Typing Methods: Type of Information Metabolism

[Exodus]

I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.

A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.

So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.

What does this mean? For example, if I see that someone uses actively all the time and seems to avoid using , I can conclude that they are probably an ego type. It's key to define what "using " means here.

In short, information metabolism is the input, processing, creation, and output of information.

There is NO ONE OBSERVABLE TRAIT that is unique to a particular type, nor does any type always have a particular observable trait. There are many people of the same type that are nothing alike at first glance, yet share something more abstract.

If you stick to this methodology your typings will be more robust. It is necessary to gain experience with concrete examples of the types, but I still meet people who are nothing like anybody I knew before, and in that case I am forced to resort to more abstract typing methods.

The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.

[krieger]

removing behavioral traits from the analysis in socionics is intellectual suicide. it makes it impossible to check claims for truth.

you speak about "methodology", when in fact your way of thinking is a rejection of methodology.

i agree that in the final analysis a socionics type would be something apart and separate from behavior, but it is simply not workable to discuss the types in this way without creating a climate where the correctness of claims is neglected in favor of their ability to attract publicity.

[Exodus]

removing behavioral traits from the analysis in socionics is intellectual suicide. it makes it impossible to check claims for truth.

I said nothing about ignoring behavioral traits. Obviously they are necessary for typing. My point was that they should be explicitly linked to information metabolism when possible.

[Rick]

This is an almost perfect translation of long-going intellectual disputes among Kiev socionists. One side (Yermak) sees "information metabolism" as the foundational principle of socionic types, and the other side (Gulenko, sometimes others) accuses him of fleeing into an abstraction. In practice, neither side is as extreme as they may appear to be based on their words alone. Certainly, thehotelambush is not eschewing behavioral traits altogether — just a certain category of "concrete" traits that are not necessarily deeply intertwined with the rest of a person's personality. Behavioral traits that are stable over the long term and have a large impact on a person's relationships with others, I think, are often related to socionic type.

Even the silly ones like "loud," though, often have some correlation with type. For instance, probably only 10-20% of ILIs would be labelled "loud" by others, while 30-50% of SEEs might be. Intuitive types are probably more likely to have an avoidant relationship style, and Ne types are more likely to be noncommittal. I think thehotelambush would agree with this, but that the correlations are not strong enough to make a big deal about in typing.

The weakness of the "information metabolism above all" approach is that "it's key to define what is here." Not all types tend to be skilled at this intuitive approach (try teaching it to a SEE, for instance). So there is always opposition between an approach that starts with abstractions and incorporates concrete traits "when necessary" and an approach that goes the other way. And between people who are old hands at socionics vs. those who are new and flailing around trying to relate type to something they can comprehend.

[Exodus]

Good to hear from you on this, Rick.

This is an almost perfect translation of long-going intellectual disputes among Kiev socionists. One side (Yermak) sees "information metabolism" as the foundational principle of socionic types, and the other side (Gulenko, sometimes others) accuses him of fleeing into an abstraction.

Very interesting.

In practice, neither side is as extreme as they may appear to be based on their words alone. Certainly, thehotelambush is not eschewing behavioral traits altogether — just a certain category of "concrete" traits that are not necessarily deeply intertwined with the rest of a person's personality. Behavioral traits that are stable over the long term and have a large impact on a person's relationships with others, I think, are often related to socionic type.

Of course, I have nothing against using behavioral traits in typing, and most of my typings are based on some kind of behavioral observations. But still, I am talking about all traits, not just a certain category. They should always be linked back to information metabolism somehow.

Like I said, it's important to learn the manifestations, but to have any kind of reasonably objective discussion on an internet forum about typings it may help to take a relentlessly theoretical approach. People complain endlessly about how subjective typing is, and I feel that with this approach there is very little subjectivity.

Even the silly ones like "loud," though, often have some correlation with type. For instance, probably only 10-20% of ILIs would be labelled "loud" by others, while 30-50% of SEEs might be. Intuitive types are probably more likely to have an avoidant relationship style, and Ne types are more likely to be noncommittal. I think thehotelambush would agree with this, but that the correlations are not strong enough to make a big deal about in typing.

Definitely.

I am only making this post because of what I have personally discovered to work in my own typings over the last 5 years.

Honestly, I remember hearing you make similar arguments when I was still a beginner and it can be confusing, because it demands greater familiarity with socionic concepts.

The weakness of the "information metabolism above all" approach is that "it's key to define what is here."

Yeah, I slipped that very important sentence in there.

Not all types tend to be skilled at this intuitive approach (try teaching it to a SEE, for instance). So there is always opposition between an approach that starts with abstractions and incorporates concrete traits "when necessary" and an approach that goes the other way. And between people who are old hands at socionics vs. those who are new and flailing around trying to relate type to something they can comprehend.

When someone's learning socionics it's important to have lots of concrete examples to learn from, e.g. to learn what is. But it's best to get weaned off of them as soon as possible, because who knows, maybe you're talking to someone who happens to only know the 10-20% of ILIs that happen to be loud.

[Jarno]

What I often observe especially on this forum is that when people use IM, everyone has such a different interpretation that the results are that all 8 IM will be named. While if you look at behaviour, you will rarely hear someone say, he's loud, and someone else say he's quite. Then there's more agreement.

anyways, I think after a while of typing people, you will make your own mental constructs of how a type looks like, and you don't use a methodology anymore, only comparison with your mental constructs.

[mfckr]

.

[krieger]

information metabolism based interpretations are not even an "approach" to socionics. every time a person uses an argument based on interpretations of what form of "information metabolism" is going on on an unverifyable, "behind-the-scenes" level, they are just formulating an obfuscationary excuse for going with whatever vibes with the subjective impressions. it has nothing to do with providing a measure of "evidence" of a typing to the best extent this is possible. this is how it promotes the climate of controversy that plagues communities like these.

1) Promotion of misleading stereotypings about what various types are supposedly like, which fail to incorporate a realistic range of individual differences.

stereotypes are also an issue where "information metabolism" is concerned. this is not an argument.

2) Subjective variations in observer POVs/impressions when assessing another's behavior. It's not unusual for two different individuals observing the same person's behavior, under the same conditions, to arrive at opposing interpretations about it. For example, what may seem 'crass' and 'rude' to someone might seem entirely 'easygoing' and 'friendly' to another.

this is to a far, far worse extent the case with interpretations of "information metabolism". how can you possibly think this argument helps YOUR case?

3) There are plenty of other observable cues humans give off which are typologically useful, making it unnecessary to rely any great extent upon behavioral-based conjectures, apparent traits, or patterns thereof when typing someone.

if you're focussing on "observable cues", you're not in the information metabolism camp. these observable cues are exactly what behaviorists look for. you have clearly not understood the problem.

[mfckr]

.

[Creepy-Snaps]

A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.

I am Mountain Dew and I approve this thread.

[Igxfl]

I think the IM method mainly emphasizes method and motive of behavior over the actual behavior, if it makes more sense to consider that way.

[Exodus]

I think now that I worded this post too strongly - can it please be un-stickied?

I still see information metabolism as the fundamental object of socionics, but people also go easily to the other extreme of ignoring behavior which is also not right. Attributing behaviors to type is fine as long as you know which attributions to make and realize how widespread they actually are.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Tl;dr - Basically just prioritize the information (rather than rendering the lower priority / more extraneous components fully obsolete).

The problem is: which ones are what priority, and for what reasons? There is a schism because none of this is actually based upon concrete facts, and thus it can't be firmly proven to be one thing or another. It can always be debated until more concrete factors become involved.

[Rebelondeck]

@thehotelambush
Information metabolism is a rather amorphous term. This seems to suggest somewhat of a blackbox approach: stuff goes in and stuff comes out but what goes on inside is largely irrelevant. The Socionics black box consists of eight compartments and the degree to which the compartments are used comprise the basis for determining type behaviour. Therefore, one can predict how organizations function simply by assigning observed output to a set of standard departments. The view can be nothing but superficial........

a.k.a. I/O

[Number 9 large]

I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.

A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.

So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.

What does this mean? For example, if I see that someone uses actively all the time and seems to avoid using , I can conclude that they are probably an ego type. It's key to define what "using " means here.

In short, information metabolism is the input, processing, creation, and output of information.

There is NO ONE OBSERVABLE TRAIT that is unique to a particular type, nor does any type always have a particular observable trait. There are many people of the same type that are nothing alike at first glance, yet share something more abstract.

If you stick to this methodology your typings will be more robust. It is necessary to gain experience with concrete examples of the types, but I still meet people who are nothing like anybody I knew before, and in that case I am forced to resort to more abstract typing methods.

The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.

this ''information metabology'' outs itself into personality, traits, habits and behaviour. theyre not disconnected

[Exodus]

this ''information metabology'' outs itself into personality, traits, habits and behaviour. theyre not disconnected

Yes which is why I corrected the post above.

[Kill4Me]

I'd just point out to newer members that HotelAmbush got a lot of that from Stackemup Typology (Socionics New Wave), which I am the founder of. Hotel Ambush wrote:

I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.

A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.

So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.

I posted this back in July:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...27#post1286027

Si similarly got railroaded by those working inside the one dimensional, one typology closed universe....there it got conflated into type nine. Avoidance of allowing situations to disturb one's mental tranquility is pure enneagram nine. R & H calls it the nine's inner sanctum. That's not to say the nine does not avoid such situations....the SLE-Se 9w1 so/sp can be quite brutal, but that its more nines negate the impact of their actions through the defense mechanism known as isolation. They disassociate...it allows them to be aggressive without really having to experience the impact of that aggression. The inner sanctum never gets touched. In attributing type nine to Si/SEI, socionists began invading the domain of behavior and personality. They couldn't just stick to socionics as cognition even though that was the crux of the theory. Think about it. Avoidance is behaviorally-related rather than cognition-type related...because the crux is 'to avoid', to avoid disturbing situations. To avoid is a behavior, so, thus, does not infer any particular cognition and has no significance socionically. People will vastly different styles of cognition can engage in avoidance. Yet, this was the direction Si and moreso SEI ended up becoming taken in.

I've been pressing that same theme for years and years now. HotelAmbush has now turned Stackemup Typology's platform into his typing method (and even mirrored my dislike for "behavioral typing"). In other words, he's trying to take the same approach as me, but let's just be clear I've been pressing the definition now for many years and there are more threads to prove it. I've also been pressing my dislike for behavioral typing for years now and there are more threads to prove it. Furthermore, whatever I say pertaining to types represents Stackemup Typology (Socionics Side) formerly Socionics New Wave. Of course, it's good to see HotelAmbush paying homage to the more disciplined philosophy of American Socionics (as pioneered by Stackemup Typology) rather than the dreamy and undisciplined Russian approach used by Jack and Expat.

Now, HotelAmbush is still ten steps behind me. As I've said before, VI is the most practical method of typing in the real world because you can arrive at a type very quickly and it's an accurate indicator of socionics type....my templates show beyond any reasonable doubt that cognition can be inferred through the physical construction of the eyes. Thus, my VI templates for each socionics type and subtype scientifically validates socionics because it provides a basis for making probable predictions about a person's cognition...I've done it and demonstrated it a thousand times. Stackemup Typology has also led the attack on the Quadra Values Mythology and laid down a scientific basis for the successful unification of socionics and enneagram, a task that Niffweed had previously tried to pull off but failed.

I want to point out that anybody is welcome to utilize and enrich Stackemup Typology for personal benefit...I'm only calling HotelAmbush on it because he is my EII conflictor.

[Muddy]

@thehotelambush Happy to see you are finally coming around to appreciating our lord and master k4m.

[Aylen]

@thehotelambush Happy to see you are finally coming around to appreciating our lord and master k4m.

I am very impressed that @thehotelambush got this from "Socionics New Wave (Stackemup Typology)" considering he posted before k4m even joined the forum and "Socionics New Wave" didn't exist at the time. He truly is a metaphysician/sorcerer of the highest level!

[Exodus]

"anybody whose [sic] using my foundations will qualify to receive protection and reinforcement"

Awesome, guess I'm all set then

Where's my bodyguard? Do I get a helicopter??

[Sol]

"sociotype" is Jung's type

a lot of "confusion" (mismatches) is due to:

- using of baseless wrong theory (alike Reinin's bs) or wrong theory's understanding (alike your claims that Si types get tired quicker)
- muddy typing methods (with multiple interpretations) and doubtful skills in their usage (mb supposed about anyone who do not identifies types regularly)
- the lack of correct and useful typing data (alike when are used only questionnaires with prejudiced answers without nonverbal behavior)

all this leads to that REAL typing match between ANY two typers is <50% and average is <20%
(as minimum this is true about the very majority. never seen the other)

Peoples' behavior and IR effects fiting to normal theory shows me that I'm correct subjectively. The results of IR test may show that I'm correct objectively and may be sometimes to proof duality existence. Alike I've done before with objective proof that VI is useful for typing.
While what you prefer to do is to play in theory reasoning with the lack of interest to reality. Only this approach can lead to that after many years messing with the theory and typing you strangely understand even the basic's about types and may seriously use random bs instead of Jung+Augustinavichiute's theory.
Having the high interest to typology and being active in its discussions you'd could to make more reasonable efforts and mb to get better practical results. To use lesser reasoning for reasoning, but to pay more attention to the reality - to check good on practice how hypotheses work before to trust them. Then lesser of mistakes you'll do.

[Beautiful sky]

I watch and observe people over time. Sometimes functions jump out at me and other times I need more time to determine which function they are “demonstrating “ as a social mask and which one they are doing

[Not A Communist Shill]

watching and observing...mb "S"-type

over time...mb -type