1. ## The best method in finding out your type

Ive come to the conclusion that the best method for determining your type is the four dichotomy scale (E vs I, S vs N, F vs T, J vs P) like MBTI tests do. I feel that too many people on this site seem to focus on really difficult methods for determining type like finding out which club you belong to, then deciding if your Intuition is extraverted or intraverted, or if your thinking is extraverted or intraverted and then deciding which function comes first. Honestly I find it nearly impossible to determine your type like this, its no wonder people struggle to find their type for so long with no success. I think the best method for type identification is to try to find the four letter combo that you are, not your model A, because its alot easier to determine your four letter combo once you have the criteria for what constitutes each preference, rather trying to find your model A, which is harder because you dont know how it manifests itself objectively and measurably in your psyche. This is because no function works alone, and thus (for example) appears differntly in ISTjs than in ESFps. The point Im trying to make is this: its easier to find out what your prefrences are on a four combo scale, then trying to find out which function you have, then trying to decide if they are introverted or extraverted, which is difficult, like I said, because the same extraverted function manifetsts itself differently in different types, whereas with the four combo uses criteria which appear in all types of a said preference. Plus, whos to say model A is the only true model? Its alot easier to prove and test the existence of a four combo scale than it is to prove model A, and thus model A is really weak for determining your type compared to the four combo method. The four combo method should be the information basis for complex models like model A, not the other way around.

This what I think anyways.

Do you agree, and if not what do you think is the best method for type identification?

2. Edited for gayness.

3. ## Re: The best method in finding out your type

Originally Posted by Cheerio
Ive come to the conclusion that the best method for determining your type is the four dichotomy scale (E vs I, S vs N, F vs T, J vs P) like MBTI tests do. I feel that too many people on this site seem to focus on really difficult methods for determining type like finding out which club you belong to, then deciding if your Intuition is extraverted or intraverted, or if your thinking is extraverted or intraverted and then deciding which function comes first. Honestly I find it nearly impossible to determine your type like this, its no wonder people struggle to find their type for so long with no success. I think the best method for type identification is to try to find the four letter combo that you are, not your model A, because its alot easier to determine your four letter combo once you have the criteria for what constitutes each preference, rather trying to find your model A, which is harder because you dont know how it manifests itself objectively and measurably in your psyche. This is because no function works alone, and thus (for example) appears differntly in ISTjs than in ESFps. The point Im trying to make is this: its easier to find out what your prefrences are on a four combo scale, then trying to find out which function you have, then trying to decide if they are introverted or extraverted, which is difficult, like I said, because the same extraverted function manifetsts itself differently in different types, whereas with the four combo uses criteria which appear in all types of a said preference. Plus, whos to say model A is the only true model? Its alot easier to prove and test the existence of a four combo scale than it is to prove model A, and thus model A is really weak for determining your type compared to the four combo method. The four combo method should be the information basis for complex models like model A, not the other way around.

This what I think anyways.

Do you agree, and if not what do you think is the best method for type identification?
I think you could be on to something. Socionics is rather complex and analytical. Socionics is better if you are already a little more well acquainted with the theory. It's more straightforward to simply pick the appropriate letters and go from there.

4. ## Four Scales

I think it is good to start by taking tests and studying the four scales. In many cases you can quite well determine at least one or two of them. For me it was quite obvious from the beginning that I am intuitive, ethical and introvert, but then the judging/perceiving or rational/irrational scale turned out to be tricky. The trouble is that in socionics, unlike in MBTI, you really should get your type exactly right, otherwise the intertype relations, quadras etc. are all wrong, and you are better off just following your gut feeling.

Whether the Model A is correct is a good question. It would seem to make sense to me, but it is always easy to start seeing things just because the model says they should be there. I would advice not to use intertype relations for typing, for example, because in my opinion they are still largely what needs to be proven. I have got on quite well with several ESTPs and there are many ESTJs whose company I cannot claim to enjoy.

5. The more I contemplate the socionics model the more intrigued and amazed I become at it. I think people just like answers to be given to them and they don't like to contemplate the true nature of what Socionics really is. I'm not saying I know the true nature, but there is alot more to the way this stuff is layed out than they tell us- that's just what i'm thinking(more like, perceiving, then thinking). Obviously it isn't for everyone, but it does make sense. In my opinion, If you want to read the system properly you have to play by the rules. If these words coming from an ENTp it(the system) must be pretty important.

In a pen and paper sense, the extra dichotomy in the MBTI is superfluous.

If you use MBTI intuitively, cool, because intuition isnt really a system anyways. but i think that in actual pen and paper practice socionics is just a better, more organized means of figuring things out. I mean, it has a SYSTEM underneath it. Things fit together, interlock. there is an underlying theoretical basis(freuds intuition systemized). It's just got more to it. In this increasingly informationally based society we have to start (NT types, anyway) thinking in an informational way. THIS IS A NEW SCIENCE!! that's AWESOME!!

I guess it depends what you want out of psychometrics. If you want to just describe how a person behaves in a four letter acronym- go for MBTI, if you want to do that and a whole lot more- go for Socionics.

6. What about people with ?

7. ## Beliefs

If you use MBTI intuitively, cool, because intuition isnt really a system anyways. but i think that in actual pen and paper practice socionics is just a better, more organized means of figuring things out. I mean, it has a SYSTEM underneath it. Things fit together, interlock. there is an underlying theoretical basis(freuds intuition systemized). It's just got more to it. In this increasingly informationally based society we have to start (NT types, anyway) thinking in an informational way. THIS IS A NEW SCIENCE!! that's AWESOME!!

I guess it depends what you want out of psychometrics. If you want to just describe how a person behaves in a four letter acronym- go for MBTI, if you want to do that and a whole lot more- go for Socionics.
There is a tribe of Australian aboriginies that perform a ceremony once a year (I think) to stop the Sun from falling from the sky and consuming them. I assume they almost unanimous in their explanation for why the Sun remains in it's place. Does that mean they must be right?

-I just hope they don't stop.....

The trouble is that you can have all the SYSTEM you want, and it may all make intuitively sense to you, but yet it is no guarantee that your system has any relevance to reality. It may well be closer to the truth that the process of evolution has favored the emergence of cognitive mechanisms that create a false sense of confidence in any beliefs or opinions that may have promoted the individual interests or group cohesion. The best liar is always the one who sincerely believes in his claims, and if you study any system long enough your mind easily starts playing games with you and constructs your reality according to your model. It is, however, only empirical evidence that can prove the correctness of the theory. When - despite of countless and most dedicated efforts - no one has yet managed to devise a reliable method of typing, what does this tell about the nature of this NEW SCIENCE?

8. That it isn't even a theory yet. It's a proto-theory, since it hasn't demonstrated reliability yet.

9. The best method for finding out your type is just to run, run away from this evil being called Socionics. It may look great and all at first glance, but that's just a facade. It will slowly draw you in, sucking out all the energy you have. You will be left with nothing but that eternal confusion of a question swimming around in your head, "What's my type?" That's an unanswerable question. Do you really want an unanswerable question following you for the rest of your life?

Cone, who finally, finally realizes why INTps hate Socionics.

10. I've never questioned my type...INTj all the way baby

11. Im an INTp, and I dont hate socionics, amthough I agree that it can "suck you in" and let you not see anything else. Use with moderation .

Pedro the Lion- You said that types which seem doubt alot seem to be INxp. Let me tell you that both poles- credulity and skepticism -are pretty strong in me. I think I seize things rather quickly, but I often have a hard time distinguishing between grasping something and beleiving in it.

In a pen and paper sense, the extra dichotomy in the MBTI is superfluous.

If you use MBTI intuitively, cool, because intuition isnt really a system anyways. but i think that in actual pen and paper practice socionics is just a better, more organized means of figuring things out. I mean, it has a SYSTEM underneath it. Things fit together, interlock. there is an underlying theoretical basis(freuds intuition systemized). It's just got more to it. In this increasingly informationally based society we have to start (NT types, anyway) thinking in an informational way. THIS IS A NEW SCIENCE!! that's AWESOME!!

I guess it depends what you want out of psychometrics. If you want to just describe how a person behaves in a four letter acronym- go for MBTI, if you want to do that and a whole lot more- go for Socionics.
Yeah Socionics has got alot more to it than MBTI, and I never said the opposite of that. What I said was if you want to determine your sociotype its better to start with the four letter acronym than with model. The four letter acronym is an easier and more testable way of determining your type than looking at model A and trying to find the type you are.

Yeah, socionics is a science, and I agree that its alot better than MBTI. But a science needs testing, and thats what all the big time socionicsts do anyways, is test these paradignms in real life situations. What Im saying is that alot of the stuff in socionics is something you just need to experience personally and if you wanna start using socionics you need to determine your own type first(if you cant do that, how can you determine anyone else's type?), and the easiest way to do it is the four letter acronym. Once you have that figured out, you can move on to the more intricate underworkings of the system.

12. Im an INTp, and I dont hate socionics, amthough I agree that it can "suck you in" and let you not see anything else. Use with moderation .
I know, I don't hate it either, but sometimes...

Pedro the Lion- You said that types which seem doubt alot seem to be INxp. Let me tell you that both poles- credulity and skepticism -are pretty strong in me. I think I seize things rather quickly, but I often have a hard time distinguishing between grasping something and beleiving in it.
I definitely agree with this. It's either "strongly disagree" or "strongly believe". It seems that I have this strong desire to just believe something, depending on it wholly. It's one of the greatest feelings in the world, if you ask me. (I guess that proves my INTpness.)

It seems that the four letter acronym only works for people who aren't extremely pedantic and scrupulous, who don't question or pick out every little detail of everything and let it bother them. So I'm a little neurotic...

Cone

13. Yes, I believe that it's impossible to prove Socionics, because noone's come up with a perfect system that describes every possible behavior, thought, belief, opinion, etc. that are characteristic of people. But there are some parts of Socionics that I believe are possible to prove right now, but of course it depends on the assumption that types do exist.

14. Maybe im a bit slow, but how exactly would that differ from what we have now, Pedro?

15. ## Improving Socionics

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
It would get rid of most of the resistance that says "you can't fit people into categories" etc etc. We would move the categories from the "person" to the function which would depersonalize it enough to allow people to accept it for one thing. Also, it would explain these "subtypes" because you wouldn't say he is an inTj but rather a person who exudes much ..
I am afraid your idea does not work very well in practise. It seems to me that it would only complicate things further as then we would have an almost unlimited number or different functions and types, or what exactly do you mean?

I still think what we need is better tests, better type descriptions and better descriptions of functions: for example does extroverted intuition, Ne as first function always mean that "It's like having a TV set in your head where a crazy nut constantly changes channels, and you just can't control it." If we can pin down every function for every type with great accuracy, it should be much easier to get your type right.

More subtype theories are also needed because subtypes - or patterns of more or less permanent, fairly regular and repetitive, personality differences within every type - do effect compatibility, and explain why representatives of the same type can appear so very different etc. And why not subtypes - for example according to Filatova's model ENFP with an INTJ subtype - rather than someone who "exudes much Ti"?

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
It would get rid of the structures that aren't always applicable in real life situations like "Duals always attract" those would morph to "Duals have a strong tendency to attract" or some such nonsense (which I think the model already says) so people could accept it. I hate changing wording for no reason but apparently it's necessary because people with poor logical skills can't see how the "rules" (aka type descriptions and intertype relations) are meant to be tenuous not absolute.
Has anybody actually claimed that "Duals always attract"? People just do not blindly accept claims that do not make sense to them. Maybe relations of duality grow on you more than other types of relations - maybe it is just all in your head; maybe "The Intertype relations formula is a hard bone of Socionics" - maybe they work for some people but not for others. There is not much objective evidence either way.

16. ## Speculation

Pedro-the-Lion, in my opinion you seem to be thinking far too much "inside the box". You just take all the functions and their relationships for granted, when there is little evidence that is the way our brains function."INTJ's logic is their area of confidence and conservatism. This makes their logic fundamental, meaning once the rules are established, they can be applied anywhere." Now the rules are established but their relevance to reality is not. What if your first function is not your strongest function, but say, your fourth is? What if your primary need in a relationship is not to get support to your first function from the corresponding, theoretically supporting, function but to get the overactive first function safely "extinguished". How come most people turn away from socionics pretty soon? Logical types can usually get by quite well without developing their weaker functions but for ethical types developing logical functions is often an absolute necessity. The way the functions are developed varies greatly and does not always follow the classical Model A, maybe sometimes neither do the intertype relations.

17. ## Analyzing the analysis

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
I'm going to start a new post on this to give a method for how this "could" work but all I am saying is move from thinking INTJ relates to ESFJ in such and such a manner to:

relates to in such and such a manner and relates to ... so on and so forth. If you do that it allows for "relative strength" to manifest (ie let's say you have a depressed INTJ and he is manifesting more than he "should" how will that affect dual relations?). All I mean by relative strength is HOW MUCH a certain function is being used. This is also useful because it explains the insane who traditionally do not succumb to type analysis as easily. You could theorize that the insane person is demonstrating functions that they are weak in and thus are naturally attracting the EXACT OPPOSITE of the kind of information they need to "get better." Another example, let's say an INTJ is using his and A LOT what are the consequences of this? Well will attract and while will attract and thus while NOT INTENDING TO DO SO he will call the attention of all the functions that hurt him and thus get perpetually worse and worse until lunacy ensues.

I think Model A makes some assumptions that don't pan out in the real world.

1. You use your "strong" functions more than your weak functions. While that is TYPICAL behavior it is by no means always applicable.

I'm sure there are more but those seem to be the most jarring ones. I am tired and will write more later but trust me we do not need the idea of "type" just functions I mean that's what type is anyway right? The prevalence of use of a function combined with the natural attractions and repulsions among the functions forms type. As I said I will work on a vehicle for this tomorrow.

***EDIT***

Nevermind it seems uneeded/unwanted at the time.
No, I did not mean to scare you away completely. The idea of analyzing the functions does have potential, but it is just that so far it does not seem to work too well. Socionics.com has the INTJ or INTP? article that analyzes the different functions quite carefully, yet it does not seem to be of much help.
Another comparison will be between Dual-seeking functions. INTPs are looking out for extroverted sensing (), INTJs are looking out for extroverted feeling (). Since both functions are the subconscious functions, they are likely to influence the subconscious choices. INTPs would want to go power driven, moneymaking, sometimes risky places, whereas INTJs would prefer a happy, cheerful and exciting surrounding.
For example, in theory it should be quite easy to tell what you dual-seeking function is, yet for most people it is far from it. So I am not quite sure how your functional approach would work in practise, maybe if you could try to come up with some examples...
Another example was SFVB trying to describe the differences between INFPs and INFJs by analyzing their dual-seeking functions:

Originally Posted by SFVB
Here's a test for you though concerning the INFp - INFj issue...

Are you "turned-on" by dangerous aggressive situations, and aggressive physical people? Do you find yourself drawn to people with power and situations in which you feel powerful?

Are you "turned-n" by learning new things and acquiring new knowledge? Do you like to listen to people talk about facts and history? Do you like being in a position where you are able to feel knowledgeable and competent in your undertaking? Do you like to teach others?

If you answered yes to question one...you are MOST likely an INFp.

If you answered yes to question two...you are MOST likely an INFj.
Yet a moment later an INFP commented:
INFPs turned on by dangerous, aggresive situation?

wow, i never knew that.
And later still:
aggresive people... i guess so. more like authoritative and proactive people. but depending on the situation, they can turn me off as well. i find that i tend to avoid relatives who are domineering or loud. i often end up stonewalling in their presence.

the reason i asked SFVB is because, as an INFP, i definitely don't get turned on by dangerous, aggresive situations. i'm not interested in watching movies like 'Rambo' or seeing wrestlers beating the living daylights out of each other.

This does start to get repetitive, but you get the point. In theory the functions should be easy to tell apart, but in practise this approach simply does not seem to work. Perhaps most people do not have the same analytical abilities INTJs have, or just maybe somehow the theoretical model just does not correspond with reality.

Another very good point was about demonstrating the right functions in order to attract the right kind of help - or the right person/love interest. This is something that should be looked at. Dualization would according to theory require that both parties confidently use their strongest functions. Yet due to the demands of life and social roles and expectations this does often not happen naturally. From my INFJ point of view, for example, I may often come across as wise and even opionated, yet fundamentally this kind of things are just a social role, and deep down what I know or do not know feels quite irrelevant. What I really want is someone to need my love and devotion, or introverted feeling Fi. Thus the question is how to send the right signals. This would of course be different for every type and basically for every individual, but I think there are many general trends that could be explored in the light of socionics.

18. ## Testing the Theory

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
But those are exactly the types of things I am trying to explain by disassociating the functions from things they don't have to be associated with.
Yes, but what are the functions associated with? It does seem that the "tie-breaker" questions are often poorly formulated even in socionics. The examples SFVB provided seem to be a very good case in point: INFPs have extroverted sensing Se as their suggestive or dual-seeking function, now we know that INFPs do not agree with the following description:
Originally Posted by SFVB
Are you "turned-on" by dangerous aggressive situations, and aggressive physical people? Do you find yourself drawn to people with power and situations in which you feel powerful?
but can anyone think of anything better? What I am trying to get at is that your theory -
Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
Use them in a physics sense attracts and repels
- already presumes that the person knows what his/her strong functions are, or what "he exudes", and what kind of feedback he would like to get. When you know all this you are already confident about your type, and agree with the classical modelling that your strong Ti needs support from strong Fe. Then you might as well follow the classical model, but not everybody agrees with this "physics sense", maybe some INTJs do not want or need Fe? Maybe at close emotional distance the classical modelling is flawed and Fe and Fi can be used interchangeably?

If you accept all the basic premises, what you only need to learn to do is to properly demonstrate your strong functions and use them to attract the right person etc. Now though it seems that most people cannot say with any degree of confidence what their strong functions are and what kind of support would be good for them. I am circling round the same issue, but I think you should try to think more about "the ultimate tie-breaker question" to which 90% of INTJs will answer one way and 90% of INTPs the other way. I know we have tests of course... and often they do help you to narrow down your type, but they are not all that reliable, I regularly tested as an INFP, and I do not think I am the only one. Once you get your test result there should be some ways to verify it, currently there is very little available.

19. ## Goethe

Well, Jedem das Seine.
I was hoping you would take the challenge, but considering the rather repetitive nature of this "What's my type" discussion, no wonder you are losing interest. I think you should though keep in mind that things do not become real because you think they are. Coming from the Delta Te is one of my Quadra values and I cannot help but to constantly look for some external confirmation. You may think that you can type people accurately, but how can you be sure? Once numerous socionists, using most different methods, will independently arrive at the same type even with the most atypical cases, as for example ****** ENTP, Bill Clinton INTP, Linus Torvalds ENFP, (IMHO) - then I believe that socionists really know what they are talking about. Now it just seems that everybody has a completely unique science of their own, and this is not conductive to making progress. I would not like to see socionics degenerate into a parlour game of "praising one's type", with different socionists exalting their pet theories like snake oil salesmen rolling into town. You can often tell with some accuracy what functions people are using, but telling what is the order of that particular function is far more difficult.

Of course for those of us who know our type, and have at least some faith in the intertype relations, this could still provide for an interesting discussion...

***EDIT***

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
To be honest I don't really care about this I already know my own and others types all I care about is modeling my behavior with other people. I think the best way to type people is by creating statistics of ACTIONS taken by various types then asking them whether they have performed said actions and thus are a certain type. When you introduce "motivation" F types tend to say bullshit like "well under certain circumstances I do this and other under circumstances I do this..." but that is a bunch of crap you look at the objective behavior not the emotionality experienced during the behavior then you see the "type" of the person.
I do not think it is in any way limited to F types, both Tanzhe and MysticSonic have done their very best trying to objectively decide whether their type is INTJ or INTP, or maybe something totally different... Yet neither of them could reach any objective conclusion - and our opinions were equally divided.

The remark about observing behavior rather than thinking in terms of hypothetical scenarios rings very true. Observing that I seem to behave as if Te were my dual-seeking function rather than Se clearly helped me determine my type, but somehow this approach does not seem to work for other equally intelligent and dedicated people trying to figure out their type.

20. ## Explaining Everything

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
There is not enough data to make the kind of correlations you want me to make... do you want me to speak out of my ass?
As a matter of fact I do...What I mean that at this stage it would seem more sensible to try to describe more accurately in detail what you are up to. Now it seems to me that you are just reiterating the standard theory, but of course I could be missing the point - or are you just laying the groundwork for your new Grand Theory?

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
Give me more data and I will give you objective rules.
What kind of data would you like to have? Or just elaborate on your ideas and the discussion will take us there sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
In regard to the F comment, I think they were letting subjectivism bar their understanding and I think the mechanism for that subjectivity was emotion. Also, I was refering to some annoying F types that I've been conversing with recently so I had a specific group of people in mind but I generalized it unfairly, for that I apologize.
No need, but I would say that emotional overreacting is by no means limited to F types - with logical types the left hand does not always seem to be quite aware of what the right hand is up to...

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
I've been getting very poor and erratic sleep the last couple of days so forgive me if I seem more frazzled and discongruent than I normally am.
Try to get some sleep, I have been keeping some ungodly hours far too long. This socionics business easily takes up far too much of one's time.

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
can be a quadra value but is not your strength. We know you tend to doubt your judgements just as I trust my own. Ironically, that is in the model.
Or maybe I am subconsciously modelling my behavior after the model? I am far too aware of these theories to be a suitable test subject. Of course you do fit the model as well - at least we can confirm each other's types.

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
What is real? What is "you"? What is "external"? How do you know what you know?
You are raising some tough philosophical questions, but I suppose it is better to lay out our fundamental premises in advance.

What is real?
The meaning of the question is somewhat ambiguous and would lend itself to various interpretations, but since you did not give a more detailed account of your intentions, I shall take the liberty of approaching this issue following the example first set by MysticSonic and examine the building blocks of our existence:

In the quantum world view, the universe is a vast unified sea of possibility, with matter and energy as two facets of the same universal process. In this paradigm, we cannot know the future because nature is fundamentally uncertain. Not only that, but using the billiard analogy above, the billiard balls are frozen energy and they are acting out their dance in counterintuitive non-local ways because they are moving about in many more dimensions (including parallel universes) than just the three allocated in the Newtonian model. Time is just another dimension from the quantum perspective, and there is nothing at this atomic scale to stop particles traveling backwards in time (on a macroscopic level, time appears to move forward because of the laws of entropy).

At the very least, therefore, quantum reality maps present a very useful metaphor for the act of reality creation that many leading-edge thinkers now believe in. Nobody is saying that the mathematical equations that describe quantum theory are directly applicable to the fulfillment of our mind’s expectations (although it may be involved somewhere in the mind's processes). But philosophically, the implications of those equations do give meaning to our lives and can help us to reformulate our world view. The quantum reality map can help us realize four aspects of mysticism: the collapse of the wave function alludes to the creation of reality by mind; the non-local interconnection of quantumly linked particles hints at a basic oneness of all things; the multi-dimensions needed for quantum theory hint that there is much more than just this three dimensional world we experience; and the uncertainty principle helps us understand that nothing is definite.
http://www.energygrid.com/science/ap-quantummap.html

In other words the question of the nature of reality is utterly complex, and even the leading scientists have not reached any definitive answer to the question why the world is as it appears to be - as far as we know most laws and constants of nature appear to be set quite arbitrarily - and there is neither any compelling reason why the universe should exist in the first place. The world is full of mysteries and I am not capable of solving them all. What I can do is to keep in mind that my perception of reality is inevitably extremely limited and in many ways flawed - and therefore I constantly seek external confirmation...

What is "you"?
What am I? Why do I exist? What is the nature of my being? These are among the most fundamental and perplexing questions man has struggled with throughout the history. One could approach the issues from a number of perspectives but I would currently prefer to leave the philosophical and religious implications aside, as the development of these fields often appears to be rather stagnant, and further enquiry often only leads to greater exasperation in the face of the boundless plentitude of uncertainties and alternative interpretations. Thus I have increasingly been seeking answers to the more physical nature of my being, that is the basic nature of our experience of consciousness: the wealth of seemingly miscellaneous memories, skills, emotions and the ever-present stream of thoughts that somehow builds up to me as a living self-aware being. Unfortunately there does not yet seem to be a detailed and generally accepted physiological model capable of explaining how the physical structure of our brain and nervous system creates the rather metaphysical mind with its - probably largely illusionary - self-reflective free will. One of the more fascinating attempts at explaining the emergence of the experience of our consciousness that I have come across was this one by Paul Cooijmans, the founding member of the Giga Society, according to himself one of the six most intelligent human beings on the planet Earth - so he should know. (The italics are omitted to facilitate your reading.)

Model of Awareness
As explained in my article The Verification Coordinate, awareness is needed to verify existence; only what can be verified by awares exists. A resulting question is then: how can awareness itself be verified? How can we know and prove it exists, and measure it?

I will first explain what I mean by awareness: the being aware of the fact that one, or anything, exists. Aware-ness. The sensation of sensation itself; sens-ation. The experience of experience itself. And yes, awareness is the same as consciousness; I just prefer the word awareness because it is easier to spell.

Although we do not know exactly how awareness works, we intuitively and through past research know quite a lot of its conditions and properties. It requires an intelligent system of a certain minimal complexity to occur; a stone or plant is not aware, humans and some animals with sufficiently advanced brains are. Maybe computers will be, once. It requires many elements, like neurons, which are connected in a network and pass signals on to each other, and somehow in the space-time structure of those events (the signals) the phenomenon of sensation, awareness, occurs. How exactly this is possible is the greatest mystery. Also required, most likely, is input, like sensorial signals or stimuli from either outside or inside the being.

I like to think about it this way: the event of a neuron firing - passing a small amount of transmitter to other neurons - has a location in space (three coordinates) and a moment in time (a fourth "coordinate"). It is a four-dimensional event. All those events going on in the brain form a 4D space-time structure of events. In that structure, awareness may occur, being something outside the four dimensions; it could be seen as a kind of 5D phenomenon, as I try to explain in my article The Verification Coordinate. And awareness, by verifying 4D events outside itself, may turn 4D events into 5D "truths", as I have called them. A "truth" is an event that is perceived and verified by one or, rather, more awares (verification is needed because perception in itself may be hallucinatory and delusional). This distinction between events and truths solves many philosophical problems.

Let me say a little more on the way awareness occurs in the event-structure of the brain: run a finger nail over the corrugated surface of a kitchen unit. At low speeds, you hear the bumps separately, but at higher speeds you hear them as a pitch. The faster, the higher the pitch. This is the phenomenon sometimes called überordnung; at low frequencies you hear the separate waves of sound, and somewhere around 15 cycles a second this changes; you stop hearing them separately, and a new phenomenon, pitch, occurs, which contains the information of the lower level (frequency, amplitude, rhythm) but displays it in a "chunked" form, just like a graph displays numerical data without showing the actual numbers.

I imagine the emergence of awareness from the fast and structured firing of neurons in the brain is analogous to the emergence of pitch from sound waves. To avoid confusion, I'm not talking about the famous "brain waves", classified as "alpha", "delta" and so on (those are just rough patterns of activity). I mean the entire structure of individual firings of neurons in the brain; or at least in the cortex, the outer shell. In a primitive system, say a simple neural network in a computer program or the nervous system of a worm, there will be no occurrence of awareness, but when a brain reaches a certain level of complexity, efficiency and speed of processing, awareness emerges as a new higher-level phenomenon. It is worth giving this much thought, as it is the greatest riddle of all. Awareness is a higher-level chunked representation of an event-structure taking place in the brain. You do not notice the isolated neuron firings, just as you do not notice the isolated sound waves in a pitch.
http://paulcooijmans.lunarpages.com/p/essay/aware.html
(He has quite a many interesting ideas - so if you have time.)

What is "external"?
Indeed, the word has a multitude of different meanins, depending on the context. What I primarly had in mind was the following;
2. Outside of or separate from ourselves; (Metaph.) separate from the perceiving mind. [1913 Webster]

Or in the context of socionics, what I find problematic is that much of our discussion, and indeed the whole body of socionics, tends to operate largely within a self-contained framework, everything is viewed in the light of the theory but the external validity beyond the specific cases, and the practical applicability of the theories are poorly grounded in empirical observations:

VALIDITY:
VALIDITY of a belief can be a measure of how generalizable it is:

INTERNAL VALIDITY is increased is when the validity of an assertion is more-or-less limited to the sample (for example, an experiment in a specific context) and
EXTERNAL VALIDITY is increased when the validity of an assertion can be more-or-less generalized to other cases (for example, the belief is accurate and applicable to a question in a broad range of conditions) (more on validity)

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg....7?OpenDocument
(Another interesting site to explore, perhaps we should discuss the theoretical foundations of socionics more.)

How do you know what you know?
Although one could ponder this question from a deeper philosophical perspective, this is perhaps for our current needs an excessively complicated take on the nature of knowledge. I would prefer a more simplified evolutionary approach - as this article published by the Harvard University Social Cognition & Emotion Laboratory and originally linked by AbsurdLen put it:

6. Knowledge of Others

Other human beings are the most important and complex "objects" that we can know. What makes them so important is that they control virtually all the rewards toward which we strive. What makes them so complex is that (a) they are "willful," and thus their behavior is imperfectly predictable from knowledge of antecedent conditions, and (b) the attributes that enable us to predict them (even imperfectly) must be inferred, and that inferential process is naturally susceptible to error. Perhaps because of a developmental impairment in a set of specialized neural mechanisms, some people (autistics) seem unable to take the first step in this inferential process (identifying intentional actions), whereas the rest of us tend to have more problems with the second inferential step (inferring the causes of those actions).

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/psy1055.htm

Ultimately we roam the earth because our ancestors have survived for millions of years in an unforgiving and hostile environment, and this survival has only been possible because our ancestors have been able to read social cues and to understand what motivates others and how to manipulate them to their advantage. Therefore I am blessed with the powers to observe how other people act and react in different situations and can gradually see certain patterns emerging, Patterns that allow me to make predictions on how this person might be inclined to react in any given situation and gradually come to define the way I perceive others as individual personalities with whom I am bound in countless ways and enjoy relations of most diverse kind.

What at first appears as just random incidents and casual observations thus gradually emerge into working models of other people’s personalities. Models that I can compare to each other - and to the extent the theories of socionics correspond with reality – come to realize how different type descriptions and other models of socionics fit the people I know and love. We are shaped by evolution to understand others: and therefore I find it reasonable to presume that most of the things I observe, to the best of my abilities, have at least reasonable resemblance to reality. And when my observations about the behavior of other people counter my pet theories, I find it generally more reasonable to trust my immediate sensory observations and their common sense interpretations.

In fact we seem to largely agree on the primacy of empirical evidence, only that you believe to have enough of it - whereas I look around me and see a more mixed picture, perhaps then what we have is a difference of degree rather than kind that at this stage must be left unanswered. Only time will tell whether the logic of socionics is fundamental, meaning once the rules are established, they can be applied anywhere or whether the more appropriate metaphor could be the creative logic of INTPs circumstantial and unpredictable - the rules apply here but may not apply there.

Anything else you would like me to define for you? :wink:

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
There is no formal proof for anything I've already said that in other posts. All there is is weak proof or tautology. I refuse to assert so I must go on the assumption that the things I have observed correlate to each other in some way.

How can you say that because of your you need external confirmation that is ?

In conclusion, I have no idea what you are trying to say CS. What I think you are saying is, "Don't act as if the functions are true when we don't know that they are." My response is show me data that contradicts the way the current understanding is set up if it in fact does contradict the current understanding then I will work on revising or demolishing the functional descriptions. As of now however, I see no reason to doubt them because they explain more than random chance does..

THE VALIDITY OF BELIEFS is usually established on the basis of converging information -- one source is rarely sufficient: the principal means by which confidence is increased are
Anecdote (powerful, often compelling narrative examples of phenomena)
Statistics (reveals patterns and tests validity of apparent associations and deviations from chance)
Explanatory power (utility of an idea in helping in the integration and coherence of other ideas)

OBSERVATION
a. perception: what do you select to observe? What are the constraints on our observations? perception? understanding? Why are we anthropomorphic? where do expectations come from?
b. observational methods and data collection: validity and reliability: (accurate, specific, applicable to question being asked) and precise (consistent, appropriate resolution); accuracy of aids, technology, prostheses; appropriateness of sampling methods; Observer effects and interobserver reliability

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg....3?OpenDocument

Currently the evidence we have of the validity of socionics is mainly just individual anecdotes that seem to support the explanatory power of socionics - and considering the diffuse and intricate nature of the concept of "personality type" and unique nature of every human relation, this is already far more than most psychological theories can offer - after all otherwise I would hardly have spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to make sense of this fascinating pseudoscience.

The flip side of the coin is the process of observation. By writing about the types of people I have tried to highlight the various methods of observation and evaluation I try to employ when attempting to type people. Of course in practise we all tend to use many non-verbal methods and my theories may well appear excessively complicated, but I think we can only hope to improve our understanding of socionics if there is some general agreement on how to go about determining people's types - and what to do when there is a disagreement. I would very much like to be outargued by detailed well-constructed logical rules firmly backed up by empirical evidence. I am now well aware that I as a Narrator am more adjusted on dialogue in a mode of a monologue, but I would still like very much like to listen to other people's insights into observational methods and data collection and to explore Observer effects and interobserver reliability - or just read comments (especially critical) to my sometimes quite extremely (annoyingly?) long posts. :wink:

External confirmation could, for me, for example include a MBTI study of happiness in marital relations that discovers a totally unexpected trend that marriages where husband and wife share only the last letter (P or J) of the popular personality type acronym, happen to be unusually happy, and perhaps also unexpectedly common. At its current state socionics could be compared to - not so much the perennial favorite: Mendel's Periodic Table - but Freud's theory of Psychoanalysis: A beautiful theory - shame about the facts:

In reality it was Freud himself who triumphantly claimed the title of ‘scientist’ and who wrote that psychoanalysis ‘has put us in a position to establish psychology on foundations similar to those of any other science, such, for instance, as physics’ (SE26, p. 193-7). Freud’s belief that he was creating a genuine science remains crucial to any understanding of how psychoanalysis developed. For, as I have tried to show in the main body of this book, it was his relentless and reductive scientism which, harnessed to his need for fame, led him deeper and deeper into a labyrinth of error.

It is certainly true that Freud pointed to the poets as precursors of psychoanalysis. But the whole point of this claim was to suggest that psychoanalysis had succeeded in putting ‘poetic’ insights into human nature on an entirely different footing so that a set of mere intuitions had now been incorporated into a ‘hard’ scientific theory. If Freud had indeed succeeded in preserving these insights, the cultural status of psychoanalysis might be well-deserved in spite of its scientific waywardness. But one of the most damaging of all the effects which psychoanalysis has had upon our culture is to be found in the way in which Freud’s pre-eminence has helped to weaken or neutralise many of these genuine insights under the pretext of strengthening them.

http://www.richardwebster.net/redisc...conscious.html
(A good analysis of a warning example of what we should not do.)

After all this you may still wonder "what you are trying to say CS?" I may not have any particular groundbreaking insight to offer - after all according to socionics my special abilities are: the skill to see the absence of essence, to evaluate the lack of promise of potential possibilities, ideas and undertakings. Search and the vision of alternatives. - but there is a lot to be said for looking at potential alternatives and carefully analyzing even the absence of essence - and perhaps I am a bit (?) long-winded at times, but be careful what you wish for. For if socionics truely was the universal panacea to matters of heart that it is sometimes sold as, socionics would have been a staple topic on the pages of Cosmopolitan shortly after its inception. People do not resist socionics because -

Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
It would get rid of most of the resistance that says "you can't fit people into categories" etc etc. We would move the categories from the "person" to the function which would depersonalize it enough to allow people to accept it for one thing
- but as guest/chosen/Monica put it:

Originally Posted by guest/chosen/Monica
My theory is based of observing/ listening to what each type and subtype wants in a mate. And my theory works. People leave socionics because it tells them they should want something that they don't want. Just like your career interest, you KNOW what you want and what you don't want.

So by all means, I warmly welcome all theories and observations, just try to remember that even socionics is just one theory among many others. Maybe it works for some but not for others. Let all flowers bloom.

Finally on a more personal note, reading my old posts I have become aware that I may well sound like I have an axe to grind - and who knows maybe I am venting out my subconscious frustrations on you - but I think arguing for the sake of arguing is - granted with few exceptions - waste of everybody's time. Or as the Talmudic scholars once put it:

Every question deserves an answer, even though the reply to a foolish
question may be on the same level.

Also unique to Talmudic thought is the underlying principle of many of
the debated - the constant attempt to adapt methods and opinions to
one another. In every case the tendency is to avoid controversy, to
reduce to the minimum differences between methods and points of view.
The sages will do everything possible to locate the common
denominator.

From The Essential Talmud by Adin Steinsaltz p.232
(I am not Jewish, but I think there is a lot to be said for this style of debating)

21. Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
I will respond to this CS just give me time I am going to be very busy for the next couple of days. Also, those existentialist questions were meant to be more rhetorical.
Yes, but I did not let that stop me.
Anyway, they are important questions.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•