"Schools" of Socionics

[Cooper]

Hi all,
I wanted to post these questions a while back, but didn't for whatever reason. Similar questions have been asked and answered many times, but I don't think this fits with any existing thread.

What are some common interpretations of Socionic theory?
Obviously, each person has their own view, but what are some of the larger and more permeating divisions among "Socionists?"

What are some of their core tenets or foci?
Some examples that could apply to Socionics would be behaviorism/mentalism in psychology and intensionality/extensionality in logic.

And etc.
Alternate models?
Subtypes?

Obviously this is a very broad and contentious topic, but try to keep an inclusive definition of Socionics. I want to know what you think!

[yeves]

lots of good questions. summoning posters who have more experience with socionics to answer these @Reficulris @point @chemical @FDG @consentingadult @Olga @lecter @Pookie @lungs

[Reficulris]

lots of good questions. summoning posters who have more experience with socionics to answer these @Reficulris @point @chemical @FDG @consentingadult @Olga @lecter @Pookie @lungs

I should not be in that list

[yeves]

I should not be in that list

it is too late now you have to reply, even if a couple words on tenets and foci.

[mu4]

I don't have a school of socionics at this time. The 3 major influences on me are Jung, Aushra, Gulenko out of the major people. I think Reinin is good but I haven't read his book fully.

[chemical]

I'm probably mostly versed in Gulenko and Jung. The general school of thought I adhere to is that descriptions/content aren't inherent to type. Type is just a structure. We assign content to the structure to render it "meaningful" to us. For instance, things like there being one +Fe/Ti and one -Fe/Ti, and one +Ni/Se and one -Ni/Se batch are just formal symmetries of the structure, yet we assign traits like "boisterous, valuing emotional expression of a forthright nature" to the first to render a portrait meaningful to us.

I see the difference among the schools as simply what kinds of phenomena they fit to the structures. Jung was a little different in what he did, socionics is a little different. The core basis of thinking to define the structure of seeing information is pretty much the same, as far as I can tell.

The other major point I adhere to is that type plays out in a non-fixed way, meaning all the personal developments and all that don't tend to let it be singularly clear how to fit a given rigid pattern to someone, depending on the someone (some are easier than others).
It is not a static entity in the sense that whatever is innate about it is a theoretical core, which plays out empirically in diverse ways. I believe strongly those who read the disagreements among perfectly intelligent people on this sort of thing will realize that there's ambiguity in practice.

Mostly my studies work to expand the theoretical core into its fullest form, and hope that some semblance of it applies to real people in a way that we can diagnose them, but with this latter concern somewhat a background motivation than the driving force for me.

Other comments: socionics type descriptions emphasize the static/dynamic dichotomy over the introversion/extraversion one, whereas Jung focused on the latter very clearly. It's come to be my experience that one has to be careful, because in the more moderate-ground people (that is, moderate-ground on either dichotomy), their status on the other becomes harder to determine.
I think so far the ideas of defining the information elements in socionics make a great deal of sense, but that for instance, unless you aim for an exceptionally static judgment, it's not going to show the introversion in cognition.

One of the weaker points of both model A and Jung seem to be that if someone doesn't show an extremely clearly pronounced leaning in static/dynamic or introversion/extraversion, they may get to thinking they need to satisfy conditions which they really don't need to. Jung warned that a large crowd of people is ambiverted or much closer to that than to a clear introversion or extraversion.

[Pookie]

Hi all,
I wanted to post these questions a while back, but didn't for whatever reason. Similar questions have been asked and answered many times, but I don't think this fits with any existing thread.

What are some common interpretations of Socionic theory?
Obviously, each person has their own view, but what are some of the larger and more permeating divisions among "Socionists?"

What you seem to be asking is for the differences between the opinions on the authorities of this matter, correct? If thats the case, you'll just get a summation from us. Youre probably better off to read the articles from the authorites yourself. 1rst hand info > 2nd hand > 3rd hand, etc...
If you want the common folk opinion, you're probably going to need a more specific question to get anything meaningful from us(the common folk). Or read the forum threads that look interesting in intertype relations and general discussion. Anndelise and Nanashi have some very good posts.


What are some of their core tenets or foci?
Some examples that could apply to Socionics would be behaviorism/mentalism in psychology and intensionality/extensionality in logic.
I dont understand your question. You want the basic outline? That's what core tenets sound like to me. Quadra's i guess is applicable to what your asking... are you new to this field? Trying to figure out how to answer in a way that makes sense. Breadth(new) v. Depth(foundation is there).
And etc.
Alternate models?
Im not sure which are official if any really are, other than Model A, but theres DCNH /Cognitive Styles (Vortical Synergetics, Dialectic Algorthithmic, Holographic Panoramic, Causal-Determinstic) /Woofs statistical models / Model B / Aths magic metaphors / My pokemon metaphors /etc...
Subtypes?
Tons of stuff here. What do you know? What do you want out this answer?
Obviously this is a very broad and contentious topic, but try to keep an inclusive definition of Socionics. I want to know what you think!

These questions are asked very broadly, but it sounds like you want a rather narrow field of answers. It's hard to answer these questions without more follow up questions.

[Olga]

Hi, thank you for asking me too. ) At the moment I will answer briefly. There are a lot of socionics study schools, centres, clubs and etc. But not all of them have a specific name like a direction of theory. They are schools of different socionists who teach main stream socionics. If you consider directions of theory there are 5 major schools: humantirain ( Gulenko), systemic ( Ermak & Eglit), associative ( myself), instrumental ( Kalinauskas, Golichov, Reinin etc), physiognomic ( Filimonov and Duchovskoi).
There are also two institutes of Bukalov and Prokofieva, they are teaching main stream plus something else. There are also 3 other schools of Mironov, Lvov (both practice Reinin dichotomies) and Novikova ( her specific approach). Please, ask further what you want to know. I know many of the well-known soiconists.

[Reficulris]

If this thread becomes elaborate enough I might try to edit it into some kind of roadmap for the socionics world.

I think there should be maybe a kind of FAQ for these kind of questions...

[consentingadult]

I should not be in that list

Me neither, or it must be that I belong to the 16types.info school.

Really, Western World Socionics is very much about lonely wandering individuals trying to make to most of what scattered information is available out there.

Unless, of course, your name is Maritsa and you have all the answers. No offense Maritsa, you are still the woman of my dreams!

[Olga]

May be I can add a few words to this topic.
2 Chemical
I did not understand what the deal between statics- dynamics and introversion- -extraversion. We use 3 basic dichotomies to assign the person to one of the basic 4 groups of typology and I am not talking about quadras. All this basic dichotomies at the same level of priority and two of them suggest the thirs one automatically.

I see that people differentiate between socionics and MBTI like thinking style versus real life experiences. This is not true. Even though socionics is about informational metabolism it is also about people behaviour too as one does not exist without another. We do not act without thinking and we do not just think without acting.

I would suggest that western socionics individuals have the opportunity to get more involved with different schools of their choice in the East. I am sure that schools will be happy to support an any way possible. A few schools and centres are writing in English in order to get supporters and broaden the influence of their school. If you feel that you are a leader whether online or locally you can create a group ( club, centre) of socionists and choose what do you teach. You can teach any particular direction of theory or a few. You can create your own school and teach what you believe is good to know. There is a choice.

I, for example, am open to anything but I teach my approach because it is what I can do the best and it is what I believe is the best. However, I wish that the club in London which is a part of the online group of Socionics International will be open to all directions of theory and practice and at the same time have the critical view to all information.

[Olga]

You could talk to the specialists from the East (different schools or individuals) and if they are prepared to hep you to deepen your knowledge then you could create sub-forums on this forum. There is language barrier and ideally you need either from your side or from their side the person who can socialise in both languages and do some voluntary translation work as well. It would get the individual socionists the feeling of belonging, appreciation, satisfaction and possibility to grow and to become a consultant.
May be I am wrong but it seems to me that there is a lot of theoretical study and research is gong on and I have no idea how practice is doing so far? Why don't you have a list of consultants - people whom you can trust in typing on this forum? We have the list of consultants on socioforum. Otherwise I don't see how to grow professionally and whom to take as an example? Newcomers should know whom they contact for help and for learning. They need choice as well.