTs would be accused of being mistyped. That is, the "Board of Alpha NTs" would consist of people who already think similarly on not type related ideas.

Hardly. How many betas do you see in the Kiev institute? Alpha NTs have a reputation for being smart. Fs feel smarter around them, I know this from experience.

While it may be useful to have the -egos examine things, it shouldn't be the final word on whether something is valid or not.

Show a little more self-respect.

[EyeSeeCold]

We're not rejecting ideas. This is, simply the alpha NTs asserting themselves: scientific integrity comes first, not some F's arbitrary whim, nor the greed of Te.

These are stereotypes. Functions have inclinations not absolutes.

[Aleksei]

Socionics was designed from the start to create a more Alpha SF world.

Lulz. Evidence?

I don't see how betas could lead when when it comes down to it, no one takes a ENFJ's word over an INTJ's over theoretical matters.

That'd entirely depend on what the EIE and LII's theories are, but in any case by and large Beta philosophers are usually introverts ( + theorists); and of those there are plenty: Robespierre (LSI), Thomas Jefferson (IEI), Ayn Rand (LSI), Nietszche (IEI), Aleister Crowley (IEI), and that's just off the top of my head.

EDIT: Extroverted Beta philosophers:

Voltaire (EIE)
Bakunin (SLE)
Mussolini (SLE)
Lenin (SLE)
Trotsky (EIE)
Papa Fidel (EIE)
Che (EIE)
Chairman Lmao (EIE)
Anton LaVey (SLE)

I do see a role for ISTJ and ESTP in socionics, but beta ST absorbs alpha NT input... they rarely contest it.

That's quite a bold assertion. Just for my own part, I haven't seen many Alpha NTs on this forum whose input I'd trust.

[tcaudilllg]

Robespierre is LII.

[Aleksei]

There is in fact some dissension among Eastern Socionicists (whose typing of Western historical figures tends to be iffy at best anyway) about whether Robespierre was LII or LSI -- LII seemed to have been decided for him (as for Jefferson) merely because he was a theorist. He was clearly Decisive anyway. And in any case, can you dispute my assertion that Betas can be theorists, and kick Alpha NT ass at it?

[tcaudilllg]

There is in fact some dissension among Eastern Socionicists (whose typing of Western historical figures tends to be iffy at best anyway) about whether Robespierre was LII or LSI -- LII seemed to have been decided for him (as for Jefferson) merely because he was a theorist. He was clearly Decisive anyway. And in any case, can you dispute my assertion that Betas can be theorists, and kick Alpha NT ass at it?

Any C can make a discovery. The question is, how attentive are they to making sure the discovery makes sense? Do they accept contradictions, or try to explain them? Alpha NT will always seek a deeper understanding -- and a deeper model -- of phenomena which seems to be "in the middle". The supreme dialectic... that's what we reach for... although, we understand that things can be "just that different" and don't try to force reality to match a model. Freud did that... Gilly tried it too, asserting that EM types could only be real if they were the product of "formative early childhood experiences". What rubbish... that's what happens when F gets hold of a theory and feels they have the right to evaluate it based on something other than logic. F always wants what F wants... T is subjugate to it in its eyes (or should be subjugated).

Any person of any type can be wrong about something, obviously. But something sticks in the throat of a person who tries to tell an LII they are wrong. Did you know that just being around someone of a type causes their ego functions to strengthen in you? You can't really experience it on a forum, but you can on a chat, and especially if you're right next to them, you can notice.

The ability to appraise likelihoods and probabilities... is the most important tool in theorizing.

[Timeless]

If an LII/INTj or LSI/ISTj establishes the institute, the building will look like:


If an LIE/ENTj or LSE/ESTj establishes the institute, the building will look like:


If an SLI/ISTp or SEI/ISFp establishes the institute, the building will look like:


If an SLE/ESTp or SEE/ESFp establishes the institute, the building will look like:


If an EII/INFj or ESI/ISFj establishes the institute, the building will look like:


If an ESE/ESFj or EIE/ENFj establishes the institute, the building will look like:


If an IEI/INFp or ILI/INTp establishes the institute, the building will look like:


If an ILE/ENTp or IEE/ENFp establishes the institute, the building will look like:


...Wouldn't you like to work here Bolt?

[Beautiful sky]

An INFj building has big windows where the outside becomes one with the inside and of course has big shades to keep the inside in during the night , but also has a good amount of nature around it also, very warm and Si (warm, cozy, clean, clutter-free) inside as well.

[Creepy-]

If an ILE/ENTp or IEE/ENFp establishes the institute, the building will look like:

DO WANT.

[Words]

Thanks for pointing out that I'm wasting my time, expert.

I hope you agree that our deal, which you initiated, to not use the other as a "negative" example is consensually dismissed at this point. I'm looking forward to your acknowledgment, otherwise I'll PM you linking to this post.

-- Bolt

Bolts a good example of an LSI who often gets it wrong LOL.

[Words]

Can the institute have dress down Fridays? This way we can raise money for the institute by making the Fridays donation based and of course further socionics by pulling comparisons between peoples dress down clothes and their types out of our asses.

[EyeSeeCold]

If an IEI/INFp or ILI/INTp establishes the institute, the building will look like:

Wow got screwed over lol.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

Wow got screwed over lol.

Choose an upgrade:

[Creepy-]

If an ILE/ENTp or IEE/ENFp establishes the institute, the building will look like:


...Wouldn't you like to work here Bolt?

Maybe, depends on what's inside. I don't really click (subdued Se/Ni) with conventional symbols and associations, and most of what pertains to image.
---

And note that you abuse the usage of bold "ifs". They're used - by people who know why they need them - to emphasize the purely hypothetical nature of a premise (IF TRUE, counterfactual conditional sentence), to make sure no claim that the condition is true may be interpreted, but you misuse them for possible actual cases (WHEN, factual conditional sentence, not a true conditional), loosing their true meaning and importance. Of course, you may use emphasis notation when you need to point out a specific special/exceptional case, too (eg. when, when, *when*, _when_), but not over a full series in any case.

Deal with this sham in the future, please.

-- Bolt

[EyeSeeCold]

Choose an upgrade:

http://i.imgur.com/bCoU5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/wLzsM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7adkB.jpg

More like:

Maybe, depends on what's inside. I don't really click (subdued Se/Ni) with conventional symbols and associations, and most of what pertains to image.

It's not so much conventional as it is primordial. Se/Ni is about timeless, bold and meaningful constructions.

[Timeless]

Choose an upgrade:

You win!

Of course, you may use emphasis notation when you need to point out a specific special/exceptional case, too (eg. when, when, *when*, _when_), but not over a full series in any case.

So bold-wise, what's the difference between:

-- Bolt

And:

If ...

[Pa3s]

If an LII/INTj or LSI/ISTj establishes the institute, the building will look like:

This building doesn't only look like Ti, it literally is Ti.
(also: +1 Internets because it's Nintendo)

[tcaudilllg]

My point is, you'd better have a damn good reason to disagree with an LII's judgment on scientific matters. And on matters of theoretical investigation, so long as it doesn't infringe on a reasonable right, there should be no inhibition and absolutely no censorship. Ideas should be free.

Maybe what I'm really appealing to is a respect for alpha NTs in general, something which this forum really hasn't shown enough of. I see respect for the rank of the socionists, but not so much even for their merit as intellectuals.

Hell, Expat is probably more respected than I, and he's a Te type.

[Pa3s]

And on matters of theoretical investigation, so long as it doesn't infringe on a reasonable right, there should be no inhibition and absolutely no censorship. Ideas should be free.

Do you know the old song "Die Gedanken sind frei"? (The thoughts are free) I guess not, but I always liked it:

 

Thoughts are free, who can guess them?
They flee by like nocturnal shadows.
No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them,
with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

I think what I want, and what delights me,
still always reticent, and as it is suitable.
My wish and desire, no one can deny me
and so it will always be: Thoughts are free!

And if I am thrown into the darkest dungeon,
all this would be futile work,
because my thoughts tear all gates
and walls apart. Thoughts are free!

So I will renounce my sorrows forever,
and never again will torture myself with some fancy ideas.
In one's heart, one can always laugh and joke
and think at the same time: Thoughts are free!

I love wine, and my girl even more,
Only I like her best of all.
I'm not alone with my glass of wine,
my girl is with me: Thoughts are free!

btw: I think everyone gets the deserved respect, no type should be generally favoured before others.

[Aleksei]

Hell, Expat is probably more respected than I, and he's a Te type.

That has nothing to do with the fact you're Alpha. And everything to do with the fact that you're fucking cuckoo.

[Creepy-male]

This building doesn't only look like Ti, it literally is Ti.
(also: +1 Internets because it's Nintendo)

Nintendo embodies Alpha SF values.

[tcaudilllg]

One thing that is absolutely clear: only psychologists will be eligible for membership.

[Aiss]

Another thing, I've looked into my crystal ball and I'm quite persuaded that the study of subelements will significantly influence the direction of social change over the next 40 years. I envision a cadre of elder Cs basically presiding over a swarm of Ds fighting for control of the future, with the Cs basically determining the winners. I think this will happen because information metabolism research will be the catalyst for the next round of social change: a number of pillars of our society are based around the principle of ambiguity over how far people can -- or will -- go to change themselves. Studying relations between subelements gives you a very clear picture of how attitudes shape people. However, the conclusions are sufficiently decisive enough (I will use that word "decisive") that they represent the potential for some cultural shifts. Ti, when well formed, is highly persuasive. It compels people to act on it, to adapt. But some of it now, I don't think we are ready for, and I don't think we will be ready... for some time. So there is the possibility of plausible deniability, and the socionics institute would have some sway over the matter of how to properly interpret information metabolism.

The future belongs to Beta, but not without Alpha supervision.

In the spirit of this thread's idea of Ti prominence as far as theory is concerned, I feel obliged to request you leave crystal balls and all other means of foreseeing futures in a far more competent hands of Ni IM egos. Thanks a lot.

[Aleksei]

One thing that is absolutely clear: only psychologists will be eligible for membership.

You'd deny Aushra Augusta entry?

[tcaudilllg]

In the spirit of this thread's idea of Ti prominence as far as theory is concerned, I feel obliged to request you leave crystal balls and all other means of foreseeing futures in a far more competent hands of Ni IM egos. Thanks a lot.

Sure thing, but I don't see how they would react any differently.

[EyeSeeCold]

Maybe what I'm really appealing to is a respect for alpha NTs in general, something which this forum really hasn't shown enough of. I see respect for the rank of the socionists, but not so much even for their merit as intellectuals.

Respect or praise? The two are different.

In the spirit of this thread's idea of Ti prominence as far as theory is concerned, I feel obliged to request you leave crystal balls and all other means of foreseeing futures in a far more competent hands of Ni IM egos. Thanks a lot.

If I'm correct in my thought, then Alpha prediction is based on logical progression with explicit factors in play. That's a pretty solid way of forecasting. It relies on boxing people into predictable characters though, which isn't always reliable, especially if there are things you do not know.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I like that for IEI. Something out of society's grasp like that makes sense.