What are the schools of thought in socionics?
Are there schools?
Schools of thought in socionics
What are the schools of thought in socionics?
Are there schools?
(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
Nah, there are only socionically literate people and illiterate.
i wonder which are whichOriginally Posted by jxrtes
How about first listing criteria for which different thoughts can be compared. Crispy sorta went that way, but perhaps something that people can answer, and then those answers compared.
For example
How do you define the IM elements?(link, behavioral, cognitive)
Do you include temperaments?
Do you include a model 'order'? If so, which one? (link if available)
Do you include DCNH?
When you type others, what do you look for? How do you verify the accuracy of your attempt?
Do you include VI?
Etc
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Some may consider them trivial, but I agree, they are fairly fundamental.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Agree to all of this. I've always thought that at their core, the biggest clashes between people about socionics deal with these very issues, but nobody ever seems to realize this. So instead you get people arguing through their own semantics about the issues and they assume that the other person knows what the other is talking about. This is what I was trying to get at with my old "What is Socionics" thread, but only a few people seemed to understand what I was asking or take it seriously.Yep, I was thinking something along these lines too.
Also answering fundamentals like:
What is 'information'?
What is an IE?
What is a type?
Etc.
Which may strike some as abstrusely trivial questions, but they're really not. There are major systemic implications depending on how one conceives notions like these.
I don't see those sorts of questions as trivial at all. In fact trying to define 'information' is a really difficult task, lol.
The problem with systematized schools is that belonging to one of them is limiting. *sigh* Nice find about temperament progression though, Crispy.
Yeah, as of now people see what they believe is an incorrect typing of a famous and assume the author's understanding of the type is distorted, when it is much more likely that the author and accuser have differing views of the famous in question. One or both of them haven't attained a complete view of the individual, but they BOTH have easy access to understanding of the type through descriptions.
Actually come to think of it separating into differing "schools" might be a natural progression. It would take the theory of Socionics from a static ENTp conception phase to a dynamic INTp critical phase as described here: Source
1. Turnover Scientist
1.1. Line-assertive temperament - PT. The development of any science or theory begins with experimentation, discovery of paradoxes and get some empirical regularities. There is a bold intrusion of scientific thought in uncharted areas, as well as redefining the already existing knowledge base. The most likely "foci" promising areas of growth - the joints of traditional science. The theory is not separated from practice. Scientism open stage "enterprise."
1.2. Gibco-razvorotlivy temperament - IL. Obtained in the first stage of knowledge, and private laws that make possible to formulate the central problem of the emerging trends are synthesized into a single logically linked to the structure, pattern or formula. Thanks to the inventive insight that brings the idea of a vicious circle, the problem is solved theoretically and the result is the final formation of a new discipline or school of thought. The second phase of the development of science - "inventive".
1.3. Receptive-adaptive temperament - TP. Unified Theory - a product of the second phase - is ill-defined structure, contains many ambiguities and contradictions, poorly aligned with current requirements of the practice, it is static. It needs to be corrected and dynamised. At this stage, a single line splits into separate schools and criticizing each other and engaged in "editing" of the inventive circuit. The third stage of scientism is necessarily "critical".
1.4. Stably-balanced temperament - LI. One of the opposing schools is the most powerful: a better explanation of your ideas convincingly links them together, compact sets and is linked to practice. She wins in the end, leaving a clearly-proven, refined structure, which is then practically does not change. The fourth and final stage of development of science - "analytical."
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
One school: School of Socionics
* Recognizes Model's A, B, and J (missing any?) as describing the same phenomenon, to different degrees of detail.
* Recognizes the predictive properties of the system of inter-type relations.
* Recognizes the accuracy (for the most part) of the multitude of type descriptions strewn throughout the interbutts.
* Recognizes the existence of subtypes but not necessarily the practicalness(sp?) of their employment. The same can be said of most aspects of VI.
* Does not currently have an accurate, objective, consensus-building typing methodology for famouses or other beings.
Most claims of division of schools of socionics seem to be attempts at mudslinging that are a direct result of disagreements arising from differences in typing methodologies, which we already know are all in the Alpha-testing (no Pun) phase, and can not be completely relied on no matter who they come from.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
You Ni-types can't help it sometimes...It was enough not to capitalize "alpha"; as a rule, capitalized terms are used with their Socionics/Model A meaning, the others are not, unless justified otherwise (proper names or other fields that use specific meanings).
i don't think so. there is hardly any consistency to the methods each individual applies, let alone a convergence of such on a shared plane.Are there schools?
I'm inclined to think there are broad "schools", based on what an individual uses to type, andhow they take the theory (such as what a "type" or a "quadra" is).
Know I'm mistyped?
Why I amnow.
Why I was, once.
DISCLAIMER
The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.
When I refer to schools of thought in Socionics, I don't mean that the way people talk about things is necessarily different. Certainly there are some differences of emphasis where some people emphasize a cognitive/structural approach while others emphasize subject matter interest, and there are some non-standard views (at least among the group of people here) such as Model X that postulates that people don't really have super ego and id functions.
But what I mean by different schools is that there are different clustering of typings that reflect different understandings of the same "words" that people use. If you were to take a typing list of famous people, even one where the raters are big names in Russia, you'll find that they often disagree...commonly putting famous people in opposite quadras (quasi identical and extinguishment are common).
If you were to run multidimensional scaling on the raters based on how they rated a common set of people, I believe you would find that they would cluster into different groups, and you could run a cluster analysis algorithm to identify clusters, and those clusters would be the schools of thought.
Anyhow, that's my hypothesis based on what I've seen of the typings. It could probably be done in SPSS or some other statistical package if someone has the time.
no only people who don't understand model A and start a new school, so they can claim they understand the new socionics.
it seems to be those who most proudly espouse model A that create "schools of thought" to begin with, a pretext to control ideas. when most of the time, it's just a few people who've integrated something new into their views (i.e. "model X" was not primarily a theoretical shift). and if expressing them is met with stuffy disdain, "this is not standard," the person becomes more selective about who they talk to; so, the classical socionists can sit in their dining room and semantically fence, and anyone not wearing the model A button is distanced; yet you wonder why smaller groups form... therein is the basis for a "cult," no?no only people who don't understand model A and start a new school, so they can claim they understand the new socionics.
for as many people that lack proper understanding of model A, there are just as many who fail to (attempt to) grasp its inherent drawbacks and limitations. of this latter group ~two-thirds are parasites who feed on the excitement that segregating ideas into social castes brings, with the rest mostly neutral/innocuous. the proof of this is found in the attitudes taken towards model X etc., where the same ones decrying their spectral pariah were carrying on reasonable discussion once the ban was lifted; and they know who, or at least what, they are, in a social landscape defined by consistency between intent and behavior. after people readjust, the same village stoning sentiment arises again.
Last edited by strrrng; 09-18-2011 at 01:40 AM.
4w3-5w6-8w7
This thought is probably comforting to those who have no capacity to think for themselves or orient within a creative environment of new ideas spawned from true understanding. I'd say your statement is backwards, it's actually the reverse.no only people who don't understand model A and start a new school, so they can claim they understand the new socionics.
I don't mind if there are new schools, but from my observation these school are nearly always a step backward instead of forward.This thought is probably comforting to those who have no capacity to think for themselves or orient within a creative environment of new ideas spawned from true understanding. I'd say your statement is backwards, it's actually the reverse.
can you name a school of thought that is an improvement over model A. So far I haven't seen one.
Smilexian socionics is quite good and comprehensive, IMHO.I don't mind if there are new schools, but from my observation these school are nearly always a step backward instead of forward.
can you name a school of thought that is an improvement over model A. So far I haven't seen one.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Ashton, thanks for creating that guideline of questions.
I am going to print it and maybe use it as a guideline in helping myself better describe which parts I've found useful, and maybe how they fit together. (if I ever get to that point, that is, heh.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I guess the only two traditional schools I can recognize are VI-ers vs non VI-ers. I could recognize views of different non-traditional authors or users I remember, who developed different branches, some being fully or partially justified to be called Socionics school [1], others are gibberish [2].
---
[1] - ie Reinin, labcoat, Stern
[2] - like Gulenko, smilingeyes, tcaud, Ashton and countless Russian "new age" writers, so to speak.
Stern? Are you kidding?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I was not intending to present a reliable guide, I may be wrong about him, but what I read looked decent, although developed further by him. Also, I know a guy who read his book, I noticed nothing immediately off in what he told me. If there's some unacceptable SF underneath, or he'll come with such things later - applicable to all enumerated authors - then my statement is not applicable to his work, yeah.
Was thinking about this just the other day. I don't think most of the socionists really understand each other. For example, Boukalov's math. Gulenko doesn't use Model B because he can't possibly understand it... his Ni EM is too weak. And he doesn't feel confident that he can bullshit it... that would leave him vulnerable. I sent Boukalov a brief runthrough of political type theory, to see if he was familiar with anything like it. He never responded. EM theory tells us why: supervisor-supervisee pattern partners at that level can never be mutually comprehending. A mathematician will never understand human nature unless they manage to reduce it to a neurocognitive process (which Boukalov apparently does). I'm sure the political types were a shot out of the dark for him, and he's probably still wondering what I was getting at. Igor never wrote back either. To be sure, I don't totally follow his math, but I've had enough experience with Einstein that I know you don't have to follow the equation, to follow the idea.
Filatova, as an EII, probably has more insight into the actual subject of the theory than the whole bunch. But she's not a system builder and has to rely on the others to systematize what she observes.
Check that thing about the math -- I cannot very well make sense of his terms like "psychofractal in the sociocogntive space", nor most anything else he has written about in that journal of his (though I suspect much of it is hogwash).
lol yeah that's pretty fucing hilarious, that guy got banned from here ages ago and decided to write a book that sucks enormous balls.Stern? Are you kidding?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
