New Book on Socionics Available

[KSpin]

Which part?

[aestrivex]

the part that type(you)=type(phaedrus).

[KSpin]

the part that type(you)=type(phaedrus).

He answers questions in the same way I wish I had whenever I see his answers. We've spoken privately about various things and we think almost identically. Even in the colourtest thread, his is very nearly identical to what I would put, so I haven't bothered.

[Jarno]

I remember that in another post, somebody thought Kspin Phaedrus and myself were the same real life person.

Well when does the time come people are gonna doubt my type. :wink:

[Logos]

ISTj

That occurred to me a while ago...

I would say that is a good assessment for machintruc.

[machintruc]

You are Christian as long as you take the contents of the Credo as true, and only Roman Catholics do that.

You are Roman Catholic as long as you take the contents of the Credo as true, and only Roman Catholics do that. There were Christians before there were Roman Catholicism and there will be Christians even after Roman Catholicism. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Actually, Church was called Roman and Catholic (and Apostolic) ***BEFORE*** the so-called "Orthodox" schism. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble.

You know, saint Peter was the first Pope and sat in Rome. Roman Catholicism is not a totalitarian invention of materialistic pedophiles.

And no, I'm not LSI lol... LSI's are narrow-minded

[machintruc]

But here it's not the point, I'm defending classical socionics because I feel that's the version of socionics which is the least distant to Truth.

I wanted to explain that :

1. If the man has the freedom to choose (among either Good and Evil, or Good and Good) and ignorance, divergence is a "natural" thing.
2. Nearly all methodologies suffer this, like Ichak Adizes said.
3. We must take that "book" distantly.

And what motivates me to defend classical socionics.

[KSpin]

I can see the head-on-wall picture being used in a bit.

[Logos]

You are Christian as long as you take the contents of the Credo as true, and only Roman Catholics do that.

You are Roman Catholic as long as you take the contents of the Credo as true, and only Roman Catholics do that. There were Christians before there were Roman Catholicism and there will be Christians even after Roman Catholicism. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Actually, Church was called Roman and Catholic (and Apostolic) ***BEFORE*** the so-called "Orthodox" schism. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble.

You know, saint Peter was the first Pope and sat in Rome. Roman Catholicism is not a totalitarian invention of materialistic pedophiles.

You know, no scholar, theologian, or bishop worth their salt actually believes that. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but I am referring to the time before even that. You know, the time before the creeds were created. Pick up a book; it is incredible the things you can learn from those things.

And no, I'm not LSI lol... LSI's are narrow-minded

Oh, believe us, we know, but do you? :wink:

[tcaudilllg]

Well I just got "VIed" by these people (an INTj/ESTj couple) as an ENFj. ...After I specifically warned them about my ENFj exertion type.

Perhaps they will come to their senses. However if these are the criterion they are basing their VI on, then I am not convinced.

I do not doubt the veracity of their socionics knowledge, but their VI theory is non-Augustan and therefore, I suggest that they submit in the form of an excerpt chapter from their book, their VI strategy for our scrutiny.

[Expat]

You know, saint Peter was the first Pope and sat in Rome. Roman Catholicism is not a totalitarian invention of materialistic pedophiles.

Actually Roman Catholicism was invented by the Council of Nicaea in 325, chaired by the still-pagan but nevertheless "I am the thirteen apostle" Emperor Constantine "the Great", mainly with the purpose to drive the Arians into the underground.

The choice of the "true" books for the New Testament came even later.

So even if God exists because God=true etc, how does it necessarily follow that the particular doctrine decided by a few hundred bishops, in a meeting chaired by Constantine (a guy who, by the way, had his wife and eldest son summarily executed for unstated reasons) is also "true"? That does not follow logically at all.

[tcaudilllg]

I find all of this very regrettable, but in the interest of a greater understanding...

*edited"

Dear Sir or Madam,
I have not purchased your book as yet, but I intend to.

Socionics is of vital important to American society. Doubtless you yourself have pinned the recent American TB scare on the infected passenger's ENTj type and PoLR, as I have.

I would advise speaking to the press about this now. This could be the opportunity socionics has been waiting for.

Anthony Caudill

*edited*

I gave him some words of encouragement...

Don't let a forum stop you. What is the worst that can happen? Answer: nothing at all. Faced with the existence of socionics, the mind will accept it. There may be controvery, but there is controversy everywhere. No one ever changed anything by bowing to adversity. Adversity must be challenged head on.

Although not relevant to your book, I invite you to read this thread as a means of understanding what you are really facing. The book, Eight Ways to Run the Country, discusses what I believe to be the same phenomenon from a different angle.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11079

The institutional socionists are determined to destroy the United States, or at least to compromise its power. They are wedded to Russia and will not interface with the west. You are really the only people to promote this theory at a professional level in the English speaking world. Augusta never meant for her ideas to be embraced by Russians alone any more than Einstein wished for his ideas . (she certainly didn't want to see the Soviets triumphant.) Those people who spread socionics beyond national and ideological boundaries, those are the true heirs of Augusta's legacy to humanity.

Consider the following:
Quote:

The question of human relationship and of the inner cohesion of our society is an urgent one in view of the atomization of the pent-up mass man, whose personal relationships are undermined by general mistrust.
- C. G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self



Was not Jung speaking of a perception by him of the existence of socion, even if he himself were not aware of its actually structure? When presented with Augusta's early notes, can you not imagine him welling up with pride that the seed she sowed had flowered and matured?

Have you talked to Jungians? Show them this quote and see what they say.... But be selective who you believe and who you don't. Not everyone thinks socionics is a good idea, but the "naysayers" have and will be superceded by progress today, tomorrow, and into the future even as they have in the past. Today, even Jung's own legacy is under attack from those who would constrain the meanings of his words. (see the fate of the C.G. Jung Page (www.cgjungpage.org) for an example.) Today Jung's work itself threatens to be consumed by the "mass" man.

I intend to assist you in three years, but I'm only an undergraduate now and I will need a degree to lend you any substantial assistance. In the meantime, introduce us to socionics! At the very least, it will make my own path easier to follow when my dual-type theory (which Gulenko is approaching from a different angle) is complete. Then things will truely change.


Anthony Caudill

A bond reflecting my feelings was the least I could offer.

It was received well at first....

*edited*


*edited*

What? Uh, yes I am. I am an INTj. Quite obviously so.

You might think me ENFj? That's not a matter of metabolism (which Augusta described), but of exertion. I witness a world of drama, of conflicting forces, whose aspects reflect an underlying structure. It is, from my PoV, the extent of our understanding of this structure that defines our ability to either master these forces, or be mastered by them.

I am quite frankly clueless as to how I am perceived at any given moment. That could only mean dominance.

*edited*

So having no other "good" pictures to show of adequate size, I showed him some very expressive pics I had taken for the specific purpose of showing to my friends. As I've said before, I'm an ENFj exertion type. I can impersonate others very easily, among other things.

http://unitedinfinity.atspace.com/Personal/TCPics.html

Those are all I've got, I believe.

*edited*

This set me off.... I don't think I really need to share what I actually wrote. Suffice to say it was typically cold, annoyed (and utterly disbelieving) . (I accused him of being blinded by his illusionary marital relationship, among other things of a purely intuitive nature....)

I was too infuriated over his denial over my INTjness (which I found frightfully arrogant) to notice that he had offered me a free copy of his book.

Anyhow....

*edited*

Someone needs a better understanding of role, perhaps?

[KSpin]

Now you know how Phaedrus feels when someone denies his personal typing, eh?

[tcaudilllg]

I never said Phaedrus wasn't an INTp. I'm certain he is, in fact. I argued for it.

[KSpin]

I never said Phaedrus wasn't an INTp. I'm certain he is, in fact. I argued for it.

Ah ha. I said "someone" not "you". :wink:

[Rick]

I think this kind of personal correspondence should be kept private just like any other. I mean, the idea of a KGB conspiracy is fascinating and all, but I certainly wouldn't want people posting my personal correspondence with people on a public website. Just because these people happen to be outsiders to this forum doesn't mean that we can break the rules. You should get permission from them before posting this correspondence publicly.

I personally don't believe in conspiracies and don't believe that military people and intelligence officers whose job it is to limit the circulation of information can do better in making sense of scientific and philosophical ideas than intelligent people who aren't burdened by an agenda.

Just think about it -- if there are intelligence officers "using" this stuff, they 1) are not allowed to do anything with it in the general public and 2) are not allowed to make any mention of it in the situations where they do use it. If they do have some special skills and know-how greater than that of the general population or the community of socionists, and do not observe these rules, word would quickly get out that they are the source of the know-how that has begun to spread among the population. If they are observing these rules, then they have such a limited circle of people to do tests on and discuss their know-how with that their knowledge would soon wither up.

And, if the KGB or similar organizations are using this know-how, why aren't they doing anything with it? Every secret government project has a concrete goal. The purpose of the Manhattan project was to build an atomic bomb. Other secret projects led to developments in the exploration of space and the development of super-sophisticated military toys. What possible purpose could there be to having a secret socionics development group?

If there were such a group, wouldn't they want to apply their socionics know-how to, say, support the current regime and crush enemies, and pursue other concrete targets? Where do we see socionically organized government groups in the Kremlin? Plus, the Kremlin uses crude physical means to dispose of enemies, not manipulation of people's socionic functions.

Basically, saying that the true repository of socionic knowledge is in a secret government body is akin to claiming that the best knowledge of biology is to be found in a secret government task group rather than among the community of biologists.

Finally, did Augusta herself possess this secret know-how that was somehow passed to the KGB? I think not. She was known to make crack typings, change her typings, make intellectual errors, etc. This conspiracy story implies that Augusta herself had secret knowledge that she was not communicating to her associates. What about the frequent lengthy retreats in the countryside in Lithuania that many of the older socionists of today visited? What about her visiting the Kiev conferences up till the late 90s? Where was the secret knowledge that she kept from today's socionists? She was ILE, after all -- not a type known for keeping intellectual knowledge hidden.

[Expat]

I agree with Rick --

tcaudilllg, don't take this personally -- I think that you're free to post your PMs if you wish, but it's really questionable whether it's ok to post someone else's PMs. That is why they are called Private Messages.

[tcaudilllg]

I agree. Obviously the Russian's didn't think much about it, or they might have used it more effectively. On the other hand, socionics gives us very little information as to what careers a person would or would not prefer, so the uses of IM are limited.

Well I'm not going to say anything else... just that a person needs to possess a great deal of personal humility and ideological flexibility to speak effectively about any new idea. I don't think I'll see that in this book but, it's a start.

What are the differences between this book and Louis Stern's, however? ...Eh I think I've said enough.

[Exodus]

I think I'll buy the book, just so I can see if it's complete bullshit or not. If it is, you all will surely hear about it.

(Does anybody find it strange that the book is only 88 pages? I guess it's plausible.)

[Rick]

Whenever someone orders this book, make sure you write about your impressions here.

[machintruc]

Whenever someone orders this book, make sure you write about your impressions here.

as a classical socionist, you should buy this book, and review it, like you did for "Semantics of IM elements".

[Exodus]

Jarno?

[Rick]

Whenever someone orders this book, make sure you write about your impressions here.

as a classical socionist, you should buy this book, and review it, like you did for "Semantics of IM elements".

I bought that book as an exception to the rule (I usually only briefly skim what others have written and read only what is personally relevant to me). Analyzing and critiquing others' ideas for fun is more of an NT thing, so I'll pass the task on to someone else.

[Jarno]

Oke here's my review of the book at first glance. (I have to read some parts again)

To summarize, it's about finding your perfect match using visual identification

The writers probably have more real life experience then theoretical, they sound enthusiastic

Pro's:

- It's the first english socionics book, finally!
- It covers functions and dichotomy's and a little bit of relations
- Lot of information about Visual Identification

Con's:

- Sometimes hard to read
- Explanation lacks clarity
- The used statistics give a wrong impression
- the pictures aren't available in the book, in the internet version they have pictures, i think...

[Exodus]

How do you explain VI without pictures?

[Jarno]

How do you explain VI without pictures?

I don't think I may reviel their methods, I agree with you that VI is mostly done by having a large experience with faces and seeing similarity's of the total face.

But there are other things, as someone on this forum once said: eyes which land on things are sensing and eyes which flow over things are intuitive. That sort of things can be explained without pictures.

But the book would certainly have been better if they had the approval to post all their celebrity pictures.

[anndelise]

But there are other things, as someone on this forum once said: eyes which land on things are sensing and eyes which flow over things are intuitive. That sort of things can be explained without pictures.

"eyes that land on things": sounds like it could also be object oriented focus (as in Xe)
and since the above seems to mention concrete things, i'll reduce it to possibly Se, Te (the more concrete functions)

"eyes flowing over things": sounds like it could also be field oriented focus (as in Xi)

[WD40]

As a member of the StumbleUpon web site I noticed another book out on Socionics on that lulu.com.

link

[Jarno]

As a member of the StumbleUpon web site I noticed another book out on Socionics on that lulu.com.

link

great.

the index looks fine.

the person has 2 years of experience with socionics he writes. but he has also some previous experience with mbti.

[Expat]

As a member of the StumbleUpon web site I noticed another book out on Socionics on that lulu.com.

link

great.

the index looks fine.

the person has 2 years of experience with socionics he writes. but he has also some previous experience with mbti.

That was written by Lewis Stern, previously known as snowyc, who previously had a site called simplysocionics. His "experience" is no longer or deeper than that of many posters here.

[Rick]

As a member of the StumbleUpon web site I noticed another book out on Socionics on that lulu.com.

link

great.

the index looks fine.

the person has 2 years of experience with socionics he writes. but he has also some previous experience with mbti.

Jarno, maybe you could write a brief review/summary of the book at wikisocion? are you interested?

[Jarno]

yes, i'll post it here, you can copy and paste it everywhere you want.

I've just received this second socionics book, I think i've finished it this weekend.

[Gilly]

As a member of the StumbleUpon web site I noticed another book out on Socionics on that lulu.com.

link

great.

the index looks fine.

the person has 2 years of experience with socionics he writes. but he has also some previous experience with mbti.

That was written by Lewis Stern, previously known as snowyc, who previously had a site called simplysocionics. His "experience" is no longer or deeper than that of many posters here.

He's also rather insane.

[Jarno]

He's also rather insane.

Do any of you know which type he is?

Some parts in the book are explained in a peculiar way.

[Gilly]

LII, I believe?

[Creepy-bg]

He's also rather insane.

Do any of you know which type he is?

Some parts in the book are explained in a peculiar way.

from looking at his site it seems to me that he tries to inject alot of NLP marketing and motivational techniques into his writting. maybe this is what you're seeing?

[Rick]

He's also rather insane.

Do any of you know which type he is?

Some parts in the book are explained in a peculiar way.

from looking at his site it seems to me that he tries to inject alot of NLP marketing and motivational techniques into his writting. maybe this is what you're seeing?

We all lack motivation to study socionics here, so that'll help out.

[Ezra]

I bought this book a few days ago from amazon. It´s in the post. I hope I haven´t wasted over a tenner on complete shit.

Anyway, I like what you write Rick, so I´ll probably get your book when it comes out.

[Ezra]

We apologize before the respected community. We are of a Russian decent, and we happened to speak Socionics long before we spoke English. We never published anything in Russian. This book is an experiment, so we appreciate your comments. We've been studying socionics for 14 years now. We used to teach Socionics in Vladivostok, Russia. It is far away from Kiev and Moscow, so we are not well known there. The approach that we offer is not set in stone. We are open for discussion, as long as it's done in an intelligent manner. We don't think it's fare to call people charlatans just because the cover of their book looks like Dianetics.

Thank you for noticing our book.

Actually, there are lots of bogus socionic groups in Russia.

You should read this : http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...nics-cult.html

You can be sure I'll NEVER be buying that book.

For the same reason, Catholic Church forbids reading some translations of the Bible, because those translations are bogus and may endanger the Faith.

You should read on the several schools of socionics : Classical socionics, Systemic socionics, Humanitarian socionics, etc. You'll see there are multiple versions of socionics. Compare those with each other.

EDITED
As socionics, most cognitive systems tend to do that by themselves : escaping the Truth. Why ? for different reasons (from the most serious to the least) :

1. Worship of Satan. Creating bogus models only to worship Satan.
2. Any irascible desires, such as inducing people in error, creating bogus models coldly, for either anger relief or pure fun.
3. Any concupiscent desires, materialistic or such. Creating bogus models for money or popularity.
4. Weakness and ignorance, believing it's easier to simplify models but losing truthfulness of them.
5. Creating unintentionally bogusness on models, on a good faith.

Forgive me for being disrespectful about your religious views, but you are such a fucking retard.

[tcaudilllg]

Machintruc so reminds me of FFIX's Steiner.