Are "unfavorable" intertype relations always bad? (thread split)

[Olduvai]

IEE LII supervision is not bad given the right subtypes it can be actually quite positive.

idk man, I want to choke-slam every LII that I come across, the quieter ones and the more sociable ones both; I can just feel their skepticism

Plus Gulenko talks about conflict even not being conflict given compatible subtypes

I disagree; it doesn't always happen right away, but conflictors will always conflict

and also duality is not good in every circumstance since some subtypes are worse than conflict/just as bad.

no matter the subtypes, duality will always be better than conflict; duality is completely complementary in terms of information exchange, whereas conflict is completely repulsive

Supervision is horrible when perception doesn't match, so IEE ESI, is not great compared to IEE LII yet even with that some subtypes are more compatible.

supervision sucks no matter what types are involved

[Olduvai]

This is a good example of why I got this undercurrent of contempt towards subtypes; they may be used as a way of BSing any typing & turnout, at which point the theory falls apart...

amen

[Soupman]

@Chris Clearly and @Ath, people are more complex than 16types, if you've been following Gulenko's school, you'd know where he is coming from. Again if your desire is to take the field seriously, a lot of the material that challenge the traditional socionics doctrine is not surprising, it goes back to the idea that real people are complicated. The idea a sociotype can develop multiple TIMs is not surprising even, this is where we begin to go to the more upsetting research for traditionally orientated socionics schools. Gulenko has been talking recently about schools that stubbornly adhere to the classic teaching without testing having no desire for further research.

People are not static but rather they are dynamic with various sides and at times contradictory personality traits. Gulenko's facebook page is bellow, its worth a read, though its in Russian

https://www.facebook.com/pages/%D0%9...ref=ts&fref=ts

Do you guys actually focus on studying real people in depth or do you think that this is simply a fun pseudo-science with no hope of establishing truth or fallibility of any-kind? Again when you go back to real people you find the many theories in typology breaking, Socionics is no exception, again this is where I personally believe that a holistic theory can be developed if people are willing to go back to ground taking the many problem that are present in studying real people seriously, primarily the multidimensionality of personalities.The field then starts to blur into psychology, but again schools such as SSRI see socionics as a sub-field in psychology, a few months ago Tatyana Prokofiev has talking about her wish to have the field become respected by the mainstream scientific community.

The idea of taking the field seriously demanding research and evidence does unleash a large can of worms that forums like this can't handle, Russian ones are better since they take the ''science'' a lot more seriously though.

The FAQs on Gulenko's site

http://socionics.kiev.ua/faqs/faq0/

http://socionics.kiev.ua/faqs/faq1/

http://socionics.kiev.ua/faqs/faq2/

[Soupman]

Gotta wonder if it's the theories that break or one's faulty interpretation of em. What are non-socionics theories that are fragile against reality?

This is were people accuse me of being Socionics Britannica guy due to my insights, clearly suggesting that I know some of the people behind the scenes, but of course I talk to the guy so I do. Any who @Ath what you are talking about is the exact problem his been discussing as his been laying out an article on the epistemology routes he's been interested in taking for his research journal he has planned, that is where they have the Socionics Britannica Journal page. Unsolicited mistaken ass-kissing aside, or dickriding...

The problem he as been talking about with regards to the so called ''faulty interpretation'' is what he says is the problem of implicit abstractions that make the falsification of claims difficult since there is no precision in definitions so people end up with tests that can't be replicated or evidence that can''t be reproduced. That is the problem behind implicit abstraction of information behind intuition and ethics since they orientate towards ideas which they try to then link onto the object in reality.

The problem with implicit abstraction is that an entity can not be specified exactly and that leads to people creating their own interpretation which is not their fault at all since explicit references aren't available.

This is opposed to what explicit abstractions that are in sensing and logic do as they start specifically with the object in reality, building their ideas constrained explicitly by the information provided by the object. So it become easier to identify exactly what the author of the hypothesis is trying to say which makes it easier to challenge their claim and falsify it since ambiguity is strictly absent.

''Ethics'' is better understood as implicit-logic and ''Logic'' as explicit-logic. Ethics has nothing to do with emotions if you going to be precise about understanding its intellectual and very rational way but rather, they, emotions are a separate entity and system that can actually influence analysis and understanding of either logic. Mutually ''Intuition'' is better understood as implicit-details and ''sensing'' as explicit details. Sensing is not about sensations if you going to understand it intellectually but rather its just a different system understanding the world around.

This stuff is in conflict with traditional socionics doctrine that says Intuition and logic are impersonal and ethics and sensing are involved with higher subjectivity.

[Olduvai]

Do you guys actually focus on studying real people in depth or do you think that this is simply a fun pseudo-science with no hope of establishing truth or fallibility of any-kind?

I'm gonna quote myself here:

types are more than just "descriptions"; they are living, breathing people

descriptions are "holographic" insofar as they "hint" at what "is" by painting a detailed but incomplete picture

simply going by what the text says won't get you anywhere; you have to go into the world and observe people for the distinctions to become clear

the information you gather from the real world will "animate" the type descriptions; it will "fill them out"

I think what people tend to forget is that a socionics type is "how a person processes information" or "what a person focuses on and cares about", which is more fundamental than "how a person behaves" or "how a person seems". Here's a little quote that might illustrate better what I'm trying to say:

It was (and is) common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct" whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason", and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals. William James took the opposite view. He argued that human behavior is more flexibly intelligent than that of other animals because we have more instincts than they do, not fewer. We tend to be blind to the existence of these instincts, however, precisely because they work so well -- because they process information so effortlessly and automatically. They structure our thought so powerfully, he argued, that it can be difficult to imagine how things could be otherwise. As a result, we take "normal" behavior for granted. We do not realize that "normal" behavior needs to be explained at all. This "instinct blindness" makes the study of psychology difficult. To get past this problem, James suggested that we try to make the "natural seem strange":

"It takes...a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of making the natural seem strange, so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive human act. To the metaphysician alone can such questions occur as: Why do we smile, when pleased, and not scowl? Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits so upside-down? The common man can only say, Of course we smile, of course our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of course we love the maiden, that beautiful soul clad in that perfect form, so palpably and flagrantly made for all eternity to be loved!
And so, probably, does each animal feel about the particular things it tends to do in the presence of particular objects. ... To the lion it is the lioness which is made to be loved; to the bear, the she-bear. To the broody hen the notion would probably seem monstrous that there should be a creature in the world to whom a nestful of eggs was not the utterly fascinating and precious and never-to-be-too-much-sat-upon object which it is to her.
Thus we may be sure that, however mysterious some animals' instincts may appear to us, our instincts will appear no less mysterious to them." (William James, 1890)

I want to say more, but lately it's been difficult for me to express myself.

[Soupman]

I'm gonna quote myself here:


I think what people tend to forget is that a socionics type is "how a person processes information" or "what a person focuses on and cares about", which is more fundamental than "how a person behaves" or "how a person seems". Here's a little quote that might illustrate better what I'm trying to say:


I want to say more, but lately it's been difficult for me to express myself.

It cool I used to be like that when I wasn't functioning to my full potential, before I thought the personality health theories were rubbish but since having experienced the two states of health I got to see the evidence for myself. Anyway I understand your argument I used to have it throughout my MBTI days and earlier in my socionics days. However if you followed my two posts above with ath, my argument is that relationship compatibility far exceeds the definitions of socionics, the so-called ''controversial theories'' that challenge socionics doctrine are not surprising since all socionics provides are caricatures of people. The dimensions that affect people and the way they understand and interpret information exceed what socionics says.


How a person processes information is a very complicated subject and that has to be understood from the onset if ever hope to create a science out of the laughing stock that is typology. I personally believe that this can be a science but of course as you start to treat it as such, burden of challenge displays it self for all to see.

How can we even explicitly claim what a personality is? We can't just use the cop out that the human mind is complex hiding being speculations about how it is or how it works, whilst not wanting to be laughed at when people say the stuff is rubbish. Yes the mind is complex but that is where you need to lay the ground work and determine what can be actually studied and what can not actually be studied. The short answer here is effectively what a learned from David Keirsey and its that, even though we don't understand how people think, it doesn't mean we should speculate, through studying the outputs of people:

their use of language, behaviour, thought expressions... (real things, what we actually observe)

we actually have evidence to start of from, that is more respectable than horse shit about what is going on inside people, I mean it just makes us look silly. That was what held scientific progress back when people use gods, sun-god, rain-god, moon-god... all sorts of rubbish to attempt to explain real phenomena instead limiting themselves to what is real and having no shame in admitting what they did not understand.The obvious hurdle with studying people is the problem that they have many sides to their personality and that makes it difficult; but they is no shame in that, its a real fact we observe and that is useful since its being realistic about the problem is always the right approach.

@Chris Clearly
The way people process information is not static even, this is the where socionists argue that a person can develop multiple types as a direct result. Dimitry Lytov an ILE socionist was not wrong to say that he found himself seeing the world as a ILI and LII at times. At first I thought he was stupid in the beginning but I began to observe the same thing in myself as I got to increasingly discover the fact that my relations with my younger brother are very different during the periods where I behave and think like a ILE, since our relations become semi-dual instead of business which is far tamer. When I function like a ILE I have an abundance of energy I'm far more open (yet reckless as my usually attitude would normally see it). I start to see reality as my oyster, a tool, I have a go get em attitude. And the way it affects SEI & SLIs is that I begin to crave their attention and presence as I begin to entertain them being easily able to have a symbiotic relationship when my energy is high. It is very strange that I seem to experience that as an odd part of my self.

I contemplated the idea of being a mistyped ILE were I thought it was simply my low energy that caused me to behave the way I did but that did not make much sense when comparing myself with the more present state I have. It got to a point were I stopped believing in the whole extroversion and introversion as its classically taught, I'd been starting to abandon socionics till I ended up developing the current version I have, where people seem to have an odd hybrid of the two perspectives.