VI picture phrases in Filatova and Ashton

[Jonathan]

CAVEAT...This is an experimental impression...just please take it for it what it is.

When looking at VI pictures, I tend to try to understand them by imagining what the people in the pictures are "saying" in their minds that leads to their facial expression. Recently, I was thinking about the VI picture categorizations by Filatova (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=31643) and Ashton (http://gallery.socionix.com). It was interesting to me that some Ashton Ni-INTps look like Filatova INTjs, and that Filatova INTps are spread out into several different NT types in Ashton.

This is NOT to pick on Ashton. I don't know who's "right" between him and Filatova, or whether there is a right answer. Also, Ashton has sometimes voiced a negative opinion of Filatova's writing, so it wouldn't be surprising that their VI interpretations don't match.

Anyhow, here's a first draft of my reactions to these pictures. They could be refined, but here's my first impression. I've only done the NT Club pictures:

Filatova:
INTj: "I know a lot, and that knowledge makes me ready for anything."
INTp: "Give me the problem, and I'm going to pounce on it with lots of skepticism."
ENTp: "I have a devious little idea."
ENTj: "I have everything organized, completed, and prepared, and I'm ready to meet with you."

Ashton:

INTj - about knowing the answer
Ti-INTj: "I don't know the answer. I'm trying to find it."
Ne-INTj: "I know a lot. Now let's focus on you (or on what we can do with it)."

INTp - about responding to incoming information
Te-INTp: "I'm a little skeptical intellectually about what you're saying."
Ni-INTp: "I have something inside me (knowledge, or just a sense) that lets me deal with what you're going to throw my way."

ENTp - about considering a problem or something "out there"
Ti-ENTp: "I'm ready with ingenuity for whatever problem you're ready to show me."
Ne-ENTp: "I'm thinking about something way out there."

ENTj - about some sort of challenge to meet
Te-ENTj: "I'm ready to meet the challenges right now."
Ni-ENTj: "I'm thinking deeper into solving the problem."

Roughly...
Filatova INTj corresponds with Ashton Ne-INTj and Ni-INTp.
Filatova INTp corresponds with Ashton Ti-INTj, Te-INTp, Ti-ENTp, and a little of Ni-ENTj.
Filatova ENTp corresponds vaguely with Ashton Ne-ENTp, less so with Ti-ENTp.
Filatova ENTj corresponds with Ashton Te-ENTj, and a little bit of Ni-ENTj.

Overall, the biggest difference is that INTjs are so smug in Filatova; but through subtype, Ashton found a way that this "smugness" is more distributed between types, causing, for example, subtypes of all four NT club types to have something in common in that they're what we might call "unsmug" or "undecided" types (corresponding to Filatova INTp).

The differences also help explain why I'm ILI in Filatova, but either Ti-ENTp or Ti-INTj in Ashton. As I mentioned, I don't know who's "right"; I basically see these as just two completely different systems.

[Galen]

You know lots of other people contribute to that gallery too, so don't just credit Ashton.

The differences also help explain why I'm ILI in Filatova, but either Ti-ENTp or Ti-INTj in Ashton. As I mentioned, I don't know who's "right"; I basically see these as just two completely different systems.

This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."

[EyeSeeCold]

The differences also help explain why I'm ILI in Filatova, but either Ti-ENTp or Ti-INTj in Ashton. As I mentioned, I don't know who's "right"; I basically see these as just two completely different systems.

This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."

Would you kindly provide examples as you're begging the question and it does nothing to help the case. Of course you would support your own Socionics cult/mentality, so there is increased skepticism to be assumed, even more so than for Socionics in general, in the case of your 'relevant' contributions.

[Galen]

This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."

Would you kindly provide examples as you're begging the question and it does nothing to help the case. Of course you would support your own Socionics cult/mentality, so there is increased skepticism to be assumed, even more so than for Socionics in general, in the case of your 'relevant' contributions.

Aleksei's done it, Siuntal's brought it up a few times from her own observations, Jonathan's doing it.

[EyeSeeCold]

Would you kindly provide examples as you're begging the question and it does nothing to help the case. Of course you would support your own Socionics cult/mentality, so there is increased skepticism to be assumed, even more so than for Socionics in general, in the case of your 'relevant' contributions.

Aleksei's done it, Siuntal's brought it up a few times from her own observations, Jonathan's doing it.

No. You must do it, in this thread, for it to pass; it is not Aleksei's claim, it is not siuntal's claim, and it is not Jonathan's claim - it is your claim. I reiterate: provide examples of plausible evidence that Alpha NTs give more positive results than other types to the extent that the hypothesis of 'Alpha NTs dismiss the reconcilement of incompatible theories' is not just a reactionary baseless conjecture that serves to fallaciously and preemptively support Ashtonian Socionics.

[Marie84]

I basically see these as just two completely different systems.

From what I've heard Filatova didn't type any of the people in her portrait collections by any visual factors, but by interviewing and observing them. Thus any physical similarities between the people she typed was a coincidental finding

Ashton's method seems to place a high importance on visual typing, which alone places it in contention with Filatova's method. I get the impression that there's very little extensive research put even the observational celebrity typings, which again doesn't seem consistent with how Filatova typed famous people

I'm of the strong opinion that Filatova was situated in what we know of classical Socionics while Ashton's approach is a typology system of it's own that often contradicts the formers approach. Of course we can argue forever on whose typology method is more accurate but I've already stated my views in the past about this, and it isn't the basis for your thread either, so I won't go into that.

[Crispy]

Filatova's collection is said to contain over 1500 photographs and through the process of interviewing and typing all of these people she has found that those with the same type AND subtype look all almost like identical twins, even if they lived 1000 miles apart / were unrelated. Here is a set of fantastic examples:



All of the individuals in the above image are typed ILI via Filatova Interview/Photo process (not typed by VI). It is only after she amassed a collection that she made the identical subtype appearances connection. With this she adds:

It is my opinion that the similarity of faces in the subtypes of a psychological type is a reliable reason to believe that we have discovered an <<elementary>> type, and further differences would have only personal characteristics related to culture, education, family traditions, etc. Currently, it is difficult to assign a certain number to the quantity of subtypes. One thing is certain: within reasonable limits, the number of subtypes in one psychological type is not far above a dozen. It is now essential to find an objective basis for the subdivisions inside a certain type.

More of these photo's would be nice, but I don't know where to start looking short of online Russian book stores.

[Marie84]

Actually, there's a lot more that goes into it aside from VI. Video interviews, written statements, biographical info, and intertype relations all factor in heavily.

Methodology is explained in detail here.

You stand corrected.

I'm not suggesting that you type strictly on VI, I just get the impression that you place a lot of importance on it when typing

Except you've no idea what methods Filatova used for famous typings.

Hence the "I get the impression", not "I know". The impression is just a consistency one, that is if she typed the people in her portraits through extensive research I would think she'd have done the same with her celebrity typings.
I'm of the impression that you, and many of the people who use your Socionix methods, often too quickly type people based on VI, usually posting a few pictures of other people that you're typed to show the resemblance

These are unsubstantiated allegations that cannot be proven.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just feel like Filatova's descriptions and the means she went about typing the people in her portraits was related to the more Model A understanding of Socionics.
Your methods seems more branched out, incorporating multiple theories that do not necessarily correspond to the more classical understanding of Socionics

[Marie84]

let's just agree we won't agree on this and move on

[Trevor]

Classical socionics??

[Not A Communist Shill]

I'm not suggesting that you type strictly on VI, I just get the impression that you place a lot of importance on it when typing

Not really. There's a confluence of many different indices taken altogether; the weight of VI among that is more marginal than you'd think. I tend to use it for broad measures like quadra or sometimes temperament, then look at other details to precise it down further.

In your "methodology" you seem to place VI above all else...not only is it first in your bullet points, but you say "Images and/or videos", rather than Videos and/or images". Videos should not be considered optional where they exist...images really are inferior.

People who ascribed to Model X also always seem to prefer posting images over videos, even posting them in that order of preference when they actually list both...further, they are also prone to posting one or both of these to actually giving any (proper) reasoning for a particular type for the individual.

[FDG]

Omg Marie84 kill yourself please

[Not A Communist Shill]

In your "methodology" you seem to place VI above all else...not only is it first in your bullet points, but you say "Images and/or videos", rather than Videos and/or images".

Are you seriously nitpicking over the order of the words as if that actually means anything? Because it doesn't.

Who says they're considered optional? I'll certainly resort to videos when they exist (though I usually type historical figures and philosophers, and videos typically aren't available for them. For that matter, neither are many pictures).

your "methodology" doesn't seem very methodological then. Your wording suggests a preference for images, fairly clearly....why not say "Videos and images"? It is obvious that videos will not always exist for famous people...but it is also true in the case of images. Here it really sounds like you consider videos as secondary to images. In the case of historical figures where videos do not exist...or even where they do...relevant textual resources are still more important than images. I don't often see Model X people using such resources compared to images, and they tend to focus more on the appearance of the individual's eyes than on relevant textual resources.

Disingenuous smears again. More often than not, case study threads on Socionix appear to be accompanied with videos. For instance, this latest one has 3 (I don't know the woman's type, I've only tentative observations).

it does seem that in the case of musicians...if videos are included, they are videos of their music rather than the musician describing themselves. Also, even the limited "analysis" I've seen is generally not descriptive of the way the individual being typed processes IMs, even if textual sources are included.

[Not A Communist Shill]

No. I frequently post walls of text by authors, intellectuals, public figures, etc. when available.

and when you do, it is generally with no analysis beyond an IM symbol or a bizarre reductio with the aid of a dictionary.

Wrong again.

statistics?

[717495]

Those pictures suck, lol.

Filatova isn't even recognized as a decent Socionics expert from what I know.

[717495]

Hence the "I get the impression", not "I know". The impression is just a consistency one, that is if she typed the people in her portraits through extensive research I would think she'd have done the same with her celebrity typings.
I'm of the impression that you, and many of the people who use your Socionix methods, often too quickly type people based on VI, usually posting a few pictures of other people that you're typed to show the resemblance

These are unsubstantiated allegations that cannot be proven.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just feel like Filatova's descriptions and the means she went about typing the people in her portraits was related to the more Model A understanding of Socionics.
Your methods seems more branched out, incorporating multiple theories that do not necessarily correspond to the more classical understanding of Socionics

Why do you live in a fantasy world with Socionics of all things? Can't you be a bit more realistic here, and reach out to others' knowledge. And fantasize about other things that don't make you look clueless? You're assuming nobody knows what they're talking about because it's convenient for you. Maybe if you tried opening your ears and listen for once, pay attention to Ashton's explanations, you wouldn't have to repeat the same claims over and over again and have them debunked by obvious events. You obviously seem incapable of thinking for yourself about various viewpoints on this forum, like an old dog or one trick pony of sorts. It's really kind of like you don't care about anyone here.

You also really don't have any credibility. The fact that Ashton holds convos with people about typology or 'has followers' might actually be a sign that he's a good teacher. But of course that doesn't sound good for you so it's not true.

[Galen]

Aleksei's done it, Siuntal's brought it up a few times from her own observations, Jonathan's doing it.

No. You must do it, in this thread, for it to pass; it is not Aleksei's claim, it is not siuntal's claim, and it is not Jonathan's claim - it is your claim. I reiterate: provide examples of plausible evidence that Alpha NTs give more positive results than other types to the extent that the hypothesis of 'Alpha NTs dismiss the reconcilement of incompatible theories' is not just a reactionary baseless conjecture that serves to fallaciously and preemptively support Ashtonian Socionics.

Uh, those people are the examples that you asked for (aside from Siuntal). Gulanzon's said the same thing a few times too, and I'm sure Ephemeros has as well. Calm down, buddy.

[Trevor]

Those pictures suck, lol.

I disagree. Actually, i think they're pretty good.

[Creepy-bg]

the fat INTp should be a model for schizoid medication.

[EyeSeeCold]

Uh, those people are the examples that you asked for (aside from Siuntal). Gulanzon's said the same thing a few times too, and I'm sure Ephemeros has as well. Calm down, buddy.

Bolt is suspected ENTp, but Jonathan is unavailable for data, and Gulanzon is controversial. You need more reliable sources, otherwise your claim is null and void.

[Galen]

Uh, those people are the examples that you asked for (aside from Siuntal). Gulanzon's said the same thing a few times too, and I'm sure Ephemeros has as well. Calm down, buddy.

Bolt is suspected ENTp, but Jonathan is unavailable for data, and Gulanzon is controversial. You need more reliable sources, otherwise your claim is null and void.

The examples I've cited work for me, if you don't see them as good enough then that's your own issue.


ANYWAYS
I've never taken much stock in the Filatova pictures. I'd rather see how she actually types the people she does.

[EyeSeeCold]

The examples I've cited work for me, if you don't see them as good enough then that's your own issue.

The burden of proof lies on you to provide plausible evidence for your claim. So far only one example(Bolt, which you still have not provided the quote for) has been valid.

[717495]

I disagree. Actually, i think they're pretty good.

They're retarded though. There's nothing noticeably similar about any of them, as far as type goes, nor do I relate to any of them as far as I can visually attempt to pin them.

Filatova so happened to successfully type all those street kids, and comb their hair the same way and take pictures. Yet she forgot to type a lot of people we actually know about. There's little way to know anything about her typing method, I remember in her book she had like one ESTP famous who spoke English, but there's barely any interviews on him, and that's it, as real life practical application? Her type descriptions aren't even coherent with more trusted sources in the smaller socionics sphere, and she uses MBTI dichotomies to help her verifications along with total disregard for Jung despite model J. How am I supposed to work with that?

On the topic of VI, you're not going to get any better than http://gallery.socionix.com

We add just the right pictures to it collectively all the time, it's the highest quality learning experience for getting a realistic sense of how people have very similar looks to them. Filatova's portraits just don't have the quality you'd need for accuracy.

And if you add in the obvious fact that these typings are based strongly on consistent type sampling of Jungian typology, or actually take time to learn that fact first, you realize that VI is a concrete phenomenon. But I mean, I'm sure you already know that.

[Galen]

The examples I've cited work for me, if you don't see them as good enough then that's your own issue.

The burden of proof lies on you to provide plausible evidence for your claim. So far only one example(Bolt, which you still have not provided the quote for) has been valid.

Valid according to who? You? Since when have you been the deciding factor as to whether or not someone is of a certain type?

[EyeSeeCold]

The burden of proof lies on you to provide plausible evidence for your claim. So far only one example(Bolt, which you still have not provided the quote for) has been valid.

Valid according to who? You? Since when have you been the deciding factor as to whether or not someone is of a certain type?

None of this has anything to do with my standards. As stated before: Jonathan's type is in question - using him as an example is fallacious; and Gulanzon's type is controversial, it cannot be used as evidence either. That leaves Bolt, who is - through consensus - most likely ENTp, he is your only valid example of your claim(which a quote showing that Alpha NTs reject incompatible theories still needs to be given by you).

Please provide more examples.

[Galen]

None of this has anything to do with my standards. As stated before: Jonathan's type is in question - using him as an example is fallacious; and Gulanzon's type is controversial, it cannot be used as evidence either. That leaves Bolt, who is - through consensus - most likely ENTp, he is your only valid example of your claim(which a quote showing that Alpha NTs reject incompatible theories still needs to be given by you).

Please provide more examples.

Gulanzon's type is not controversial to me, and I already said Aleksei. Jonathan could pass as ENTp as far as I'm concerned, or something alpha NT given the very nature of this thread of comparing two different externally measurable systems/structures/etc.

I'm just stating an observation, didn't realize I need a warrant issued by ESC to do it. Next time, it'd be easier to just state your own observations in response instead of grilling me like that. People might actually learn something if that sort of discussion happens (and they do, from what I've seen in other threads where that kind of discussion takes place).

[munenori2]

You know lots of other people contribute to that gallery too, so don't just credit Ashton.

The differences also help explain why I'm ILI in Filatova, but either Ti-ENTp or Ti-INTj in Ashton. As I mentioned, I don't know who's "right"; I basically see these as just two completely different systems.

This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."

Well, lest I be an alpha NT as well, I'd chalk that up to simple logic. Given two systems where shared terms are used, if they contain semantic content that differs from one another or, more damningly, contradicts the one they are held against, then reconciliation hits a wall. In the former case, you either have to mediate between the two (on what basis, I'm unsure) or you have to hold them at arms length. Perhaps you find the shared content between them and dismiss the rest. However, that approach gives no thought to how the difference in thought arose! TBQH, if you want to give any deep input into how they've come at odds, you have to study the two in question as independent systems, judge the premises or bases upon which they rest, and see what coherence and contradiction arises. If you and I both keep saying A, but I mean B and you mean C or (-B), then, yeah, there's a problem up in here.

Bolt is suspected ENTp, but Jonathan is unavailable for data, and Gulanzon is controversial. You need more reliable sources, otherwise your claim is null and void.

The examples I've cited work for me, if you don't see them as good enough then that's your own issue.

If ESC was going to accept your claims on your basis he would have. What we're essentially talking about is the basis upon which we set our reasoning. Appeals to obviousness or fitting with our own beliefs carry no weight here.

[Galen]

Well, lest I be an alpha NT as well, I'd chalk that up to simple logic. Given two systems where shared terms are used, if they contain semantic content that differs from one another or, more damningly, contradicts the one they are held against, then reconciliation hits a wall. In the former case, you either have to mediate between the two (on what basis, I'm unsure) or you have to hold them at arms length. Perhaps you find the shared content between them and dismiss the rest. However, that approach gives no thought to how the difference in thought arose! TBQH, if you want to give any deep input into how they've come at odds, you have to study the two in question as independent systems, judge the premises or bases upon which they rest, and see what coherence and contradiction arises. If you and I both keep saying A, but I mean B and you mean C or (-B), then, yeah, there's a problem up in here.

Now ya see, this is the kind of discussion I wish I was having all along, lol.

The issue in this case, Socionics-wise, is that everybody creates their own independent systems, each one with its own little minute details that make it different from everybody else's, and nobody really confers with others and bounces ideas off of other people in order to find some sort of community consensus. As a result, systems splinter off, and communications between these two systems requires a hefty amount of clarification on behalf of everybody who attempts to communicate. What I would have preferred happen is, if this conversation were to even continue, that others would contribute their own observations about the matter being talked about. Observations that match up to, or don't match up, the ones I brought up, for example. It'd be a much more interesting discussion, and it'd probably lead to people actually learning and progressing instead of attacking and defending.

If ESC was going to accept your claims on your basis he would have. What we're essentially talking about is the basis upon which we set our reasoning. Appeals to obviousness or fitting with our own beliefs carry no weight here.

That would require making an extensive argument for everybody's type right here right now, which is far too much work for one sitting. Even if I did make such arguments, which I have in the past, they could just as easily be thrown out for any other reason, the most likely one being the lack of any sort of consensus about most things Socionics on here anyways. Further compounding the issue is the fact that ESC seems to have less of an interest in learning something as he does in blindly attacking what he perceives as a faction without actually posing his own ideas or observations. Unless I'm misinterpreting his actions.

[EyeSeeCold]

That would require making an extensive argument for everybody's type right here right now, which is far too much work for one sitting. Even if I did make such arguments, which I have in the past, they could just as easily be thrown out for any other reason, the most likely one being the lack of any sort of consensus about most things Socionics on here anyways. Further compounding the issue is the fact that ESC seems to have less of an interest in learning something as he does in blindly attacking what he perceives as a faction without actually posing his own ideas or observations. Unless I'm misinterpreting his actions.

Well, Galen, if you knew beforehand that it would be such a harrowing task to provide a foundation for your assertion, which no less was fallacious and suspicious, why did you make such a claim in the first place?

And that you did submit your post - you already corrupted the subject material that was intended to be discussed. Jonathan, in the original post, was trying to reconcile his Filatova type with his Ashtonian type. You interrupting to beg the question that, basically, he is typically LII, hastily concludes Jonathan's experiment on the issue of discrepancy such that: Ashton is right, Filatova is wrong and Jonathan is LII.

Yes, I did step in, without offering my own opinions or observations in response to the original post, to intercept what I saw as a suspicious attempt to induce perception bias. Though, I was not and am not attacking you for being of a mentality, but for declaring your mentality. If you really think what you think and think it to be what is to be thought by all, back it up.

[717495]

Yes, that's what I'd like to see too. Instead of lumping people together into this or that camp, and writing them off by fiat.

If only, Ashton. If only.

[EyeSeeCold]

You disgusting hypocrite. How about providing a foundation for your accusations of others groupthink?

I'm already in the process of collecting evidence, after my last post on transparent phenomena. I will post and comment when it's substantiated. Though this is not relevant, feel free to take this to a new thread(or this can be extracted by Staff).

[Galen]

I'm gonna be as quick about this as possible.

Well, Galen, if you knew beforehand that it would be such a harrowing task to provide a foundation for your assertion, which no less was fallacious and suspicious, why did you make such a claim in the first place?

For the sake of observation.

And that you did submit your post - you already corrupted the subject material that was intended to be discussed. Jonathan, in the original post, was trying to reconcile his Filatova type with his Ashtonian type. You interrupting to beg the question that, basically, he is typically LII, hastily concludes Jonathan's experiment on the issue of discrepancy such that: Ashton is right, Filatova is wrong and Jonathan is LII.

Umm, wrong on all accounts.

Yes, I did step in, without offering my own opinions or observations in response to the original post, to intercept what I saw as a suspicious attempt to induce perception bias. Though, I was not and am not attacking you for being of a mentality, but for declaring your mentality. If you really think what you think and think it to be what is to be thought by all, back it up.

You misinterpreted my intentions. This seems to be happening a lot.

If you have something interesting or informative to contribute to conversation, I'd recommend you do that instead.

[shindaiwa21]

This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."

The only way in which they can be reconciled is if one system is a rotation or mirror of another. The same internal type relation structure would have to hold true.

I'm going to ignore ENTp INTj ENTj INTp in this discussion and just focus on Alpha NT vs Gamma NT's, as for the most part I find the rest to be quibbling, and introversion vs extroversion by far not the most important factor in intellectual mental processes.

If it was just a rotation, alpha nt ---> gamma nt, gamma nt ---> alpha nt from one to the other, which obviously is not the case. Therefore the typing are based on different factors and are different and irreconcilable systems.

I would try and evaluate in which the intertype relations tend to hold more true would be the one I'd look at. Don't look at it as "what is my type," but how well does whoever's typing of me + friends + other people I know relate to my experience. Duality and conflict are often the strongest ones to go look at. If you can't get your network typed using one method or the other, try thinking of the people to whom you are attracted and the people by whom you are repulsed/react badly to and try and see who's set of portraits they match better (if you believe VI is legit at all, again, you can form an opinion on this by VI-ing people as best you can and seeing if it matches the inter-type relations)

If the inter-type definitions are all the same (which they are approximately,) either one or both systems are internally inconsistent.

[Jonathan]

This is the exact sort of mentality I and a few others have noticed about Alpha NTs: "these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them."

The only way in which they can be reconciled is if one system is a rotation or mirror of another. The same internal type relation structure would have to hold true.

Just a few short points...I wouldn't say I agree with the statement ""these are just two different systems, so there's no way to reconcile them." However, I do think you can have multiple interpretations of Jungian typology or Socionics in particular that apply the basic mathematical structure to different things. While I think rotations/mirrors are pretty common, it's also possible to have different typologies that have a kernel of truth to them, but are not simple rotations/mirrors.

This wouldn't be possible if the intertype relations were fixed and unambiguous. However, if people were to describe or witness the relations between two people, I'm sure there'd be disagreement over which of the intertype relations existed between them, just as with anything else in Socionics.

It's interesting and maybe predictable that this discussion has focused on whether Ashton's typing represents "another system." I was not saying that, but only noted that some of the Ni-INTps on his list had a similar facial expression to Filatova's LIIs, and some of the Ti-INTjs similarly looked like Filatova ILIs, etc. Although it's just a VI impression that can't be rigorously documented, I think there is something to this.

Incidentally, I also think it's perhaps silly to argue about whether Filatova represents "classical Socionics" or whether Ashton doesn't. Filatova represents classical Socionics by definition, because she's part of the original Socionics community in Russia and abides by the basic ideas such as Model A. However, this doesn't mean that she's "correct" or even consistent with other "classical Socionists" in her typings. Similarly, Ashton criticizes Model A but that doesn't make his point of view worth any less.

[shindaiwa21]

[quote=Jonathan;794933]

This wouldn't be possible if the intertype relations were fixed and unambiguous. However, if people were to describe or witness the relations between two people, I'm sure there'd be disagreement over which of the intertype relations existed between them, just as with anything else in Socionics.

That's why you shouldn't try and determine it with the fuzzy relations and instead just go for straight up duality and conflict. Yes there are multiple interpretations, but the affects of the relation should be statistically significant in any method.

[Jonathan]

That's why you shouldn't try and determine it with the fuzzy relations and instead just go for straight up duality and conflict. Yes there are multiple interpretations, but the affects of the relation should be statistically significant in any method.

Well, I didn't really mean this thread to be about my type, but here's roughly my relations with the types (based on my view of their type of course). This is slanted more towards ILI, and certainly other people on the forum would type all these people differently:

LII: Good long conversations with some; I may be too imprecise or dilettentish for others. Often have similar interests.
ILI: Often I get the sense of having similar strengths and problems; often strike up a friendship, especially with those who are ostracized and not part of "the group." (I usually feel ostracized; when I was in school, I ate at the "outcasts" table.) Friendships are more likely with the more intellectual ILIs; have less in common with those who are more "business-oriented."
ILE: Usually have a good conversation with them; usually have a lot in common with them in terms of thought process, but not in terms of overall personality; generally they seem to be more extroverted and off in more directions than me; usually they also seem more successful and better at making things happen than I am. I've learned from their ability to seek out opportunities, and sometimes I'm like that too.
LIE: Generally good conversations; sometimes I have to work a bit to impress them, and then I have their trust.
EII: I usually get along quite well with them, unless they're very shy.
IEI: Sometimes I have a deep friendship with them, with lots in common; other times, I'm not able to gain their trust, and then they're closed to me.
IEE: Usually very good relations in a friendship setting. Generally they do most of the talking.
EIE: Have had some good friendships with EIEs. Sometimes they can be critical of my tardiness.
ESI: Good relations; easy to form relationships...Share a lot of non-intellectual interests together. Have a lot of complementary abilities. Big difference in level of organization and time management are sometimes issues (opposite in terms of me being laid back, vs. ESIs being super-neat and super-disciplined).
SEI: Generally find them nice, interesting people that I would like to know better. However, somehow I never get a chance to know them. Sometimes I may subconsciously judge their intelligence or maturity, but afterwards I feel wrong about that.
SEE: Usually get along well with SEEs. They're good at bringing me to a sense of reality (or sometimes, unreality). In school, there was one SEE teacher I didn't get along with, but I'm not even sure she was SEE.
ESE: Never seem to have a problem with ESEs. Usually I see them as friendly, helpful people that I would like to get to know better. Never get a chance to know them very well, as they seem somewhat inaccessible.
LSI: I've known some LSIs who are very difficult people, and others who easier to get along with. Probably some of the most difficult people I've met are LSIs, but then again there are some LSIs who are easy to get along with.
SLI: Get along fairly well with them, as they seem similar, but sometimes I get bored by a lack of shared interests.
SLE: I can sometimes feel intimidated by SLEs, especially the very aggressive ones. If there are interests in common, then I can get along well with them.
LSEs: Some LSEs I get along with great; other ones not so much; they can seem overly methodical to me; I may appear too chaotic to them.

[Absurd]

This is going to be serious, he sounds like Bolt.

[Sumer1an]

That's why you shouldn't try and determine it with the fuzzy relations and instead just go for straight up duality and conflict. Yes there are multiple interpretations, but the affects of the relation should be statistically significant in any method.

Well, I didn't really mean this thread to be about my type, but here's roughly my relations with the types (based on my view of their type of course). This is slanted more towards ILI, and certainly other people on the forum would type all these people differently:

LII: Good long conversations with some; I may be too imprecise or dilettentish for others. Often have similar interests.
ILI: Often I get the sense of having similar strengths and problems; often strike up a friendship, especially with those who are ostracized and not part of "the group." (I usually feel ostracized; when I was in school, I ate at the "outcasts" table.) Friendships are more likely with the more intellectual ILIs; have less in common with those who are more "business-oriented."
ILE: Usually have a good conversation with them; usually have a lot in common with them in terms of thought process, but not in terms of overall personality; generally they seem to be more extroverted and off in more directions than me; usually they also seem more successful and better at making things happen than I am. I've learned from their ability to seek out opportunities, and sometimes I'm like that too.
LIE: Generally good conversations; sometimes I have to work a bit to impress them, and then I have their trust.
EII: I usually get along quite well with them, unless they're very shy.
IEI: Sometimes I have a deep friendship with them, with lots in common; other times, I'm not able to gain their trust, and then they're closed to me.
IEE: Usually very good relations in a friendship setting. Generally they do most of the talking.
EIE: Have had some good friendships with EIEs. Sometimes they can be critical of my tardiness.
ESI: Good relations; easy to form relationships...Share a lot of non-intellectual interests together. Have a lot of complementary abilities. Big difference in level of organization and time management are sometimes issues (opposite in terms of me being laid back, vs. ESIs being super-neat and super-disciplined).
SEI: Generally find them nice, interesting people that I would like to know better. However, somehow I never get a chance to know them. Sometimes I may subconsciously judge their intelligence or maturity, but afterwards I feel wrong about that.
SEE: Usually get along well with SEEs. They're good at bringing me to a sense of reality (or sometimes, unreality). In school, there was one SEE teacher I didn't get along with, but I'm not even sure she was SEE.
ESE: Never seem to have a problem with ESEs. Usually I see them as friendly, helpful people that I would like to get to know better. Never get a chance to know them very well, as they seem somewhat inaccessible.
LSI: I've known some LSIs who are very difficult people, and others who easier to get along with. Probably some of the most difficult people I've met are LSIs, but then again there are some LSIs who are easy to get along with.
SLI: Get along fairly well with them, as they seem similar, but sometimes I get bored by a lack of shared interests.
SLE: I can sometimes feel intimidated by SLEs, especially the very aggressive ones. If there are interests in common, then I can get along well with them.
LSEs: Some LSEs I get along with great; other ones not so much; they can seem overly methodical to me; I may appear too chaotic to them.

You're probably an ILI. I can identify with almost every one of your interrelations. My brother is an LSI and he drives me up the wall sometimes. other times we can get along somewhat well but only for short periods.

[Jonathan]

You're probably an ILI. I can identify with almost every one of your interrelations. My brother is an LSI and he drives me up the wall sometimes. other times we can get along somewhat well but only for short periods.

Yeah, I was certainly aware that it's an ILI-oriented set of type relationships as I wrote it. I think socially I am ILI, and most people seem to agree. Perhaps the relevant question with me is whether I'm able to shift and be more than one type...and whether there's more than just the type one is "socially." Perhaps I play the role of ILI but also have dimensions of other types. I think I am able to be Alpha or other quadras when I want to be.

[Sumer1an]

You're probably an ILI. I can identify with almost every one of your interrelations. My brother is an LSI and he drives me up the wall sometimes. other times we can get along somewhat well but only for short periods.

Yeah, I was certainly aware that it's an ILI-oriented set of type relationships as I wrote it. I think socially I am ILI, and most people seem to agree. Perhaps the relevant question with me is whether I'm able to shift and be more than one type...and whether there's more than just the type one is "socially." Perhaps I play the role of ILI but also have dimensions of other types. I think I am able to be Alpha or other quadras when I want to be.

Ah alright I see. Im not completely sold either that one is just really one type, but I also feel like something such as multiple types to a person or types based on situations is something that will never gain momentum as a theory. There are too many people who worship the original theory and feel that socionics is being bastardized if a Russian Socionist isnt the one making the alterations.

Socially I act like an SEE, but cognitively Im an ILI. I only act like an SEE when Im around my friends and sometimes my family but at the same time I realize that I dont think like an SEE at all. To add to this I dont always act like an SEE with my friends Sometimes Im socially like an ILI. Usually I have to be feeling very confident for my SEE side to come out. I think their is a lot of trash in this theory that needs to be cleared up and really I think a lot of it needs to be redone. For the longest time I knew I was an ILE. I was just 100% sure I was. The description fit me in every way. Later I realized that in the past (before I knew about socionics) I had been more of an ILI so i typed myself that and before I knew it I was acting more like an ILI should. Either A: Any of these descriptions (or just the ILE description) can give one a horrible case of the forer effect. or B: one is able to change types so long as he truly believes he is a certain way. or C: The IMs are nothing more than a skeleton for cognition and cant be related in any way to behavior. In other words your behavior can change to act like any type but your IM will always stay the same. I find C to be the most likely. This also makes typing others based on behavior impossible because they can be acting like any type at any given time.