Filatova's: Duality as Complementation between Strong/Weak Functions (Gamma Edition)

[Crispy]

Here is how Filatova approached Duality descriptions in her english socionics book. She describes how each type's Weakest function (Suggestive) works like a lock, and each type's Strongest function (Base) works like a key.

ILI - The Critic
: Holistic and systematic perception; foreseeing of far-going perspectives and upcoming problems, sometimes excessive caution.
: Inertia; difficulty mobilizing for necessary actions; need for outward stimuli and inspiration.

SEE - The Leader
: Irrepressible purposefulness; haste; self-confidence; leadership capabilities.
: Impulsive, prefers making future with his/her hands instead of trying to predict it (and thus often ignores even the most obvious dangers); good tactician but usually bad strategist.

LIE - The Entrepreneur
: Efficient working; dynamism; budgeting efforts; separating the wheat from the chaff.
: Weak understanding of nuances of intonation and of other people's moods; thankful to those who can unobtrusively help correct relations with other people.

ESI - The Guardian
: Has a quick eye of people's moods, and their relationships; moralist; observation of traditions and rituals.
: Preparing to work and work itself require effort; difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff; and establishing a balance between plans and possibilities.

[Beautiful sky]

I wonder if these will make anyone change their typing of themselves, or others.

[Suz]

Nope, not me Maritsa

[Crispy]

I doubt these alone will, but as more and more information becomes available, any wrong typings that exist should sort themselves out eventually.

[717495]

I got Filatova's book n stuff, for fun. I like books, they're easy to trash. But I couldn't really understand it. I think she types me as some kinda , but just orients that to imagination or comprehensive life observation, some kind of far-out big picture person, etc ? I can't really say much of what she said in description applied to me or anybody I know at a realistic level, as far as what normal people think about and behave like. She could have sticked with Jungian information processing, which I very well relate to. Maybe she was a kind of temporary fad in the Socionics community.

I kinda think her approach to Socionics is shallow, too many straight facts collected about type which just makes the typing threshold zilch, not enough concept.

[Jonathan]

I got Filatova's book n stuff, for fun. I like books, they're easy to trash. But I couldn't really understand it. I think she types me as some kinda , but just orients that to imagination or comprehensive life observation, some kind of far-out big picture person, etc ? I can't really say much of what she said in description applied to me or anybody I know at a realistic level, as far as what normal people think about and behave like. She could have sticked with Jungian information processing, which I very well relate to. Maybe she was a kind of temporary fad in the Socionics community.

I kinda think her approach to Socionics is shallow, too many straight facts collected about type which just makes the typing threshold zilch, not enough concept.

The appeal is probably that some other Socionics writings are heavy on patterns but not on specific behaviors by which you would know how a given author is applying the theory. The challenge is to be able to relate the theory to specific behaviors.

On a scale of 1 to 10, what would you give her book in terms of a recommendation?

[Crispy]

It is the best socionics book currently available in English, which doesn't say much if you've read the competition.

[717495]

Well, I think many various kinds of behaviors, perceptions, and lifestyles can amount to types of the same information elements. Not all of these are obvious. Her way of categorizing these don't seem obviously type related or could help someone figure out their true type, but contrarily, the other side of the coin is that many behaviors or mindsets she emphasizes are too broad and can be noticed in many types. I don't think she cares much about the origin of type perception, that which I've come to understand more clearly through a variety real life examples whose origin of understanding came from more empirical texts about the mechanics of Jungian functions, but rather about a lame kind of detached stereotype relating to perhaps one or two people of a type she may have gotten an intuitive feel for. Iow, low threshold, not meant for everyone to figure out subjectively. You're going to have so many different, incomplete opinions if everyone followed this book, and it gives barely any famous type examples, which I find to be key to practical application.

I actually think a number of people will eat it up, if you want to give it as a birthday present, because its so simple. It's like a more summed up theoretical version of what a lot of light correlations in happenstance people talk about on here are, but I do not think it's clear enough to be of actual use, it's just simple enough to read, and get laughs at, or what not, "in theory.." to make you believe your type through intuitive guesswork. What you get with low threshold material such as factual, behavioral specifics, is some big obvious hits for types, but most of the 'fish' just miss the bait altogether, and you end up with a nice puzzle of a tree, so to speak, but the whole rest of the forest is missing. This is similar to how individual typelists online work: each person tries to feed everyone her favorite dinner for one, no one else will have it. They all have their different opinions and experiences. So I would have to give her book a low recommendation. As for a number, I'm not too sure.

Socionics as I know it is of a decent threshold. I can find the exact fitting type in any person, but it takes a great deal of collected objectivity in relational psychology, and has no room for stereotype. Stereotype is just another word for low threshold, because interpreting its implied worth bumps more significant factors off the radar.

[consentingadult]

Here is how Filatova approached Duality descriptions in her english socionics book. She describes how each type's Weakest function (Suggestive) works like a lock, and each type's Strongest function (Base) works like a key.

ILI - The Critic
: ...
: Inertia; difficulty mobilizing for necessary actions; need for outward stimuli and inspiration.

I concur. Typically al you need to do is shut the door, sit down, tell them " I'm not gonna put up with your p/a bs anymore" and slam your hand on the table at the same time, and show that you mean business. The effects are amazing!

[EyeSeeCold]

ILI - The Critic
: ...
: Inertia; difficulty mobilizing for necessary actions; need for outward stimuli and inspiration.

I concur. Typically al you need to do is shut the door, sit down, tell them " I'm not gonna put up with your p/a bs anymore" and slam your hand on the table at the same time, and show that you mean business. The effects are amazing!

If you didn't have a history of authoritativeness to back it up or otherwise were known as flaky in your feelings, I'd most likely laugh in your face at this act of monkeying around.

[Jonathan]

many behaviors or mindsets she emphasizes are too broad and can be noticed in many types. ...a lame kind of detached stereotype relating to perhaps one or two people of a type she may have gotten an intuitive feel for.

That's true though of just about everything one reads in Socionics...whether it's
quadra descriptions, type or subtype descriptions by various people, etc. Whether it's by Strat or Gulenko or Weisband, they're all like that. I read one description and say "yeah, I can identify with that" and then another description and say "yeah, I can identify with that too."

The alternative is usually something like "ILIs use internal dynamics of fields to produce external dynamics of objects."

I guess with the dearth of good material, there's a lot of opportunity for someone to come up with something better.

[consentingadult]

I concur. Typically al you need to do is shut the door, sit down, tell them " I'm not gonna put up with your p/a bs anymore" and slam your hand on the table at the same time, and show that you mean business. The effects are amazing!

If you didn't have a history of authoritativeness to back it up or otherwise were known as flaky in your feelings, I'd most likely laugh in your face at this act of monkeying around.

Apperently you don't really understand Socionics.

[consentingadult]

These are lame.

In which sense are these lame?

[Absurd]

Oversimplified, 1-dimensional, incommensurate with real people and real problems.

You mastered English.

[consentingadult]

In which sense are these lame?

Oversimplified, 1-dimensional, incommensurate with real people and real problems. I know of no dual couple whose relational dynamics could be characterized by these lame stereotypes.

Thank you.

[EyeSeeCold]

If you didn't have a history of authoritativeness to back it up or otherwise were known as flaky in your feelings, I'd most likely laugh in your face at this act of monkeying around.

Apperently you don't really understand Socionics.

Apparently you are quick to assume, and also spelled 'apparently' incorrectly.

[goggles]

Here is how Filatova approached Duality descriptions in her english socionics book. She describes how each type's Weakest function (Suggestive) works like a lock, and each type's Strongest function (Base) works like a key.

I thought that was obvious.

Oversimplified, 1-dimensional, incommensurate with real people and real problems. I know of no dual couple whose relational dynamics could be characterized by these lame stereotypes.

Sorry but I didn't know socionics was supposed to be the answer to an individuals personal problems. Socionics is a theory (a theory in progress) which is supposed to predict the outcome of relationships based on the kinds of information we interpret well, easily or causes us distress.

[consentingadult]

Apperently you don't really understand Socionics.

Apparently you are quick to assume, and also spelled 'apparently' incorrectly.

Well, you found an error, how well done! And how anal! Now tell us, how many languages do you actually speak and are able to write flawlessly?

[Jonathan]

In which sense are these lame?

Oversimplified, 1-dimensional, incommensurate with real people and real problems. I know of no dual couple whose relational dynamics could be characterized by these lame stereotypes.

I agree that there are some questionable stereotypes in Filatova's language, but I don't think Gulenko, Stratievskaya, Weisband, or Augusta are any better in that regard. These descriptions don't capture the full concept of duality, but I think if one takes out a few questionable things (E.g., ESI as helping detect people moods...which sounds Fe), they seem reasonable. Surely the thing about SEEs being more tactical compared to ILI, or LIEs being better than ESIs at separating what's important from what's not both seem reasonable.

If you're looking for very short descriptions of how duals help each other in various life areas, the whole exercise has limitations. You basically have to pick a few key things.


For those who think that these are far off the mark, though, what would your version be?

[FDG]

The SEE-ILI sounds better than the LIE-ESI, which seems a bit stereotypical. Probably due to the strong emphasis placed on the base function (I'd wager a very Te-Fi ILI-SEE couple would also find those descriptions as lacking in depth).

[goggles]

How many dual couples do you know or have you studied Ashton?

You'd be better off studying examples of real dual couples if you want to know what it's like, and how duals help (and/or don't help) one another.

Can you give me some examples and tell me what you've learned through your observations?

[Jonathan]

Point being, that these reifications do a poor job at that.

You'd be better off studying examples of real dual couples if you want to know what it's like, and how duals help (and/or don't help) one another.

To be fair, my assumption is that Crispy pulled these out from the different places in Filatova's book. I'm guessing that there were a few sentences in each description about how the dual type may be helpful, so in the context of the book, it may not have been presented as if she was implying that you could understand the dynamics of the relationship just from that.

[goggles]

How can you be sure these people are duals?

I think Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore might be duals but I don't think Kristen Stewart and Robert Patterson are. I've always thought of Gwynth Paltrow as a sensor rather than an intuitive and Chris Martin I'm sure is a enfj. But of course I have no way of know having never met any of these people.

[Crispy]

All of these were under the same section of the book, namely the duality inter type relation description. The bulk of the duality description is a lot longer but I just pulled the mini descrips for each duality pair.

[717495]

Ashton, I wanted to add in Prince William (Si-ESTJ) and Catherine Middleton (Ne-INFJ) Louis on the duals page, but don't know how to log in to there.

I think Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore might be duals but I don't think Kristen Stewart and Robert Patterson are.

Well, have you ever thought your opinions aren't important?

Go away.

[goggles]

My apologies to Ashton, I didn't mean to sound aggressive/rude whatever.