Hmm... depends on who you ask. Weak Fi types will tell your charge is a convention, something used to describe two opposites. Strong Fi types will correlate charge to real-world, concrete phenomena, and almost always on basis of favored/unfavored.Originally Posted by kensi
Every type in the rational club has weak Fi, and most of the physicists are rationals so... what does that tell you? Now Gulenko and Bukalov did the Model B system, but where could one find information on it?
The Course of Human Development in terms of Supersocion Theory
Archaeologists believe that in the beginning there were two specialities among people: hunting and gathering. Tribes tended to specialize in one or the other depending on their local geography. If apples grew from natural orchards nearby, then a given tribe might not need fret for food apart from that which nature gave them. Hunting tribes lived in difficult climates in which food was scarce and the fullness of one's stomach depended on the accomplishment of a good kill. The cultures could not be more distinct: gathering cultures lived in veritable paradise (apart from disease outbreaks), while hunting groups lived in constant fear of death. (from the elements or starvation). This led to the rise of two distinct styles of government, the autocracy and the consensus democracy.
Autocracy reigned in the hunting culture. In ideal conditions a consensus leader would appear who could pull together tribesmen without enraging their (mostly undeveloped) social instincts. The rise of this person was made easier by their possession of a certain charismatic aura which non-consensus seekers found instinctively appealing. This same dynamic between consensus-capable and non-capable types continues today, and reveals itself in the adoration paid by fans to rockstar band leaders; we have evolved to perceive of those who do not inflame our negative emotions as appealing and attractive.
The consensus leader united the opinions of various bold and cautious types into a single strategy for survival. Subconscious types, by arts unknown (or unheeded) by the majority even today, divined the existence of new lands where the hunt was plentiful and the gods calm and grateful for the sacrifice, lands where the elements held no power. The bold would argue for the exploration of these new lands and opportunities, and their cautious opponents on the other side of the bonfire (the political winds winding even as they do today) would argue against the endevor as "madness" and "futility". It was up to the consensus leader to guage that which the bold hoped to gain against the ; a decision was invariably made on basis of whether or not the hunting had been good or poor the previous winter. If it had been good then probably the bold were needed at home, and exploration was to be deferred in favor of having another hunter in the pack and a corresponding increase in its potential to bring down big game. If however, the hunting had been bad, then certainly there was nothing to be lost by having people whom had nothing to hunt at home look for new game elsewhere, if they were so inclined.
Through their adept attention to the competition of instincts that rages in man, the consensus leader in their lifetime placated the political instinct and the tensions which run across it. But when they died, and if no one of their political calibur was found to take their place, then the instincts they had repressed at once took shape and form. With no one to tell them no, or that their passions should be suppressed for the time being, the bold type acted on their passions and went out in search of new game that they were certain lied just beyond the hill.... This was not received well by those who were uncertain of their ability to hunt, because it was their own supper which was threatened if the bold type were to return empty-handed. It was these -- the fearful -- which now rose up to defend their interests in the face of uncertainty and possible death. The picture was further clouded because the fear was indeed justified, if exaggerated by the political tension created from so many bold types moving on -- especially those who refused to hold loyalty to the interests of the group. Thus two sides of what we now know as "radicalism" emerged, one which demanded subservience to the community and another which insisted on independence from it. These sides were mediated by a third form of radicalism which saw the competition between the two as healthy and was delighted that it had appeared. This third side itself had two components, one that argued for restraint by both sides while maintaining opposition, and another which insisted that the argument be carried out to its logical conclusion.
The outcome of the ensuing argument depended largely on the geography of the tribe. If there were other lands available, then the community would dissolve along partisan lines. Such has happened many times in history, and the legacy of such unsolved disagreements continues to haunt us in the schizms of various religious institutions. (those of Roman Christianity between east and west, and the Islamic schizm of Sunni and Shia, come to mind). It was in this way that new communities formed with new rules and new customs, especially when the disagreements at hand were over new ideas that didn't fit neatly into the understood picture.
But if there were no new lands believed to exist, and the conception of the world agreed to exist by the community was no larger than the immediate geography, then the pursuit of political instinct led in time to something darker. The beast in humanity -- the shadow -- began to stir, and it found voice in the unfulfilled political aspirations which were now free to clash unmolested. The shadow offered the fulfillment of these aspirations in exchange for the destruction of the political climate of the tribe. The situation steadily worsened as failures to communicate led to inefficiency on the part of the tribe, and with it problems in the hunt. What once was the will of the gods -- the untimely death of a fellow tribesman -- became the groundwork for recrimination and accusation. Emotions ran high and idealism took root; the radicals began to look for excuses to destroy each other and acheive ideological purity for the tribe and with it, a return to the coherence of intention that was lost with the passing of the consensus leader. They themselves, however, were too disciplined and "upright" to lay the first blow; they left this job instead to the shadow types, who invariably found outlets for their own expression in the context of one fatal incident or another. Once the first blow had been laid, the call to deny association with the criminal came. The criminal affirmed their own ideological ties and so tied the survival of their own person to the survival of the ideology. At this point civility collapsed completely and civil war began.
Civil conflicts do not last forever, and the forces responsible for the eventual reconciliation are observable in the flames of war. The desire for harmony surfaced from the suffering caused by conflict, and those persons which had previously been consumed in the contradictory nature of reality, searching for harmony from within and without, found purpose in the restoration of civility to the social sphere. As nature would have it, there was a foil to be found for each of the radical manifestations. The sacrifant observed the folly within as clearly as from without, and gave their life as a symbol of the waste mankind incurrs in failing to apprehend his own capacity for evil. The legendary hero deplored war and conflict, and though not ceasing in his own defense of just concerns and principles, ultimately gave his life in pursuit of a peaceful, equitable legacy. The resolver held both symbol and legacy hand in hand, coming to terms with both his sins and his principles, and finding solace from either in his own martyrdom for peace. By the example of these three manifests of human selflessness, the fourth -- majoritarian -- standpoint resolved conflicts both internal and external and found thus transcendent harmony in their own minds. Their ideas discredited and their numbers slashed, those radicals who survived war returned to their place in the social background, and a new institutionalized office of leadership was agreed on as the final arbiter of political disputes on basis of the past examples and lessons of the sacrificed. This was the beginning of hereditary rule.
Applying Supersocion Theory: Speculative Options for the Future of Science
Dual-Type Theory
Very important because it defines how people use their mental skills to develop talent. In its infancy but will probably one day be a useful aid for career guidance. Useful for organizations AFTER the hire in knowing how best to assist their workers in the conduct of their jobs.
Shadow Type Theory
Important for the study of personality disorders. Can be used to predict what types will pursue what crimes, especially in conjunction with dual-type theory. Invaluable for law enforcement, but also useful for the rehabilitation of these individuals.
Transcendence Theory (Model B-Contra/Psychic Domain Theory)
Explains where beliefs come from and how they interact. Also explains how ideas evolve and recede.
Immanance Theory
Great philosophical and theological fodder. Admittedly, psychology's equivalent to nuclear energy: can be used for good, but can also be used for destruction. A good tool for the CIA, maybe the FBI. If you wanted to build a utopia, immanence is the theory you must use. On the other hand, is such a uptopia even desirable? Looking at immanence is like looking the collective unconscious square in the eye: you see everything whether you wanted to or not. I think we're ready for the other parts of supersocion theory, but this one must be left for the generations and maybe even guarded. I will probably never mention this theory publically except in as much as it relates to transcendence and offers historical insight. If nothing else, the theory's more problematic conclusions can be dismissed as speculation....
Duality Theory
How the duality works between aspects. Labcoat's invention. I see this as ultimately providing a forum for the discussion of things heretofore considered paranormal. A useful psychologist's tool for helping those who have the very special gift of subconscious awareness.
Socion Organ Theory (TENTATIVE TITLE)
Explains what leadership is, what it means, and how leaders and followers interact. Applied with duality theory, yeilds a theory of creativity. Has great promise but questions remain about its functionality. (yes you can identify all the people capable of creating new discoveries, inventions, etc... but should they really get an automatic hand up into positions of opportunity and power?). The meritocracy has been in position for a while (via "gifted and talented" programs, honors classes, etc.), but is it necessary or justified? Study of this branch of supersocionics promises a consensus answer to this question.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-09-2008 at 12:24 AM.
Why you should learn Supersocionics
Hi, my name is Anthony Caudill and I want to tell YOU about Supersocionics.
What is supersocionics? ...Imagine 95% VI success rates... eventually, 99%. Imagine a world which doesn\'t demand that you go hunting for a job that \"superior men\" have deigned to employ you in because they think they are \"exceptional\" and \"worthy\" of making you work for them. Imagine seeing the current 2/3 dissatisfaction with employment in the United States fall to below 1/5, or 1/10.... Imagine great leap forwards for our country in our age... the benefits of two centuries of neurological research reaped TODAY.
This, my friends, is the promise of Supersocionics. It is my dream to see you reap these benefits. But I cannot do it alone: I need your help. This is why I\'m inviting you to the website I have paid for out of my own pocket for this purpose: Progressive Socionics - The Future is Socionics.
I\'ve have big plans for us, friends. I have been pursuing a degree in organizational psychology for three years now, despite great personal hardship and prejudice that I know you have faced yourself from time to time. I aim to create an organization here in the United States that will apply socionics to a range of ideas... we will bridge the gap between East and West and create a new generation of progress for all people.
I have plans for an RPG project that will showcase the power of Supersocionics by applying not only the \"best\" and \"brightest\" but the skills of everybody who wants to be a part of this undertaking. We will showcase the power of the common man who, I assure you, is not so common.
I ask that you help me by devoting your time and energy to helping me better understand socionics. I ask that you share of your knowledge and wisdom, and help me come to understand the differences between us, so that we can better respect those differences in all walks of life. I want you to create a world with me in which our differences work for us, instead of against us.
Help me do these things, and together we can -- we will make a difference...!
Fuck I want this Supersocionics!
It slices dices and is only 39.95? SOLD!
Why not sign up?
You should start by stopping to pretend that your theory on dual types is anything significantly different from DCNH subtype theory. That'll at least give you some people to talk to about that subject on this forum.
It actually is significantly different from DHCN subtype theory. Dual type theory deals with simultaneous processes, DHCN subtypes are further elaborations on tiered processes. With simultaneous processes you have the potential of interference between information elements which negatively impact information ingestion and comprehension. Dual type can actually describe maladaptive behavior and give solutions. With DHCN subtype theory you only have a focus on more specific information.
And how does it do this specifically? By saying people can practically be any type and then assigning a bunch of negative traits to a type which is decided by you or tcaud..?
And this talk about tiered and simultaneous processes doesn't make sense to me, but it's theory that can't be proven, some people suspect all the functions work simultaneously in any model A related concept.
It's all in the name, isn't it?
it sounds like a good idea, but, making claims about improving job satisfaction and other such things sound funny.
You mention pursuing a degree. What experience do you have working with other people, that might help balance out the textbook learning you've accumulated?
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I don't see your point here. No, the theory has a theoretical basis.
It's clear from this post you have no idea what I mean by simultaneous process. Model A breaks down a very complex type into functions. That's not simultaneous, it's singular. The functions are all part of one type. Breaking the type down into functions allows us to analyze it. With dual type, you have two separate modes of processing information which feed into one another. This is where the interference I referenced can start. From what you've said, I don't think you're interested in listening. Besides, you are not a person I am going to discuss this with. If someone intelligent wants to discuss it like labcoat, some other alpha NTs, mimosa, strrrng, any of the people who know they're intelligent, then they can ask about it.
Last edited by crazedrat; 11-19-2009 at 01:48 AM.
There is ample information provided about dual-type theory on Progressive Socionics - The Future is Socionics.
Yes indeed, Supersocionics does explain delusional thinking because it extends Model B. People who feel they enjoy conflict with others should pay special attention to it because it integrates a very serious conclusion that Carl Jung made about people who refuse to see the good in others. It is easy to understand that insisting on initiating conflict with others results in heightened stress, which in turn has been shown to have negative health effects.
Dual-type theory itself is a component of Supersocionics which does not directly concern Model B, but can be understood through it. It explains why people of the same classical socionics type have different interests and different skills. Together with DCHN, it explains the career choices of people and, can predict these choices and their performance potential with respect to any given career. (assuming no delusional thinking is present).
Saying someone is two types simply doesn't make sense on a theoretical level, sub types can explain the differences adequately, and that's the problem with dual type imo, because i've never seen any logic to explain it.
Maybe you're right, maybe i'm not intelligent enough to get it, but if one of the people who gets it got expelled from college for threatening his teacher, and the other guy couldn't even get a job at a food court in a shopping mall - you, then I really can't see how dual type can achieve what it claims, so in the meantime i'll just stick to being dumb and let whoever thinks they are intelligent enough to be dumb enough to take it seriously to get wired in.
How can you say whether or not you get it when you haven't even looked at it? This dumb obstinacy is why I consider discussing the issue with you a waste of my time.
Last edited by crazedrat; 11-19-2009 at 02:17 AM.
I don\'t know where you heard that I threatened that person, but I did not. I merely called her arrogant. But I will not digress -- her behavior towards me, and there are other examples of her wild ideas and unfair personal attacks strewn across the internet. But seeing as this is not relevant to the discussion I will not discuss it further.
Essentially I was dismissed for political reasons. This is actually a common issue in American colleges: get an instructor who \"dislikes\" you and you have little chance for more than a C. (they will usually penalize with not \"opening\" yourself to their inane thinking). Since transferring to Ashford University, my GPA has improved markedly, in fact, because I do not face the same prejudice that I faced at Miami, nor the tolerance for delusional expression by instructors. (and several of my instructors expressed delusional sentiments... but I will not get into that here).
But the delusional are a minority and we invite the non-delusional majority to share their views at progressivesocionics.
Crazedrat, I agree: the antagonism we have been faced with is negative, hurtful, and unhelpful to the understanding of socionics.
@Cyclops: are you aware that the 2nd type was first posed by Gulenko, and that there has been NO published criticism of the concept in socionics journals?
The second type is the processor of data and changes to data, which we call \"energy\". It is your sense of immediacy.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 11-19-2009 at 02:36 AM.
Supersocionics Wikisocion article updated
It may be a bit easier to understand now. I tried to limit all references to model A jargon, which I had used in the earlier revision. Now you don't have to understand model A to understand supersocion theory.
The article is at http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...rsocion_theory
Summary of the Supersocion Theory
The cornerstone of the supersocion theory (or as labcoat proposed it be called, the "extended socion") is the further subdivision of the information elements beyond +/-, to positive and negative forms even of the +/- elements (which were not very appropriately notated, I must say). While these subelements are not in themselves irreconcilable -- their essential unity is, in fact, the real state of the world -- emotion tends to get in the way of our seeing them objectively. It is simply the case, irregardless of the reason, that a person identifies with half of the subelements (there are eight per function) at the expense of another half unless shown how to assimilate them. This is where political types come in, but the real story is not the political types themselves, but the means by which we cope with their existence. Historically, we've called these coping mechanisms attitudes.
Attitudes can create severe intellectual barriers: by failing to observe the importance of all eight subfunctions in the enhancement of an information aspect, we effectively blind ourselves to the real situation. There is a means by which we can transcend this divide, by conditionally identifying as a person who treats the other side of the divide as important. Depends on both our maturity and our will to grapple with the reality meant by the inclusion of this "other" perspective, we can rationalize our own path to assimilation of the "unknown" self which can see this other side -- we commit to seeing, unconditionally, both sides of the picture and refuse to accept an identity which does not treat them with equal respect and complete integration. However, what happens when an authority figure with real power doesn't want to let go of the false reality when the people they have authority over are ready to move on? Then you have an intellectual inhibition, and the beginning of fear. I believe academia today is largely mastered by precisely these dynamics -- people are afraid to stand up against the egotists, who are supported by the media and reinforced by capitalism, and as such are not realizing our real cultural potential. I believe introducing a model of socionics which includes the subfunctions will, gradually, crack open the dam on our generation handed down to us by the Baby Boomers and the post-modern revolution (which traded one unnatural dogma for another) and restore us to the level of scientific achievement seen a hundred years ago. We fear the self-redefinition that breaking today's operant limits threatens us with, but we should break them anyway because it's the right thing to do.
An additional subdivision of +/- functions implies four "subelements" per function, not eight. What gives?a person identifies with half of the subelements (there are eight per function) at the expense of another half
Are you implying that the academic establishment is dominated by a select group of "sub-elements," that individual academic authority figures are insufficiently open minded to less preferred "sub-elements," or something different entirely?what happens when an authority figure with real power doesn't want to let go of the false reality when the people they have authority over are ready to move on? Then you have an intellectual inhibition, and the beginning of fear. I believe academia today is largely mastered by precisely these dynamics
Who are the egotists? What characterizes these "egotists" and sets them apart from the rest of the population? Why are people afraid to stand up to them?people are afraid to stand up against the egotists, who are supported by the media and reinforced by capitalism
Why do you imagine the world was a better place 100 years ago? What set of events/changes contributed to it's decline? How and why did these changes take place? Describe what you mean by "restore us to the level of scientific achievement seen a hundred years ago?" Describe, as you see it, the state of scientific achievement in the early twentieth century vs. today. Why do you consider a problematic "level of scientific achievement" to be indicative of a "dam on our generation?"I believe introducing a model of socionics which includes the subfunctions will, gradually, crack open the dam on our generation handed down to us by the Baby Boomers and the post-modern revolution (which traded one unnatural dogma for another) restore us to the level of scientific achievement seen a hundred years ago.
I approached David Amodio about supersocionics.
I gave a brief primer on it and explained why it was important. Amodio is the most prestigious neuroscientist of our generation, particularly after receiving an award from Obama, which actually does more harm than good because it means he has something to lose. Amodio is the guy who led the 2007 study which identified neurological correlates for liberalism and conservatism, which is why he's potentially important to the future of socionics.
I got an auto-reply saying he's on sabbatical.
This post would have been so much better if it was about how you tracked him down in real life and cornered him on his doorstep or place of business demanding he hear your plea on behalf of the English-speaking Socionics community.
And if you really wanted to go overboard, a photocopy of the restraining order signed by the magistrate, with a link to your mugshot in relation to the stalking, harassment and criminal trespassing charges brought against you, would have been the icing on the cake.
I actually asked him for connections. I'm not sure if he'd be interested or not.
Apparently the latest thing is the use of cortical network modeling to prove the existence of personality traits... which I think is rather haphazard and dangerous without a reliable system for postulating the existence of traits to begin with.
He's a SLI, he's probably not that interested in this method
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
What's his EM type? I heard Ti EM will easily make the transition and Ne will show enthusiasm towards Socionics.
Not entirely true. Most of the method here is SLI-valued. He will see it as a new puzzle in search of Te, the truth, and probably will want to aid us due to Si caregiving nature. But this may be entirely dependent on his EM disposition.
Regarding the EM disposition, neuroscience involves a lot of biology, which involves chemistry, which involves math and a technical nature. As such, I'm leaning LSI for him. Or aspie IEI, but math would still be a problem. His primary focus appears to be racism. He appears to be going off track though, in that he's not taking a broad enough approach to understand racism itself. It's like racism is so foreign to him that's he's determined to understand it by taking apart the whole brain and putting it back together in as many variations as possible until he gets a racist machine. But racism is really no more than a fallacy that is easily explained via supersocionics, the intersection of obligation-blindness between complementary sub-elements (creating selfishness) and conservative traditionalist extremism.
His partners in the study appear to be focused on identifying susceptibility to racism, or understanding how it is "inculcated". Which again, is asking the wrong question.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
