Duschia was pre-typed as EIE by a G student with whom she had beef with and then got typed the same by G, but the curious thing is her typing was different in criteria to that of the rest of DarkAngelFireWolf69 typings that had been shared previously. I thought there might be a possibility that he delegated or discussed Duschia's type with his students and this particular one pushed for EIE. Not saying that typing was incorrect though.Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
I also heard people getting typed by students priorly but then again getting typed by G as something completely different afterwards. So I dont think that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RBRS
If you are talking about the content of the report. It contained contrary conclusions as I remember. Like it is pointed out that Dushia was EIE and lacked empathy due to Fi ignoring Fe dom where in some other EIE's reports we can see that they are typed Fe base due to empathy.
I have seen some contradictions in LSI reports as well. I think it is partly due to translation, partly imprecision, and partly because he G types people based on nonverbals, other kind of methods rather than what person says what they are, but on reports G tend to use what has been said regardless of it.
I also think the empathy thing is strange, @Suspiria posted that the term used in the original Russian language part of his DarkAngelFireWolf69 report translates well to empathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
I don't have the Russian portion of Duschia's report (she sent me only the English translation when I asked her if I could read the conclusion), so I can't go further and tbh I don't have the energy to investigate this further.
Also, what contradictions were there in the LSI conclusions you mention?
How well it matches to this?Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
Personally I'm kind of iffy about this because people have (sometimes very) contradicting opinions of this quality I have. It is very hard to put in words. OK, in terms of really aiming to create bonds actively which I tend not to do (I'm kind of unsure or zoning out to future too much by making guesses etc) although I hold myself kind of well if I need to be in good terms with people [and I do not really seek any sort of conflict without a strong reason].Quote:
Perhaps it seems to Sanguine Miasma himself that he has some kind of "emotional deficit," that makes him somehow indifferent. And this is an argument against ethics. Yes, but against introverted ethics, which is responsible for inner feelings and stable relationships. Sanguine Miasma's leading function is extroverted ethics, which is poor inward and works more outward.
G uses the words empathy and sympathy. In his resources it is written that xLI may or cannot do emotional empathy and SLE may not show sympathy. But in other places sometimes they both get mixed up, like it is written that Fi is empathy etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ipbanned
Hence both can mixed up easily. So I also see it as a thing that is written due to mistranslation and lack of precision to distinguish both.
Dushia sent videos and report under this thread in the past, a few years ago. I dont know if the report is there or not. I remember Dushia disagreeing with the type because of this empathy thing so I remember it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ipbanned
I didnt watch the videos during that time. Hence I dont know have an idea but I think a person can do empathy and think that they are not since they are not sympathetic. Everyone's definitions can get mixed up. If a person claims that they dont do it then it is likely to be reported as such.
On top of my head, like you burning the food and another LSI-C having difficult time with performing cooking, cleanning but someone else getting typed as sensor (LSI) because they cook and like to cook(H sub).Quote:
Originally Posted by ipbanned
Having organized and unrorganized memories (N vs H sub).
I think person's representation of type can be different. Generally, I have seen lots of them having trouble to form and maintain bonds. So I think it is the result of Fi ignoring, I dont see that in a way that is conflicting with the type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma
I think EIEs can be even on bad terms of people.
The cooking thing is really weird to me, since every single person on this planet needs to eat to survive. Some people develop an interest in it, others don't care about how things taste.
Latest video. Tiago talks about getting typed. (He clarifies in the comments he was typed LSI-H).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SweQb1mZ_Oc
Hey, sorry it’s been a while, but I’ve meaning to get back to this as it’s an interesting discussion.
When does something become too much philosophy? I think that remaining critically minded about our knowledge and epistemology will always remain important, and not just for a specific type. To be clear, I’m not implying you aren’t doing this to a significant extent as well, but my rhetorical question is more meant as a suggestion that the idea of “too much philosophy/epistemology” is not so straightforward, and that there isn’t a point at which our views aren’t subject to critical scrutiny anymore since our knowledge inevitably remains incomplete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
That said, I think we agree more here than it may appear. I agree that typology PHENOMENA can be essential in themselves: by that I mean, one could plausibly take a realist stance towards them and they could be real enough to be subject to scientific causation and casually impactful themselves.
However, that is different than the association of the essential typology phenomenon with a specific WORD, like "Ne" or "Ni". Thus, there can be different understandings of the words "Ne" and "Ni" which can both refer to essential systematic phenomena (at least approximately), yet these phenomena may not be the same. This is just the observation that there are many genuine patterns in nature and in humans to which we can assign systems. So however essential a typology phenomena might be, this doesn’t grant it an essential relationship to a word like “Ne” and “Ni”, and that’s important to keep in mind when disagreeing on what “Ne” or “Ni” essentially “is” (i.e. are you sure you talking about the same phenomena when you disagree on these words)? This isn’t to imply that people’s understanding of a phenomena can’t be mistaken, but that is also something to be established via evidence and not just assumed.
And totally agreed that people can have types which are more difficult to notice, for a variety of reasons.
Some of it is attributable to LII in SHS (e.g. Balanced-Stable Temperament), and more of it may be attributable to LII in a different systematic way of perceiving type but not in the SHS school at least. In other words, it seems vanishingly unlikely that an SHS LII would exhibit the cluster of right-spinning, managerial and Beta Quadra traits that Jung displays in his life. SHS LII’s behavioral clusters are qualitatively distinct. And it is probably true that most psychiatrists would be aristocratic types (this may even be true in the modern age), which is NOT to suggest that we should diagnose the type of anyone for that reason as it is not reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
A focus on mundane reality relates to the Se and Si functions in SHS, but Jung’s focus is more introverted (not just due to being an LSI, but also his distant NH or HN subtype). But I agree that he could be said to be more focused on intellectual work overall (i.e. he is an L-lead with a T-accentuation), and there is no contradiction with LSI in this case since the model is multi-layered (i.e. type is not our focus, but an aspect of our underlying psychological structure and overall behavior). And Jung shows skills in interacting with mundane reality which seem unlikely for an intuitive type in SHS.
I did not know he said that, and that is very interesting. I agree that typing someone as aristocratic just because they said something like that would be a shallow and weak argument. However, it surprises me that Jung would say that as it seems a bit one-sided, and Jung often cautions against one-sidedness. To be fair, it is also pretty vague. If he just means something like that life inevitably contains aristocracy and that it’s very relevant, well then that just seems like the pointing out of a straightforward fact which even a Gamma could point out. In any case, this quote is not the reason for his LSI diagnosis as I wasn’t even aware of it, but very interesting nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
It is true that aristocrats more easily understand the organizational principles of collectives and societies than democrats since this is closer to their Quadra values, at least in SHS and not in all prospectively valid typology understandings, so Jung may display some aristocracy in that regard. And this understanding need not be prejudiced at all, in fact it can be very respectful, to understand more about the essence or spirit of a people or a culture, for example. However, I also find such abstract assessments pretty circumstantial without a lot of further context and analysis, and I wouldn’t type Jung as aristocratic on the basis of that alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
I think I was talking about Jung’s approach of “not making mistakes” and “staying connected to mundane reality” when it came to “whether he or you would perceive this as a necessity to have a mystical experience”. It sounds like you wouldn’t perceive that approach as necessary to simply have the experience, from what you’ve written here. But I don’t dispute that the unconscious is a far broader phenomenon than merely the T (Ni) function in SHS; T just gives one the ability to synthesize a large amount of information and see many patterns and trends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
How what should be relevant to any functions: experiencing visions? I think it could relate to a few functions in SHS, and this is because VISIONS are something VISUAL. Dynamic functions are more visual in SHS, whereas Static functions are more kinesthetic. Business Logic and Emotion Ethics are related to forming a visual picture in our minds, and Comfort Sensing and Temporal Intuition are related to visualizing and recalling experiences. All of these functions probably relate to visioning or active imagination in various ways, but since the visions that Jung is famous for are highly abstract, predictive, prophetic, and far from concrete reality, they seem to indicate an unusual degree of immersion in the T function in particular. This isn’t to try to completely explain his visions or his unique connection to the collective unconscious, though, which I agree is not a matter of an abstract theory like Socionics and perhaps only loosely connected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
It may be that we need Ni to dream at night, but that would be a trivial matter since everyone has Ni! We have all 8 functions, in SHS at least and many other Socionics theories. If functional brain circuits involved in the T process were damaged, it could conceivably have a large effect on even mundane experiences like that. I don’t know the precise nature or extent of it though.
I’m not sure what you mean by Mickey Mouse being there talking to you: an imaginal experience? If so, then it may be dependent on even mundane physical phenomena in our brains, which may in turn connect to some more abstract typology phenomena. That’s not to say that they are completely determined by typology phenomena, though, in fact I do not think so at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
It seems to me that we simply need to look at phenomena to see what they do or do not explain, not judge in advance of the investigation as to what they should or shouldn’t explain, since the latter is more a matter of control than of understanding or discovery. The statement you make doesn’t seem so outlandish to me because (basically) everyone has Si and Ni; from the SHS perspective these are just basic functional states, not exceptionally grand things. However, I don’t think an abstract theory like Socionics could come even close to explaining everything; it just looks at systematic patterns.
I admire Jung a lot, and I totally agree with you that Jung likely dealt with many difficult things on all of his functions. This makes him a much more widely developed person than most, with a wider range of functional proficiencies and perhaps a special destiny. And Jung unquestionably did not approach his therapy from such a totally abstract standpoint; he also displays a great deal of S and R functions, helping to rehabilitate people in more conformal ordinary life and relating to them in deep and empathic (even alchemical) way. Though he was also able to deal with a lot of strange and abstract issues which would be baffling to most psychiatrists, even today I’m sure, and his T accentuation likely helped in this regard even as it alienated him from those who have less comfort delving into psychological, esoteric or abstract issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
I'm reminded of some quotes that establish the delicate balance Jung held between sensing and intuition, realizability and continuity with the past versus novelty and exceptionality, presence and connectedness versus solitude and self-possession, external versus internal, extroversion vs introversion, and even some relatively collectivist and aristocratic ideas: Carl Jung on “Adaptation, Individuation, Collectivity.” – Carl Jung Depth Psychology (carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog)
I just see Socionics as a few very interesting systematic patterns in humans which could potentially be made even clearer and more rigorous with time and effort, which includes some typological aspects of people’s behavior and how they relate to others, and I am in agreement that Socionics best serves the individual. As Jordan Peterson, another famous Jungian psychologist says: “Everybody acts out a myth, but very few people know what their myth is and you should know what your myth is, because it might be a tragedy. And maybe you don't want it to be.” I see Socionics as important because it’s part of understanding ourselves and our myth, but IMO it is only a few abstract parts of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
You are far from alone in that (e.g. Archetype Center types Jung as ILE), and you may have very good reasons for seeing Jung this way. What I am not sure of is whether what you are referring to by the word “Ne” is similar to what SHS refers to by this word, or Alive/SoundOfConfusion, or even the Archetype Center for that matter. Perhaps you use a traditional Jungian definition, though going by that, didn't Jung see himself as an Introverted Thinker and Introverted Intuitive at different times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallmo
Sure, there is a contradiction in a narrow sense in that “they are having a disagreement”. But what I meant by the fact that there isn’t a contradiction is that they have different typological understandings, which are at least plausibly correct and not obviously incorrect or inconsistent, where they are using the words “Ne” and “Ni” to refer to significantly different things. Thus, while there is an obvious contradiction in their usage of a word, there isn’t necessarily a contradiction in the fundamental observations of reality informing on their more abstract views (which are more how they are organizing their observations and perhaps perceive them in some different gestalt senses), which could potentially lead them to the possibility of greater agreement and synthesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
The Archetype Center uses the semantics of speech to type people; that is simply their method to understand and diagnose information metabolism, or at least the primary one. Also, they type Jung as ILE, and the “POLR” isn’t part of how SHS views the Brake function in their LSI typing of Jung, so there is not yet grounds for assuming a contradiction in the fundamental observations of reality of these methods in relation to Jung (but it may turn out that there is a contradiction, or several thereof, which could resolve the disagreement, upon a much deeper and more thorough examination).
I think that there are some pretty different typology systems out there, even within Socionics, but that they also often have plenty of overlap in theory and in practice. I think that even a small change in definitions, a reorganization of various associations to different aspects to the model, or the inclusion of observations and concepts in one model which are not included in another can lead to quite different diagnostics in practice, and for good reasons and that breaking down exactly who is correct is far from straightforward, especially in glib or arrogant discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
I think we already agree quite a bit here, taking from some of my previous posts:Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varlawend
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varlawend
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varlawend
I think you are absolutely right that one should be cautious in assigning various prospective topics to Socionics types, especially in any rigid way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerouslandsvape
Environmental factors can’t be used to type someone accurately in SHS. The subtype, accentuation, and even much more short-lived functional states are adaptations of a sociotype to its environment, at the very least, and there are a lot of efforts made to separate type from environment in SHS to the point that this is a frequent topic of discussion. Granted, several human mistakes could well have been made in this regard, but in principle you are in agreement with SHS on that point.
In terms of something like mental illness or physical illness, certainly I wouldn’t expect that to relate to Sociotype most of the time, but it is also possible that there are correlations between some such things and sociotypes or subtypes or w/e, and this is a substantive question. By that I mean: you are undoubtedly correct that caution is warranted in making such an association, but precluding it entirely is also not warranted, because that just amounts to an inhibitive preconception that sociotype and certain mental or physical phenomena are unrelated.
Take something like charisma, for example. Even if not determined by Socionics alone, it hardly seems likely to be able to be completely unrelated or discretely separable from Socionics, since some functions like Emotion Ethics have a clear relationship to it. The same could be said for hormones, since they relate to various states also covered by Socionics, but it's just as fair to say that those hormones aren't even close to completely determined by Socionics either; it may be better conceived of interactively.
I do see your point in differentiating mere correlation and association (e.g. Talanov) with a systematic causal explanation, but I also think it is more nuanced to say that we don’t know how something relates to Socionics (assuming we don’t or that an investigation into the issue hasn't been done), rather than that it definitely is or is not related to it, since there are fair few things in the realm of mental or personal attributes that could plausibly relate to Socionics types or functions.
Echidna1000 EIE-N
Confuz LSI
Nanooka EIE C or N
Varlawend ILI-H
The Exception EIE-N
SGF LSI-H
Pirouette IEI-CNChthonic Daydream EIE-C
Chakram LSI-N
Sayonara ILI-C
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Wavebury LSI-C
Astor IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H
Lolita SEE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Desert Financial ILI-C
Megedy IEI-C
Northstar SLE-C
Sachmet LII-N
Ouronis ILE-NH
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Duschia EIE-H
Ashlesha LSI-C
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Leo SLE-H
Squark LSI-DC
Fay EIE-H
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Eudaimonium LSI-H
SaveYourself EIE-H
Mantra ILI-H
Sanguine Miasma EIE-C-T
Cataclysm EIE-C
Malandro SLE-N
The Iconoclast ILI-HN-E
P o m IEE-N
Shining LSI-H
Nephiloth ILI-CHellohellohello LSI-HBeembo EIE-H
Some updates:
-removed "mystery user", as that isn't of much interest unless I can get the person's approval of posting their name or not (they haven't publically declared their typing afaik)
-updated user names to the best of my knowledge
-added Beembo
no Alphas yet.. seems a bit too gate-keeping tbh
ok just saw a few oops sozz
No-one is doing any gate-keeping here. This is just the confirmed professional typings we have so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by get R
sorry i wasn't too clear, i'm referring to DarkAngelFireWolf69 specifically lol but maybe he's trying his best to be fair so it's good lol
Look, closer. There are 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by get R
we have no choice but to stan those special @two <3
I kind of want to get typed by DarkAngelFireWolf69 just to see what everyone says when he types me beta when I'm so obviously not. There is no way I'm spending $200 on that though lol
You missed the war time sale. LIE side is not strong in you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
List by quadra:
Alphas:
Sachmet LII-N
Ouronis ILE-NH
Betas:
Chthonic Daydream EIE-C
Cataclysm EIE-C
Sanguine Miasma EIE-C-T
Nanooka EIE C or N
Echidna1000 EIE-N
The Exception EIE-N
Duschia EIE-H
Fay EIE-H
SaveYourself EIE-H
Beembo EIE-H
Confuz LSI
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Squark LSI-DC
Wavebury LSI-C
Ashlesha LSI-C
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Chakram LSI-N
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Eudaimonium LSI-H
Shining LSI-H
Hellohellohello LSI-H
SGF LSI-H
Northstar SLE-C
Malandro SLE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Leo SLE-H
Megedy IEI-C
Pirouette IEI-CN
Astor IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H
Gammas:
Lolita SEE-N
Sayonara ILI-C
Desert Financial ILI-C
Nephiloth ILI-C
Mantra ILI-H
Varlawend ILI-HC
The Iconoclast ILI-HN-E
Deltas:
P o m IEE-N
---
Feel free to tell me if I messed up typings, touch screens aren't best for that.
Tbh his thoughts on Ukraine would be more interesting to me than anything he has to say about socionicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma
You think he wouldn't try to juggle with million different analogical theories and then arrive to another socionics derivative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
This is excellent, and you did very well. The only thing very small things I would add is that my full subtype is HC rather than just H, an Echidna1000’s subtype is N (both according to Victor, not me, by the way). I also think a lot of people probably have more complex subtypes than Victor gave them, since they are more the rule than the exception these days, but since this is about Victor’s expressed opinions, there is nothing to be done about it at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by adage
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varlawend
Some of these typings are from forum members' memory, so may be incomplete from what I read. I also think some typings are older so maybe not to today's standards, but yeah, it's what we got.
If you want to pick up the list and add your typings, I think it could be interesting to see, but maybe it would call for another thread.
Tho, no pressure, it's time consuming to do.
Updated list:
Alphas:
Sachmet LII-N
Ouronis ILE-NH
Betas:
Chthonic Daydream EIE-C
Cataclysm EIE-C
Sanguine Miasma EIE-C-T
Nanooka EIE C or N
Echidna1000 EIE-N
The Exception EIE-N
Duschia EIE-H
Fay EIE-H
SaveYourself EIE-H
Beembo EIE-H
Confuz LSI
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Squark LSI-DC
Wavebury LSI-C
Ashlesha LSI-C
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Chakram LSI-N
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Eudaimonium LSI-H
Shining LSI-H
Hellohellohello LSI-H
SGF LSI-H
Northstar SLE-C
Malandro SLE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Leo SLE-H
Megedy IEI-C
Pirouette IEI-CN
Astor IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H
Gammas:
Lolita SEE-N
Sayonara ILI-C
Desert Financial ILI-C
Nephiloth ILI-C
Mantra ILI-H
Varlawend ILI-HC
The Iconoclast ILI-HN-E
Deltas:
P o m IEE-N
I understand, but I’m doubtful that DarkAngelFireWolf69 is really meaning to do anything as petty as gate-keeping. He’s got odd ideas from time to time but he’s only ever been interested in developing Socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by get R
Actually, scratch that: I’m doubtful that anyone who tries to develop their own vein of typology is really trying to ever gate-keep. They may suffer from biases, but gate-keeping requires an intent to do so.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manatroid92
I think it's more likely someone who tries to develop a typology would be more discouraged if certain types aren't showing up enough. Less comparative data.
It can lead people to complain everyone gets the same type(s) and that can hit hard on credibility, so less data again.
While this is personal, I tend to doubt myself when I type too many people similarly in a group. Idk, it seems I believe all types are supposed to be about equally represented everywhere all the time, so bias can go both ways.
It’s interesting that all the alphas and the one delta in this list are all typed with an N subtype.
:thinking:
Certain Types are just not interested in typing interviews. Delta is the least interested in socionics, and they value Te, so are oriented at already established facts which they can productively use in their life. socionics on the other hand is not objective. it is a theoretical Ti model that tries to explain human behviour. it simply makes the most sense that certain types are completely uninterested in certain fields, that's what the concept of types is for in the first place. Beta thinks in hierachies. it simply puts the most trust into a person they perceive as an authority figure, and DarkAngelFireWolf69 is pretty much at the top in this field, especially since he is one of the few known socionists in the west with little competition. I personally disagree with the LSI typings and I think IEI is just the type to study this sort of stuff, but he is dead on the money when he types the majority of people here Beta. and nothing against you guys, but godamn is this place a drama Fe zone sometimes. just a lot of really unorthodox people.
There is one LII who is a member of this site but has had minimal dialogue: Ben Vasserlan, LII-C. I think he could be added.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aster
Didn't realise he was one, he always seemed like an ENTx to me. But considering what he does, I'm not really surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma
There are too many EIE and LSI there for me to take his typings seriously past a surface level.
Keep in mind his typings are not indicative of the population at large, it's only the people who both elect to pay to be professionally typed by him and also are willing to come here to share it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Dane Horlock
Was Ben Vaserlan typed as LII-C by DarkAngelFireWolf69?
The fact someone doesn't or hasn't posted much on here isn't an issue: as long as they're a forum member. But it does matter that DarkAngelFireWolf69 typed them, since I wanted to keep this thread about that.
Yeah with E accentuation. Not a paid typing but he has been typed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebury
There are two people typed as SEI by G in Ben's channel, I shared those in a post under this thread. But those people arent on the forum or havent declared their typing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
There is one SLI youtuber typed by G as Varlawend mentioned in his post under this thread. But again she is not here or havent declared her typing.
All 3 of them typed themselves as something else beforehand as far as I know.
In some environments you can find certain types more. It is not that people dont get those typings but in this place, people dont or declare such.
@Varlawend are you tight with DarkAngelFireWolf69?
Ben Vaserlan isn't an LII at all. I briefly mentioned it to DarkAngelFireWolf69's team and they agreed but I don't remember what they typed him as since it has been long ago. Ben writes plays and constantly has video interviews with groups of people. Not only do I dislike organizing stuff as an LII, I also almost always analyze things alone or at most one on one. His face also looks super ethical
https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/ima...7ifH5YiTwDnJfU
I think he's an IEI
What is wrong MR MASTER OF LOGIC? We are talking about DarkAngelFireWolf69's typings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alive
Mr Master of Ethics, all I'm saying is that his Team, and even DarkAngelFireWolf69 himself, probably don't think Ben is LII anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma
That's a big assumption and yes if he received the typing condition still applies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alive
@Ben Vaserlan can speak for himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma
Mastery of logic plus ethics equals SolitaryWalker from TypoC, with bizarre yet superbly defined values and reasons for cross interplaying categories and wavelengths of a dreaming void with limitless potential and the free expansion of outlines after jigsaw puzzle cubes to dig through thought storms and conjecture the divine mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alive
Ben Vaserlan was most assuredly typed by Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69 as LII with both I and E accentuations (it is possible to have up to two accentuations though in the short videos Victor uses, he'd rarely have time to address that level of complexity). Victor definitely thinks Ben Vaserlan is an Analyst, I talked with him about it a bit when I visited Kiev a few years ago. Though Ben has sort of his own version of typology now that is kind of a mix of KBN (Keirsey-Berens-Nardi) and Model G Socionics and doesn't really follow Victor's theories much anymore (not that this matters, I just mention it as something of note).
@Poptart I wouldn't say that I'm personally close with Victor, in that I rarely talk to him and I think Victor keeps to himself a lot in a social sense (and since he is a left type, tends to very short messages, quite the opposite of me), but I understand his perspective pretty well because I've taken his classes for many years (though it's been a while since I've taken one) and I visited him in Kiev for his birthday party in late 2020, met his son and some other members of his school, etc., and sometimes engage in theoretical discussions with him and some of his other students. He's stayed in Kiev for pretty much the entire war so far, and I'm sure he'd have interesting things to say about it (though true to his structural logic nature and what he devoted his professional life to, he often analysis it from the perspective of Socionics, but I doubt that surprises you). For example, he gives Ukraine an integral type of ESI (which naturally gives it some compatibility with the LIE values and financial system of the West, so it would make sense that Ukraine for the most part would want to transition in that direction), but since the virtual economy of the West is much greater than the real economy (as part of its LIE nature), it also needs war (integral type SLE) to eliminate this imbalance between the real and virtual economies (presumably to back it with real captured resources and such, and raising cohesion and fighting spirit, e.g. productivity increases during wartime). This is part of the natural order ring between LIE and SLE, where LIE gives the order (benefactor) and SLE (beneficiary) carries it out, and this left style social progress goes backwards from Gamma to Beta.
Victor does speculate that some types are a fair bit rarer than others (he hasn't done a census and has no mass data or anything), but a few years ago he had this party where they had attendance from close to every gender and subtype of every single type (deliberately). Types like Deltas (from SHS perspective) are easier to find in smaller villages away from city and away from the spotlight of YouTube and celebrity, etc., and often orbit around other peripheral types, e.g. Ben Vaserlan has many SHS LII's on his channel (e.g. Victor, Ben himself, Dario Nardi, David Keirsey Jr., Amanda Doran, etc.), even though we rarely see that many LII's in general. We should always keep an open mind though, since there are unusual variants like some of those found on YouTube, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varlawend
Thanks for the response. Do you know how Victor types Zelensky and the First Lady of Ukraine?
Zelensky is Typed EIE in Dr. G's website. His wife Olena seems LSI (?)
https://socioniks.net/en/famouspeopl...#famousmentors
@Varlawend: hmm since you remember it so much in detail you are probably right. My memory is more vague but I do remember discussing Ben's and Jack's type with SHS and I feel like back then we agreed they were not alpha intuitives. The reason why I was discussing them was that I didn't relate much to both of them and couldn't understand why. That's when I first learned that DarkAngelFireWolf69's school is mainly for creative subtypes and I think he typed Jack as EIE-N back then I dunno. (I now think both Ben and Jack are IEI). Anyway a cool detailed report. DarkAngelFireWolf69 wanted to visit germany around 19/20 but covid hit and with the war now that seems very unlikely now but I think LII are extremly independent anyway so long-term cooperation is rather unlikely
I know that, but it’s still strange to me that so many people who elected to pay DarkAngelFireWolf69 are either EIE or LSI. There’s either a cult following among the Betas, he is biased towards people he likes, people are playing up to get a certain type in his system or some of them are actually mistyped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manatroid92
Well, again, it’s only one video and he can only go by so much. But some people still give his opinion too much weight, as it being the only opinion out there and some don’t challenge it. Some do.
DarkAngelFireWolf69’s typings can be too conflicting for me to take totally seriously at times but I still know and understand that he can only go so far because he’s working off super limited information.
From what I can tell beta rationals might seek individuals who have done somewhat uncommon things with certain merit.
Yep, he types Zelensky as EIE-CD (Creative-Dominant), and his wife as LSI (I'm not sure what subtype). Zelensky had a very successful career as an actor and comedian before all this, so it is probably why his subtype is a bit unusual for such a wartime leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poptart
Dude. Are you sure there aeren't any options you've missed? I'll add two more: 1)DarkAngelFireWolf69's methods have a slant in favor of certain types. 2) People are actually typed correctly (or at least, correctly enough on the whole that there doesn't need to be a big reconsideration of what types are more common around here). Note that those two things are not mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Dane Horlock
I think your comment that people pay DarkAngelFireWolf69 to get a certain type sounds like a paranoid rant. Seems to me you can't let go of the idea that types are more or less evenly distributed and so any evidence that challenges that theory is triggering.
I have never once stated that people pay DarkAngelFireWolf69 to get a certain type in a serious way, just that he seems to overtype certain kinds, and I am trying to provide logical reasons for why I think that it might be. I do agree that paying DarkAngelFireWolf69 to tell you that you are a specific type is defeating the point of him typing you in the system, but I am not paranoid but am just wondering why there seem to be so many Beta irrationals typed on the forum. I am also questioning if this is the case, then is it DarkAngelFireWolf69s's own bias since he openly admits that EIEs are basically his fave type? And if he has that "EIE bias", is he typing people that he likes as EIE... OR are they acting a certain way to get a certain result (or hope to) within G's system? I don't think that it's too far out there to think that because DarkAngelFireWolf69 is a human, he might have biases or make mistakes, even within his own system. I don't think that there is anything inherently illogical or "wrong" with questioning DarkAngelFireWolf69's motives and his system, and how he comes to conclusions either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebury
And if there is a slant in favor of certain types, is it really super fair and somewhat accurate in determining your type, and if it isn't, then what is the point in actually paying for it? Doesn't that slant indicate that the process isn't totally correct, and is giving out admitted "slanted types"? And are people typing correctly in which system, and how many discrepancies and contradictions does it have between the model A typing, if you can really only have one socionics type?
At the end of the day, I don't hate DarkAngelFireWolf69's system these days. I just have a lot more questions about it. I'm not here to actually start anything, I'm just curious (and admittedly a bit skeptical) about DarkAngelFireWolf69's system. I don't need a bunch of zealots who've accepted their "fate" in his system to come and attack me because I am actually asking questions. Nothing is 'triggering' me and I don't know why you are assuming it now.
All I can say is that if people get the types that they expected and wanted, there wouldnt be much discussion going on under this thread, maybe thread even wouldn't have existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Dane Horlock
Lots of people mb majority of people typed as something else besides their self typing, and that's one of the reasons why he is appreciated and vilified.
But at least he isn't like a handful of people here and he gives people more than the same pet type over and over!Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
Indeed. Best to always keep in mind that one shouldn't base their own ego on their typing, whether by themselves or from someone else, for this reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by myresearch
Though that being said, it's expected, and understandable, to feel caught off-guard by a truly unexpected typing.
I said this somewhere else on here, but your type doesn't really dictate who you are. It's not the end of the world if it makes you face some uncomfortable truths about yourself, because that's part of (at least, so I hope) why we are all here. Everyone wants to know more about themselves and others, for different reasons, that's why anyone really cares about typology in the first place. In the end, you should be looking at this whole field as a way of, at the very least, developing and improving oneself as an individual.
If you're actually trying to provide logical reasons for the predominance of these types there's many possibilities you're forgetting to consider that seem a lot more plausible than people for whatever reason acting like EIEs on purpose, or DarkAngelFireWolf69 projecting his infatuation for the type. Solid theories, but think about these following possibilities which are not mutually exclusive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Dane Horlock
Firstly, like it's been brought up, that types are not evenly distributed and that there actually is a predominance of certain types (beta rationals and gamma irrationals) over others, at least as far as DarkAngelFireWolf69's model is concerned. There's no real reason for why types should be somewhat evenly distributed anyways, it's just something people took for granted historically.
Then, that there's actually factors that would make these types more likely to not only engage with Socionics (a very Ti system, which fits like a glove for LSIs and EIEs tend to seek), but also be willing to pay an authority on the matter (aristocratic much?) to have an interview with the goal of finding out their types. That's something to think about, there might context surrounding these results, making them not as "random" as they seem, as if DarkAngelFireWolf69 was picking random strangers on the street to type and 90% of them turned out to be EIE and LSI.
Finally, that in DarkAngelFireWolf69's model the typings are actually very coherent, it's just confusing to you and some because you have a different image of the types, the IMEs, functions, systems, etc than DarkAngelFireWolf69 does because he operates on Model G and many things differ. He also uses DCNH and function accentuations which are about as defining of someone's personality as the base type is.
Just some food for thought, not that these would make DarkAngelFireWolf69 infallible, far from it, and any contestation of someone's typing by him is valid to discuss, but I think most that do disagree don't even bother trying to understand where he's coming from.
There might be a slant, but that doesn't mean the typings are wrong, at least not in DarkAngelFireWolf69's system. It might mean they are wrong according to another school or system, and some people might see those schools or systems as more valid, and that's fine. Note that some of the typings might be contested by students of SHS, there is more consensus on certain typings than there is on others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Dane Horlock
I apologize if I came across as attacking you, but I do get annoyed at how superficial the criticism of DarkAngelFireWolf69's system tends to be. It's fine to ask questions, of course, but I also think there's alot of questions you aeren't asking, either, that you could be asking. I think @Pendulum said it well in his resposne to you above, so I'm not gonna get deeper. :)Quote:
At the end of the day, I don't hate DarkAngelFireWolf69's system these days. I just have a lot more questions about it. I'm not here to actually start anything, I'm just curious (and admittedly a bit skeptical) about DarkAngelFireWolf69's system. I don't need a bunch of zealots who've accepted their "fate" in his system to come and attack me because I am actually asking questions. Nothing is 'triggering' me and I don't know why you are assuming it now.
In Japanese. EIE-N
Excerpt from auto translation: "The result was submitted in PDF format with an explanation of "Why I'm an EIE", and among them there is one thing that surprised me. I was surprised by the phrase "Intuition is associated not only with premonitions and predictions, but also with strong visual images", which was mentioned in the comment about feelings and intuition. "I realized that's why my dreams are so unrealistic and fantastic." In addition, it was noted that I can judge logic and ethics, external and internal, somewhat in the tone, expression and intonation of my voice......""
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIPZH1AlZqM
She is a lot like one DarkAngelFireWolf69's EIE distant sub (check Hanna from Ben Vaserlan channel)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusal