Socionix

[Gilly]

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

I hear over and over again the accusation of "adhering to a model," that somehow rejecting a model and "observing" the functions "objectively" is the way to go.

The people who make these claims are not practicing Socionics. Socionics specifically refers to the theory of information metabolism types as defined by Augusta in her cubic model and theory of intertype relationships. Anything that attempts to redefine this basic set of assumptions, or work outside, beyond, or in lieu of them, is no longer Socionics. That's as simple as it gets.

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? And why do they derive the name of their home forum from the word "Socionics?" What's the problem here? Are you not rebellious enough to just go out and give it your own name, start your own personality theory? Do you feel the need to cling to the name for some sense of security, credibility, or whatever? Get your own name! I should think that you'd prefer to, given your penchant for "rebellion" and "freedom of thought" and all of those other nice sounding chant-starters.

In short, stop hiding behind the guise of crudely smushing Jungian typology and Socionics together as though it forms some perception of reality that is still able to be coherently interpreted alongside Socionics, and have the balls to call it your own theory.

[Christy B]

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

I hear over and over again the accusation of "adhering to a model," that somehow rejecting a model and "observing" the functions "objectively" is the way to go.

The people who make these claims are not practicing Socionics. Socionics specifically refers to the theory of information metabolism types as defined by Augusta in her cubic model and theory of intertype relationships. Anything that attempts to redefine this basic set of assumptions, or work outside, beyond, or in lieu of them, is no longer Socionics. That's as simple as it gets.

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? And why do they derive the name of their home forum from the word "Socionics?" What's the problem here? Are you not rebellious enough to just go out and give it your own name, start your own personality theory? Do you feel the need to cling to the name for some sense of security, credibility, or whatever? Get your own name! I should think that you'd prefer to, given your penchant for "rebellion" and "freedom of thought" and all of those other nice sounding chant-starters.

In short, stop hiding behind the guise of crudely smushing Jungian typology and Socionics together as though it forms some perception of reality that is still able to be coherently interpreted alongside Socionics, and have the balls to call it your own theory.

Interesting Gilly....

[Khola aka Bee]

Dude I'm just here for the people ^.^

[Gilly]

The people I'm talking to aren't.

[Khola aka Bee]

The people I'm talking to aren't.

You just became a paradox.

[JRiddy]

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

I hear over and over again the accusation of "adhering to a model," that somehow rejecting a model and "observing" the functions "objectively" is the way to go.

I hope that you have not understood me to be claiming some great degree of objectivity in my observations. I do not claim to approach socionics without a model of any kind. What I do suggest is that there is an over-emphasis on some very specific claims of Model A and the cubic model that makes it easy to reify the rather abstract and subtle concept of informational functions and aspects into something far more easily ostensible than they are. Of course you have to have some kind of "model" to interpret information you see. What I do question is the validity of models employed by so-called "classical socionics," as I question the validity of any model that suggests extremely discrete and discernible connections between abstractions as though they were some sort of imminently observable reality.

The people who make these claims are not practicing Socionics. Socionics specifically refers to the theory of information metabolism types as defined by Augusta in her cubic model and theory of intertype relationships. Anything that attempts to redefine this basic set of assumptions, or work outside, beyond, or in lieu of them, is no longer Socionics. That's as simple as it gets.

Gilly, while I find your zealous defense of Augusta admirable in a sense, I think you go too far in suggesting that the extent of "socionics" is defined explicitly and finally by Augusta. This is analogous to claiming that Physics was defined by Newton and Galileo, and therefore relativity and quantum mechanics, which question central assumptions made by those great minds, are not within the scope of physics altogether. I'm not claiming that I am an Einstein or Heisenberg or Bohr, but I am claiming that you can question assumptions and remain firmly and decidedly within the same field, and that this is in fact crucial to the advancement of understanding in these fields.

I think you misunderstand my criticism of the "model" as well. Though I do find Model A to be overwrought, and the cubic model unnecessarily complex, my biggest qualms are not with the models per se, but with a reliance on a faulty epistemology that ignores the complexity of human interaction. The reason why many of us "Socionix" people talk about "observing" functions is because we see this as the way in which the human brain works best. You simply cannot account for every single variable in personality. It is manifestly impossible. So what we do instead is observe people and let our minds find patterns that are more "felt" than explicitly thought out.

How did you learn to drive? Did you learn by determining models and equations for how the accelerator reacts to how hard you push it? Did you learn how to explicitly calculate distances between cars to judge how much room you have? Or did you, like most people, get out there and do it, after learning some of the ground rules, and let your mind's incredible capacity to learn teach your body how to do this extraordinarily complex task? If you are like most people, you don't even have to "think" about driving that much, especially not at a computational level. Though you can certainly learn ostensible, explicit things about driving, the real meat of the learning comes through doing it and feeling it out.

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? And why do they derive the name of their home forum from the word "Socionics?" What's the problem here? Are you not rebellious enough to just go out and give it your own name, start your own personality theory? Do you feel the need to cling to the name for some sense of security, credibility, or whatever? Get your own name! I should think that you'd prefer to, given your penchant for "rebellion" and "freedom of thought" and all of those other nice sounding chant-starters.

I've already explained why this is completely irrelevant, but let me reiterate: there exists no great definitions czar who defines what is and isn't socionics.

In short, stop hiding behind the guise of crudely smushing Jungian typology and Socionics together as though it forms some perception of reality that is still able to be coherently interpreted alongside Socionics, and have the balls to call it your own theory.

There are elements of all sorts of models within what is commonly seen as the "socionix" viewpoint. Jung certainly plays a role, as he has in Socionics and MBTI. Also there is a lot of Kepinski, who was the guy who kinda came up with the whole "information metabolism" idea. I wouldn't discount some people like William James and Husserl either. I would throw Kierkegaard in as well, but that applies to me more than some of the other guys. I really don't understand how trying to incorporate more influences makes any less "Socionics" than Augusta's work, as she herself incorporated dozens of different ideas and philosophies into her work.

The people I'm talking to aren't.

What are you here for, Gilly?

[Warlord]

Dude I'm just here for the people ^.^

I came here just for the free pretzels.

[anndelise]

I was wondering who was going to be first to start critiquing some of the ideas of those who got banned. Seeing as how they can't answer any questions nor respond.

I wasn't sure if it was going to be you or one of the clique.
This thread answered my curiosity.

[anndelise]

I was wondering who was going to be first to start critiquing some of the ideas of those who got banned. Seeing as how they can't answer any questions nor respond.

I wasn't sure if it was going to be you or one of the clique.
This thread answered my curiosity.

Dummy.
Allie and JRiddy are still here to 'defend' the views of others.

[Slacker]

I agree with Gilly. If we are going to have any kind of useful discussion at all, we have to have a set of definitions we agree on, at least to some extent. If they've got something better, then I want to hear about it, but it would be based on a different set of assumptions and definitions and therefore wouldn't be Socionics. Even if it turns out to be better and more useful, it's something else.

I said in another thread that talking to Strrrng et. al. is sometimes like talking to someone about art but having different definitions of colors and shapes. "Look at that blue triangle." "That isn't a blue triangle! It's a green square! Why are you so set on these definitions of "blue" and "triangle"? They're wrong!" I think they're right, but regardless, if I'm discussing such things with other people we have to agree on things like "blue" and "triangle" in order to talk about the subject at all. If we have "blue" and "triangle" definied wrong, that's an entirely different argument and the discussion has to take place at a different level.

[JRiddy]

Dummy.
Allie and JRiddy are still here to 'defend' the views of others.

I'm here to present an argument for what I believe is correct. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do, however, take issue when individuals claim to be some kind of authority for what I see as arbitrary reasons.

I agree with Gilly. If we are going to have any kind of useful discussion at all, we have to have a set of definitions we agree on, at least to some extent. If they've got something better, then I want to hear about it, but it would be based on a different set of assumptions and definitions and therefore wouldn't be Socionics. Even if it turns out to be better and more useful, it's something else.

I said in another thread that talking to Strrrng et. al. is sometimes like talking to someone about art but having different definitions of colors and shapes. "Look at that blue triangle." "That isn't a blue triangle! It's a green square! Why are you so set on these definitions of "blue" and "triangle"? They're wrong!" I think they're right, but regardless, if I'm discussing such things with other people we have to agree on things like "blue" and "triangle" in order to talk about the subject at all. If we have "blue" and "triangle" definied wrong, that's an entirely different argument and the discussion has to take place at a different level.

I like this analogy. I agree with you that we have to have a set of definitions we can agree upon, or all arguments will just turn into shouting matches and pissing contests, as they often have.

What I do not agree with is this notion that my beliefs are something wholly different from socionics. While I do question some assumptions that are commonly held to be true on this forum, I also seek to explain human cognition, behavior, and interaction with information metabolism. Let me stress that the issue is not so much centered on whether we choose to use Model A, B (+/-), C (cubic), T (Talanov), or X ("Socionix" model), but on how we define functions and their role in psychology. I could relate each one of these models to one another, including the Talanov, and there still could be a tremendous amount of disagreement. This is because functions are inherently difficult to define. How many threads have we seen and how many wikisocion disputes have arised over different interpretations of functions? It is difficult business, and I in no way assume that I could hope to describe any function in such a way that the description, upon interpretation, would not yield significant misunderstanding, if approached from an extremely literal mindset.

I actually would like to for the discussion to "take place at a different level" so that we can try to ascertain what really are the core assumptions that we make. We are all often very ignorant of many of the assumptions we take for granted in our reasoning, and I am certainly no exception to this. I think we can talk about socionics at this level, and doing so would yield very positive results. If you would rather just assume you are right, please by all means ignore this challenge. But if you are not satisfied knowing that there are stones left uncovered and assumptions left unquestioned, then please, let us discuss those things.

[Slacker]

I actually would like to for the discussion to "take place at a different level" so that we can try to ascertain what really are the core assumptions that we make. We are all often very ignorant of many of the assumptions we take for granted in our reasoning, and I am certainly no exception to this. I think we can talk about socionics at this level, and doing so would yield very positive results. If you would rather just assume you are right, please by all means ignore this challenge. But if you are not satisfied knowing that there are stones left uncovered and assumptions left unquestioned, then please, let us discuss those things.

Maybe that would be the good start of a new thread. There are lots of assumptions I take for granted as I discuss Socionics, and I find them useful, but I'm up for re-examining them. Just not in every freaking thread. But a thread for that purpose sounds like a good idea to me. We could even have a seperate section specifically for threads discussing whether the inherent assumptions currently used with Socionics are valid. My biggest problem with that kind of thing is that the assumptions and definitions are based on Ti logic and that is truly hard for me to work with. It's taken me a long time just to get to where I feel confident about how Model A works. But I'm up for the challenge and will reconsider if the things I read make more sense to me than Model A does. I would probably lurk and read the discussions between others more than anything else but I would be an avid reader of those discussions.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

If someone wants to post about model X, i'll try to understand it. But some questions, will it result in an increase in typing skills, an increase in understanding intertype relations? Will it give a better understanding of the types IRL? And does it agree with the dichotomies and the temperaments?

Is it another model to explain the theory with no real practical application? (or improved practical application based on more familiar models, like model A)

[FDG]

Obviously, the system being used at socionix is exactly the same system which is being used here, given that in the real world the essence of what we are watching is unchanged by the nature of the forum we partake in mostly.

[Khamelion]

I agree with Gilly. If we are going to have any kind of useful discussion at all, we have to have a set of definitions we agree on, at least to some extent. If they've got something better, then I want to hear about it, but it would be based on a different set of assumptions and definitions and therefore wouldn't be Socionics. Even if it turns out to be better and more useful, it's something else.

I said in another thread that talking to Strrrng et. al. is sometimes like talking to someone about art but having different definitions of colors and shapes. "Look at that blue triangle." "That isn't a blue triangle! It's a green square! Why are you so set on these definitions of "blue" and "triangle"? They're wrong!" I think they're right, but regardless, if I'm discussing such things with other people we have to agree on things like "blue" and "triangle" in order to talk about the subject at all. If we have "blue" and "triangle" definied wrong, that's an entirely different argument and the discussion has to take place at a different level.

Well put, about the definitions of colors and shapes. That exactly how I feel about it. But not only does he tell you that you're wrong based on his ideas, he has to berate you and call you names at the same time.

[tcaudilllg]

I've spoken with Ashton at length, and I can say that based on my understanding of model A and its expressed regidity as Augusta describes it, that Ashton is not defined by it. He's an ENTj who has +Fe as his role function instead of -Fe. Big, big, and undocumented difference.

It basically means he's asocial. +Fe-Si works like this (it's actually quite rational): someone cuts off assistance to me; to win people's aid I express sympathy with them; I am ostracised for my sympathy. That's its most simplistic form. It's the asocial side of ESFj, the Freudian id.

Still working on the +Te-Ni bit.

[JRiddy]

I've spoken with Ashton at length, and I can say that based on my understanding of model A and its expressed regidity as Augusta describes it, that Ashton is not defined by it. He's an ENTj who has +Fe as his role function instead of -Fe. Big, big, and undocumented difference.

It basically means he's asocial. +Fe-Si works like this (it's actually quite rational): someone cuts off assistance to me; to win people's aid I express sympathy with them; I am ostracised for my sympathy. That's its most simplistic form. It's the asocial side of ESFj, the Freudian id.

Still working on the +Te-Ni bit.

This is actually really interesting, as it actually kinda seems to jive with model x ideas of subtypes to an extent, albeit with a much more systematic and "static" (in the IM sense) way of describing it.

Although, speaking as someone who considers Ashton a personal friend, I wouldn't consider him "asocial" in the least. Can you clarify what you mean by this?

[tcaudilllg]

So Ashton and Freud both have [what are typically] Aristocratic sets of foreground and background functions? One may not need a new typology to explain that.

I can agree with what Expat said of intertype relations, which may go to show how valuable the Kempinski piece of theory is [or is not.]

Now that I think about it, I believe that +Te-Ne is the invisible hand concept proper. Ashton repeatedly insisted that anarchy was the ideal means of capitalism: laissez-faire for everyone, without reservation.

Given that Adam Smith's theory is one of self-interest in the context of social relationships, it seems to me accurate to surmise that he conceived of it by observing self-interest as the foundation of the invisible hand principle. However, that's a very simplistic reading of a very complicated mental device.

Let me clarify what I meant by Freud. The id of which Freud spoke is, phemenologically speaking, the counter-sign form of the ego. -Ti+Ne has a +Ti-Ne id, the purpose being to ask, "what can (we) do with this knowledge we have obtained by experiment?". Of course the id thinks not in terms of "we", being asocial, but in terms of 'I'. "My potential is increased by means of this theoretical understanding, therefore I can advance my position in so far as understanding of the theory is applicable."

Ashton has, in essence, a self-centered form of delta Te coupled with Beta Ni. So to say, a person's sense of worth is dependent on their behavior.

[Lotus]

Gilly,

where is all of this coming from? I don't think I've ever tried to shove a model down anyone's throat, posted about it's superiority, nor have I claimed to be "rebellious" or whatever. As far as I recall, neither has Riddy.

Now that leaves "Nicky" and dolphin. Two users who were banned yesterday––which I'm sure you're fully aware of. I'm not going to argue whether this behavior does or does not apply to them. I think they'd rather do that themselves.

This one goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin, et al.

Now now, what are you? Some little kid tapping a fish tank with his face pressed up against the glass? If this thread really "goes out to Nicky, Allie, JRiddy, dolphin" then why did you choose to post it as soon as they can no longer respond?

[Rick]

(Actually, JRiddy, Model A could really be cut to 2 functions, not 4, since the first 2 determine the placement of all other functions)

[JRiddy]

(Actually, JRiddy, Model A could really be cut to 2 functions, not 4, since the first 2 determine the placement of all other functions)

I know. Which is why, as I've mentioned before, I don't really care about the ontological reality of IM aspects or functions so much as I care about which perspective provides the clearest and most unobtrusive path to understanding what they are. I can see arguments for using 2, 4, or all 8 functions for this; I just prefer 4. I have specific reasons for this, but I'm kinda cramped for time right now, so I'd be glad to get into that more later.

Thanks for responding, though, Rick. I appreciate people actually debating and discussing the issues rather than pissing matches or comings-down-from-on-high. I haven't had a really good debate in...oh it seems like years. I crave it though...argument is the purest sport. Wow do I ever sound like an ENTp.

[JRiddy]

I know. Which is why, as I've mentioned before, I don't really care about the ontological reality of IM aspects or functions so much as I care about which perspective provides the clearest and most unobtrusive path to understanding what they are.

Wow, that was a gaping self-contradiction. What I mean is the "most unobtrusive path to understanding how they determine types and intertype relations." I intend to emphasize the practical nature of seeing IM work out in the world meaningfully over some kind of metaphysics thing.

Hope that's clearer.

[tcaudilllg]

I know. Which is why, as I've mentioned before, I don't really care about the ontological reality of IM aspects or functions so much as I care about which perspective provides the clearest and most unobtrusive path to understanding what they are. I can see arguments for using 2, 4, or all 8 functions for this; I just prefer 4. I have specific reasons for this, but I'm kinda cramped for time right now, so I'd be glad to get into that more later.

Thanks for responding, though, Rick. I appreciate people actually debating and discussing the issues rather than pissing matches or comings-down-from-on-high. I haven't had a really good debate in...oh it seems like years. I crave it though...argument is the purest sport. Wow do I ever sound like an ENTp.

I understand now. You've got the same problem John McCain does: that which doesn't interest you is less important from an objective standpoint, in your view, than that which does. Which is objectively incorrect, because your information processing dispositions preclude you from working with the whole picture.

You're a purist.

[JRiddy]

I understand now. You've got the same problem John McCain does: that which doesn't interest you is less important from an objective standpoint, in your view, than that which does. Which is objectively incorrect, because your information processing dispositions preclude you from working with the whole picture.

I work hard not to claim what things are important from an "objective standpoint," although I know all to well that I often fail in this matter. I agree that I can't see the "whole picture", and that axiom is the crux of the majority of my beliefs about socionix or almost anything. But honestly, are John McCain and I alone in this? Doesn't every one at some level consider the things they care about or that interest them more important?

Regardless, you omitted the correction I made where I tried to explain that I value finding ways to explain and transmit understanding of socionics information more than I do discerning to a high degree of precision what they are. If someone else is more interested in that, that's fine. We just have different values.

You're a purist.

What are you insinuating? From my perspective, which is the only one I can comment on meaningfully, I despise "purism." I prefer to integrate things from a broad cross-section of fields and viewpoints into my own understanding. If you want to call this purism, then please let me know what not being a purist looks like.

[kensi]

This begs the question: why are people who assert the superiority of these methods still posting at a Socionics site? .

there obviously is no disclaimer to prevent one from posting a theory based very little on the concepts of Socionics...and why should there be..?...if you read some of the articles about the Socionists themselves...it seems a lot of them are unsure of a lot of things themselves.

[tcaudilllg]

there obviously is no disclaimer to prevent one from posting a theory based very little on the concepts of Socionics...and why should there be..?...if you read some of the articles about the Socionists themselves...it seems a lot of them are unsure of a lot of things themselves.

Damn right... Rick's wrote extensively on the subject of socionics "schools".

[Gilly]

there obviously is no disclaimer to prevent one from posting a theory based very little on the concepts of Socionics...and why should there be..?...if you read some of the articles about the Socionists themselves...it seems a lot of them are unsure of a lot of things themselves.

Reread. My point is pretty fucking simple.