Socionix

[Expat]

If it was, they'd waste far less time typing everyone as a cp6.

I think a lot of those typings are sort of "put-downs".

[aestrivex]

I think a lot of those typings are sort of "put-downs".

i don't think that's the conscious intent. clearly there are some types that are strongly overemphasized in ashton's model (probably to a much greater extent than whatever beta-oriented bias people here have). part of the reason for that is that the inner clique tries to be exclusive among the gamma types and ESTps that are assigned, but to simply reference that is an oversimplification; for example, many of the bad typings (ie E6s) that have developed are based on a faulty system of rough systematic and behavioral correlations, such as the idea that all ENTp-Ti subtypes are 6s, which i find idiotic and essentially wrong from an enneagram standpoint (assuming that the model X understanding of ENTp-Ti is the same as my understanding of ILE, which it isn't.)

[Gilly]

I think a lot of those typings are sort of "put-downs".

NO WAI

lol @ "the cubic model is too complex." It's not. At all.

@ imfd

Ashton's model may reference information metabolism superficially, but the fact of the matter is that Augusta's cubic model encompasses the the main part of Kepinski's influence on Socionics. Seeing as Ashton and his adherents ignorantly give absolutely no weight to this portion of the theory, there is no claim for any active interpretation of information metabolism. Ashton's "Model X" is essentially Augusta's intertype relationships combined with Jungian functional definitions and a few selective manipulations of Model A's functional emphases.

[aestrivex]

Seeing as Ashton and his adherents ignorantly give absolutely no weight to this portion of the theory, there is no claim for any active interpretation of information metabolism. Ashton's "Model X" is essentially Augusta's intertype relationships combined with Jungian functional definitions and a few selective manipulations of Model A's functional emphases.

that isn't true. whether or not their claims about information metabolism make sense is another story completely, but the suggestion that they place no weight on it and ignore it entirely is blatantly not true.

[Gilly]

The cubic model? Every time I mention it to Ashton, strrrng, JRiddy, etc, they react dismissively and tell me that I should "look outside the stupid model."

[kensi]

The cubic model? Every time I mention it to Ashton, strrrng, JRiddy, etc, they react dismissively and tell me that I should "look outside the stupid model."

Where is your best source for the cubic model?....i'd like to take a look at it ...in case it is something i havn't ran into in the past.

[Gilly]

http://socionics.us/theory/information.shtml

[Gilly]

The point is that he excludes definitive aspects of the theory to the extent that his methods can no longer be reconciled with Augusta's Socionics.

[Gilly]

To look at it another way, Sedykh's Externals/Statics/Fields dichotomies, which you can distill this part of Augusta down to, are only 3 of the entire 7 element dichotomies. There's a lot more that could be written about the IM relationship than just that (which itself has been critiqued and revised by classical Socionists like Lytov).

True, there is more to IM than simply the cubic model (involved,/abstract and so forth), but everything that is necessary to define the functions as information elements is encompassed by the cubic model.

[Gilly]

They are definitive of the information elements. Socionics is not just information elements.

I never said it was. But it's not Socionics without the information elements, and therefore the two systems are incompatible.

As far as "reconciliation" is concerned, I would say that if one were to salvage the model, then the remained would become little more than some part of Classical Socionics.

Ashton's model? Don't you get it yet? There is no model.

[Gilly]

In either case, of course there may be derivations. So what I mean is, there are other components of the theory of similar explainatory potential. *What Ashton excludes may be sufficient but not necessary to have something cogent to say about Socionics.

Of course, much (but not all) of what he includes I don't think is very cogent anyway.

In my experience, it's not, and the process of rationale and general criteria are not in line with Socionics.

There's a blocing model, a small group model, a subtype model. The first at least has been discussed in relationship to Kepinski. Togeather there is a structure here which attempts to do something similar to Augusta (however less vague and flawed the later may be.)

I've never seen any serious attempt at a coherent layout of the model. Does such a thing actually exist?

And whatever it attempts to do, it fails