Could the Inventor of Socionics have been another type?

[jason_m]

This is just pure speculation. However, I have two key insights:

1) People have typed her Inventor by comparing her with Ayn Rand. While Rick DeLong typed Rand as ILE, the modern consensus is that Rand is a completely different type... Some type her as "Gamma Extravert" while to others she is "Beta ST"; rarely is Rand typed as ILE.

2) In some pictures, Augusta VI's differently from Inventor. E.g.:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...e4b233e8a1.jpg

What could be going on here? Are the pictures not accurate? Is there something wrong with VI? Could the typing system have changed over the years, such that she would become a different type under a different system? I realize that this is just food for thought, but I would be interested to hear anyone's opinion...

[jason_m]

Another observation:

She seems like a rational type to me as ILE, the same way Richard Feynman (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyqleIxXTpwseems) seems like an irrational type as LIE. (And, if you look at these two, could they be any more diametrically opposite: rationalist vs. empiricist, "feminist" vs. "womanizer," etc.) Therefore: could the functions be misaligned in some way?

[Sol]

1) People have typed her Inventor by comparing her with Ayn Rand

Typed her directly.

the modern consensus is that Rand is a completely different type

Everybody type with low match and there is no base to say about "consensus" about someone's type.

In some pictures, Augusta VI's differently from Inventor

normal VI needs videos or IRL contact

[jason_m]

Typed her directly.

http://rickdelong.com/socionics/celebrities/ile.shtml

I guess she VI's through pictures like Ayn Rand. Does that really say something? That's what I'm asking...

EDIT: What's your type? It's not available in your profile. Short, wry, to-the-point, critical, unemotional statements. INTp?

[ghost of forum past]

She might be another type by today's standards for Socionics, but by her own standards she was surely ILE.

Now think about the above statement and realize that subjective interpretation is the root of most Socionics (mis)understandings.

[jason_m]

She might be another type by today's standards for Socionics, but by her own standards she was surely ILE.

Now think about the above statement and realize that subjective interpretation is the root of most Socionics (mis)understandings.

Indeed. If you remove all subjectivity from your typing system, then how do you know your "dual" isn't really a bad relation? OTOH, if you remove all objectivity, then do you really understand anything about socionics? I.e., removing all subjectivity could be wrong, because the two types might only go together on paper. In removing all objectivity, there are probably a lot of bad relations floating in the pool of what you "like."

[Contra]

The short answer to the title is Yes. A lot of people aren't confident with Jung's self-typing and so I could see it being the same case with Aushra. Who really knows though.

[yeves]

1) People have typed her Inventor by comparing her with Ayn Rand.

How is Aushra Augusta comparable to Ayn Rand?

[jason_m]

How is Aushra Augusta comparable to Ayn Rand?

http://rickdelong.com/socionics/celebrities/ile.shtml

[yeves]

http://rickdelong.com/socionics/celebrities/ile.shtml

are they comparable in other ways than photographs? many don't accept VI as credible evidence for a typing. if he compared them in their writing, character, ideas, biographies that would have been more convincing.

What could be going on here? Are the pictures not accurate? Is there something wrong with VI? Could the typing system have changed over the years, such that she would become a different type under a different system? I realize that this is just food for thought, but I would be interested to hear anyone's opinion...

my take on this is that they don't look alike. the photographs of David Deutsch at the top of the page are comparable to Aushra, but Ayn Rand sticks out between them like a sore thumb that doesn't belong with those types. this is what you said about Rand never getting typed as ILE. something is wrong here and it's not with VI but with the VIer's mistake.

[Jeremy8419]

From SSS type descriptions, she entered the social sphere with her super-id. So she would logically be SEI, and needed actual ILE's like Bukalov to turn it into an actual system.

On V.I., from the Developmental Age article, the TIM begins in the Cital (not Vital) Superblock, which is the cellular Superblock. Cellular is genetic. It's common belief in Socionics community that TIM never changes. The only thing about you that never changes is your DNA. So V.I. based upon pure facial structure is most likely the core of TIM. That said, birth does have an effect on skull shape, so it may not be genetic, and instead based upon the structure of the skull, which would place strain (stress) on various parts of the brain, and lead to primary operation in a certain vector of focus.

In my experiences, facial and cranial structures are directly related to TIM as given in the SSS descriptions.

[Jeremy8419]

http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/p...-of-the-psyche

[chemical]

A lot of people aren't confident with Jung's self-typing

For what it's worth, I think that lack of confidence mostly runs on modern forums, where people aren't really using his original notions. When it comes to Jungians themselves, I've never seen him typed as anything but some kind of introverted intuitive thinker, and in his original schematic, there wasn't a "NiTe" or "TiNe" -- if anything there was just "introvert" and then your top two functions as the staple (with occasional emphasis that one of them was higher than the other -- but sometimes that is omitted from emphasis).

I would say the start with MBTI was to shift N from truly intuitive a view to just rendering it a general bundle of abstract, lack of tangible, and so on. It's significantly easier to understand why Jung wouldn't have seen himself as some kind of clear intuitive type -- which many people probably just assume point-blank in MBTI/socionics settings -- if one recognizes what an intuitive actually meant to him.

In fact, Jung would've typed Einstein most likely as a rational introvert, and in socionics he is a prototypical ILE. There's a lot of system reorganizing ultimately going on.

Why? Because let's face it -- the terms "subject" and 'Object" orientation are insanely broad. How one fits those into a coherent theory of e/i versions of intuition, ethics/feeling, logic/thinking, and sensation is a delicate issue, and has quite possibly more than one interesting answer --- whence more than one system of thought on what "the" 16 types are about. In fact, as various attempts at quantification show, if one defines the "function-attitudes" as broadly as is plausible from Jungian writings, one can't expect they'll fit anywhere neatly into any model resembling either Jung's or socionics' models. But there's clearly something there for the determined individual to extract.

The more specific one gets into Aushra's concept of the types, probably the easier it is to understand her self-typing.
Then the question really becomes whether there are alternate interpretations/organizations of core socionics ideas resulting in a different typing.

I never found it hard to understand Jung's self-typing, frequently as introverted thinking dominant, in HIS system of thought.

Now I'm not saying I haven't rethought his system of thought, using both my own ideas/a lot of the other systems including socionics' good ideas, to believe there might be a better organization of his ideas. But at some point better gets overly subjective and it's good to simply acknowledge what Jung would've been if one followed his train of definitions/descriptions very carefully. And probably ditto for Aushra.

[malna]

To me it's a bit like questioning someone who came up with names for colors whether they knew for sure their eyes were 'green'.

Sure, Aushra based socionics largely on Jung's and Kępiński's theories but essentially she did describe something no one had before and in order to do that she needed to observe. Given the subject of her research, she needed a good look into her own thought process first and foremost, and that had to be what she referred to coming up with new ideas. In a nutshell, she decides what an ILE is.
Aside from that, just yesterday I read a pretty long article by her (on duality). Yep, she's an ILE all right.