Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: EM Type, Model B, and other non-mainstream Socionics

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default EM Type, Model B, and other non-mainstream Socionics...

    Giant rant may (correction: will) follow. You have been warned.

    I would love to fully immerse myself in the theory of Socionics, but it seems as though I have thus far not been able to. I do not think this is due to one singular reason, but I will attempt to explore some of reasons here:

    1. Theoretical basis/no empirical foundations. This seems to be the overarching reason, from which the other problems manifest. Even from the very beginnings of my study of this theory, this problem became more or less immediately evident to me. On the surface of Socionics, that is, IM Elements and the Model A, this was not so big an issue. The fact, Socionics at least seems to work, so the exact truth of its claims are not so important. However, as I delved ever deeper into the theory, and the implications of the lower levels on the higher levels became apparent, I was then fully aware of the problems inherent in this system merely because it has no empirical basis, aside from the fact that it has no empirical basis to begin with, and that is

    2. Wide variance/interpretation of any numbers of assertions Socionics must assume to exist in order to operate as it was designed. This should be obvious in the rather large numbers of interpretations in the most basic of Socionics theory, even despite the fact that Augusta clearly (evidently, anyway, as I have never read her works) outlined at least the basics of Socionics in her books. But the problems of interpretation become even more clear if the focal point is moved from the basic or holistic view of Socionics to its semantics (and believe me, this whole second point definitely ties in with the first, that is, the fact that there is so many different interpretations of the theory is directly caused by the fact that the theory essentially has no empirical basis).

    3. Lack of reliable/centralized/any sources. Other than wikisocion, socionics.us, and a handful of Russian sources (which I have honestly not bothered to look at, because Google-translated Russian sucks), it seems to me that, by and large, Socionics as a personality typology and theory of interpersonal relations is unknown in most of civilized society. Not to say, of course, that all pseudo-science is on the same level (it is clear to me, for one, that Socionics does what it supposed to do better than any other typology I have ever encountered), but it does not change the fact that they are both pseudo-science. (wow, I derailed back to point 1?) Truthfully, the lack of sources is my biggest problem, because whether or not the theory is accurate or reliable (I could easily switch to another theory which is better if that is necessary, so the overall validity of it, in the context of reality, is not entirely important to me), I am compelled to learn more about it. Past Model A and the TIM and intertype relations, there are virtually no sources on the development of the theory, or at least any that are good (hell, even some of the sources on the basics of the theory are terrible).

    Well, now that I'm done with that rant, I can get onto the real content of this thread. Firstly, a list of questions I would like answered, not to say that all of them even have a concrete answer, or that I expect them to all be answered by others. I expect to have the answers to all of them sooner or later, but the exact method in which they are answered does not matter much to me. The list is merely for my reference.

    1. What exactly is Information Metabolism? What does it describe?
    1a. What do the Information Elements do? What is the difference between Elements and Aspects? And how do these both synthesize to create Information Metabolism?
    2. "Rings of Supervision." What do they mean and what are the implications of them?
    3. DCNH descriptions. I have never seen any "real" ones.

    That's it off the top of my head. I will add more if I think of them. After all, this list is mostly for personal reference anyway, so that hopefully I can study with a clear goal in sight.

    I will admit that I do not even fully understand the Model A and the classical perspective on Socionics, so terribly sorry about that. I am still learning about the subject.

    Alright, done with Model A stuff. Now we get into the stuff outlined in the thread title. Firstly, Model B, or potentially any non-Model A perspective of Socionics. As I alluded to in point 3 of my list of grievances with Socionics, there appears to be even less sources for Model B than Model A, and then those sources contain even less information. This disheartens me greatly... I made a thread concerning Model B some time ago and got the reply "Talk to hitta about it." My only problem is, I don't have any direct questions about it, because I don't know anything about it, other than the fact that it apparently uses 16 functions rather than 8. So going to a person about it would be useless, unless that person were fully willing to share general knowledge of the subject and then extrapolate on it until I was content. However, I have found this is almost always not the case. I prefer external, impersonal sources to people anyway, for some reason. But the point is, I would love some good information on this topic, but cannot find any.

    Next are tcaud's EM types. Truthfully, the theories of tcaud and labcoat interest me the most, not because the theories actually help significantly develop Socionics (I could not know whether they do, because as I said, there are no centralized sources), but because I have seen both of them swear by their own theories. But the problem, as I said before, lies in the fact that there is no information concerning them. I have seen many people say that Model B makes Model A obsolete. But I have also seen labcoat says that his theories of focal/diffuse and narrator/taciturn cycles make Model B obsolete. tcaud proposes his theory of EM type as some form of construct alongside IM type, and entirely separate from any subtype system. But I have never seen any information about any of them at all. The times I have seen them referenced at this forum, there is no explanation as to what they are, or what they accomplish. I do not outright deny any new theories without a thorough evaluation first, but the more theories that are piled on to Socionics, the more the theory loses coherence and gains uncertainty. Differences among types can be delineated into oblivion.

    Only one thing is clear to me: it has become absolutely necessary that Socionics be objectified. The subjective nature of a theory which attempts to describe objective characteristics cannot support itself.



    Sorry for any grammar mistakes. It is not high on my priorities list when I am trying to externalize what just comes to me, lest I lose it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When you take an MBTI test and get a score towards the middle, so that you can't say for sure whether you are one or the other, that's the effect of the IM and EM types both being tested at once (obliviously). And is the evidence for the same.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    When you take an MBTI test and get a score towards the middle, so that you can't say for sure whether you are one or the other, that's the effect of the IM and EM types both being tested at once (obliviously). And is the evidence for the same.
    So you are saying that MBTI tests for both EM and IM at the same time? So then Socionics tests only test for IM?

    For you, tcaud, there's only one question I want to ask (which may open itself into many more): what is EM type? Define it. "Energy metabolism".

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Absolutely seconded. Can we get some basic write-ups on these wonderful-sounding theories people are always mentioning? Or links. Links are good.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    So you are saying that MBTI tests for both EM and IM at the same time? So then Socionics tests only test for IM?

    For you, tcaud, there's only one question I want to ask (which may open itself into many more): what is EM type? Define it. "Energy metabolism".
    The original term was "information exerted". There is an analogy to physics: the IM type deals with matters, concepts which transcend the situation. The EM type deals with energy. In other words, the cognitive essence of E = MC^2. The very means by which we know energy, it is by the EM type. The energy of a situation is its immediacy, its substance: imagine yourself in the middle of a whirlwind, threatening to tear you apart. But you resist and instead try to grapple with the interior, to bend it to your will. In this sense the will is the base function; the direction of the whirlwind is the content of the creative function; and the means by which you grapple are the EM functions, by steering the wind so that the whirlwind is not directed at you.

    Model B is 16 functions. That's half of it. Boukalov arranges the eight new functions so as to model the id's type. That's all I know straight out... the rest I have inferred by sheer volume of speculation and probability (as has Hitta).

    There is a paper in the 2004 socionics institute journal volumes called "Docta Ignoranta", which details in the abstract the experience of coming of age psychologically. Would be great to get a hold of it.

    It's very difficult to test for only IM on a socionics test. You specifically have to avoid testing the EM type, which means not asking any questions which reveal the individual's ability to deal with 1) information they don't necessarily understand fully, or 2) any talent or particular skill.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-12-2011 at 04:47 PM.

  6. #6
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,612
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Protip:

    Ignore these things

    DCNH
    every other subtype system
    supervision rings (they don't mean shit except that supervision is an asymmetric relationship)
    all of what tcaudilllg says
    most of what labcoat says

    Understand these things

    Model A
    Information metabolism
    Type dichotomies
    Semantics of the information elements
    Relationships & quadras

  7. #7
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Protip:

    supervision rings (they don't mean shit except that supervision is an asymmetric relationship)
    I think they are interesting since the ring forms a small group. Also benefit rings. I'd like to see how such a group would work in practise (or not work).

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Protip:

    Ignore every personality factor not described in classical socionics.
    .

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    .
    Essentially.

    THA, I can understand why you may be skeptical of any new theories concerning Socionics, but I have doubts that classical Socionics fully details all of the intricacies of personality. I am learning or have learned the things you tell me to understand, but I cannot ignore everything else.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nil I outline just about all the ideas in the supersocion theory (that is, everything I know about personality traits) on the wiki on my website.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah great advice - ignore all the new theories like THA does; then come around 4 years later and unknowingly re-introduce the theory which you've been ignoring as if it's a new discovery by you.

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Protip:

    Ignore these things

    DCNH
    every other subtype system
    supervision rings (they don't mean shit except that supervision is an asymmetric relationship)
    all of what tcaudilllg says
    most of what labcoat says

    Understand these things

    Model A
    Information metabolism
    Type dichotomies
    Semantics of the information elements
    Relationships & quadras
    the above coming from a person that types me as ESTp. that should tell you enough to place your bets as to how reliable his opinions are. in fact, i think posting this will backfire badly on him. it gave me the perfect opportunity to expose what a hypocrite quack he is. and all it took was a single sentence, too.

    i think you should ignore everything that is being said about socionics to be sure you don't end up with at least some wrong info. if you're going to listen to anything at all, you're best off spreading your risks by NOT discriminating. i understand the need for intellectual conservatism, but in socionics the only true conservative attitude is to be skeptical of the theory as a whole. accepting the popular parts is not conservatism. it's populism. it sails on the self-reinforcing dynamics of crowd "wisdom" that turn random aberrations into destructive convulsions and chaotically spawn problems on a scale that no individual's errors can mount to. this is what people like THA represent.

    I have also seen labcoat says that his theories of focal/diffuse and narrator/taciturn cycles make Model B obsolete.
    taciturn/narrator cycles are what you get when you take Model B to it's logical conclusion. i think one of the problems you're hitting in trying to learn about Model B is that it's quite a vacuous theory. it doesn't claim a lot. it's only claim is the one that is formalized in taciturn/narrator cycles, namely that Illusionaries can be seen as sharing their Accepting function, whereas Semi-Duals can be seen as sharing their Creating function, much in the same way as would otherwise be conceived as being the case between respectively Comparatives and Look-a-Likes. there are a number of other implications:

    - Illusionaries share their Accepting functions and are thus half identicals
    - Semi-Duals share their Creating functions and are thus half identicals
    - taciturn/narrator functions in much the same way as static/dynamic does; it can be argued to be just as strong of impact
    - the function shared between Illusionaries or Semi-Duals differs in i/e between types, so to designate the function, one can use taciturn/narrator; for example, the function shared between ESTj and INTj is Accepting Taciturn Logic (Acc Tt); think of them as new functions: Tt, Nt, St, Ft, Tn, Nn, Sn, Fn
    - shared values between adjacent quadras can be attributed to both the Irrational function axis and the Rational function axis: Alpha and Delta share both Ne/Si values and Tt/Fn values; Alpha and Beta share both Se/Ni values and Tn/Ft values, etc.
    - the cycles can be thought of as meaningful; they arrive by simply putting all types with shared functions together; i find them useful to conceptualize the relations between types:

    ESTj - acc Tt - INTj - cre Nt - ENFj - acc Ft - ISFj - cre St - ESTj (taciturn/negativist/rational)
    ESFj - cre Sn - ISTj - acc Tn - ENTj - cre Nn - INFj - acc Fn - ESFj (narrator/positivist/rational)
    ISTp - cre Tt - ENTp - acc Nt - INFp - cre Ft - ESFp - acc St - ISTp (taciturn/positivist/irrational)
    ISFp - acc Sn - ESTp - cre Tn - INTp - acc Nn - ENFp - cre Fn - ISFp (narrator/negativist/irrational)

    - there are times you can find semi-duality between types you wouldn't expect to find it between; for example, INTj and INFj dualize between each others' Tt and Fn function; from personal experience i find this to be the strongest indication that the cycles are real

  13. #13
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post

    ESTj - acc Tt - INTj - cre Nt - ENFj - acc Ft - ISFj - cre St - ESTj (taciturn/negativist/rational)
    ESFj - cre Sn - ISTj - acc Tn - ENTj - cre Nn - INFj - acc Fn - ESFj (narrator/positivist/rational)
    ISTp - cre Tt - ENTp - acc Nt - INFp - cre Ft - ESFp - acc St - ISTp (taciturn/positivist/irrational)
    ISFp - acc Sn - ESTp - cre Tn - INTp - acc Nn - ENFp - cre Fn - ISFp (narrator/negativist/irrational)
    labcoat, based on this, can we conclude that the Narrator/Taciturn cycles denote the 4 associated aspects of a type?

    What I mean is, for example, we have INTp. Does the existence of N/T mean that INTp relates to ST aspects like an ESTp; to NF aspects like an ENFp; and to SF aspects like an ISFp? Indeed appearing like these types, when it comes to those aspects?
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Why does everyone on this forum say Creating instead of Producing? It confuses me between that and Creative function.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Creating is the 2nd function; producing is an attribute of functions 2, 4, 5, and either 7 or 8...?

    A producing function's element is something you try to shape to influence the element of its partner accepting function in the same block. The creating function is simply the best of the producing functions for this task.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Creating is the 2nd function; producing is an attribute of functions 2, 4, 5, and either 7 or 8...?

    A producing function's element is something you try to shape to influence the element of its partner accepting function in the same block. The creating function is simply the best of the producing functions for this task.
    Producing is the second function in each block: 2, 4, 6, and 8.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    Producing is the second function in each block: 2, 4, 6, and 8.
    I'm checking it... you are right.

    That is absolutely counterproductive, to accept with lower dimensional functions than the product. It means you can't take in the full ramifications of your action.

    Perhaps that has something to do with the fact they aren't used as much...?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •