A Metaphor for Fe

[mu4]

Wouldn't a similar mimicry be occuring each time someone references the supposed Ashton's groups or Ashton's followers? or what model x was, or what this supposed group believes?

I think the key is the interaction of observers, because mimicry requires an interaction.

Since this is a forum and many of the users have interaction, it can be very possible that a mimicry is occurring, and that it is just a stubbornly persistent perception.

However, it is also possible that it is not a stubbornly persistent perception but a convergence of independent minds forming the same analysis.

It can also be a bit of both, where a few members are independent and form this analysis, and others are merely following the originators analysis.

Followers happen...

Ann, if you want to start a new thread on Group behavior in other areas of knowledge. I'm always very interested in this sort of stuff too.

[xerx]

What wrong with saying that someone is influenced by Ashton, or Yermak, or Expat, or labocat, or Gulenko, or Ephemeros, or Smilex? And why do people jump to the conclusion that that person is being demonized by association? Let's forget the bad blood from five years ago and just agree that people have different interpretations of socionics (not necessarily a bad thing for a theory with questionable scientific credentials). But classification on its own ain't evil - it's just a tool to put things (particularly typing impasses) into perspective.

[Galen]

hey so what's the deal with abstracted IEs amirite xDDDDD

[EyeSeeCold]

So long as it isn't used as a rhetorical device to discredit others, "oh, don't listen them, they're influenced by the Expatian-Rickionics cabal, therefore their opinion is obviously dubious." Which is effectively what happens every time this issue arises.

:

As far as groupthink goes, how many people are actually purported to associate with Ashton as part of a clique and have had their opinions dismissed?

Who are the people that are hesitant to speak up?

[xerx]

Because in many instances it isn't clear there was influence.

That's not as important as looking for actual similarities. For example, Marie and Krig (last I checked) obviously arrived at many of the same socionics conclusions without directly influencing each other.

While self-disclosure of bias is good—i.e., the person stating what their assumptions are, the sources they've learned from, etc.—it isn't appropriate for others to come in and make those allegations for them (see Poisoning the well).

Only if the person making the allegation is overzealous or doesn't fully understand the material he's reading. And "poisoning the well" only applies if the intention is to ridicule, which isn't necessarily the case.

[Trevor]

one thorough look at this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...SenhseXc#gid=0 makes it clear that Marie84, Krig the Viking, thehotelambush, Subterranean and Aestrivex are pretty much brothers in typings while not being brothers and sisters with other typers who participated, for example. let's stop this charade and split the socionics schools once and for all

[xerx]

The same could likewise be occurring in other instances where an ostensible convergence of opinion is observed. People independently arriving at similar conclusions, without directly influencing one another.

Alleging that one has been 'influenced' by another (when this cannot be ascertained as true), would be a form of discrediting and ridicule.

"Influence" maybe a poor choice of words, and I apologize for using it. I frankly couldn't care less where someone draws his spark from. All I care about is understanding the types of assumptions that people make about socionics, in part to help me question my own assumptions about the theory.

[Trevor]

If this is going to be done, then I think each 'school' ought to be loosely formalized. i.e, it should be explained (by persons of the 'school') what the core typological/philosophical assumptions of that school are. Each should address fundamental questions such as 'what are IEs?', 'what is a sociotype?', and so forth.

it is my impression that, at this point in time, the Marie84ians are the most capable of doing that...asldjasdljdka

[anndelise]

I think the names of each 'school' ought to be depersonalized as well. No 'Expatian', 'Niffweedian', 'Trevorian', or anything like that.

.

No anndelisionics?

[mu4]

Let's take it to another thread.

[Krig the Viking]

The second part of Krig's post is a clear sign to me that he's trying to open dialog between he and Galen as to what each consider part of defining IEs. Notice he's talking about trying to distinguish the two theories, and if the aspects aren't the difference, then maybe they could work together to figure out what is the difference.

Exactly, thank you. It's nice to be understood occasionally!

[the history of the aspects]

Neat, I wasn't aware of the history there. I always wondered where "aspectonics" came from; it has been extremely helpful in clearing up my understanding of the I.E.s and how they work.

FFS, Krig, are you ignorant or doing it on purpose? I wasn't around for model X but it has been explained a thousand times since Ashton, ann and some others came back that 1) model X is history (I don't know of anyone using it), 2) "aspectonics, stupid!". In fact discussion about the latter was revitalized about that time, the issue having been largely ignored by t16t community earlier, if I recall correctly.

I looked at Ashton's typings and theories a few years ago, found that they did not correlate with my own observations on how socionics works, and have had little interest in keeping up with developments since. I heard somewhere a while ago that Ashton and others weren't calling it "Model X" anymore, but I didn't know if there had been changes to the theory itself, or whether the name had perhaps come back into favour, etc. I'm honestly trying to learn more about this school of thought to better understand the differences between it and the school of thought to which I adhere.

let's stop this charade and split the socionics schools once and for all

If this is going to be done, then I think each 'school' ought to be loosely formalized. That is, it should be explained (by persons of that 'school') what their core typological/philosophical assumptions are—addressing fundamental questions such as "What are IEs?", "What is a sociotype?", and so forth.

I think it'd be an interesting exercise and clarify a great deal for all persons involved here.

Agreed.

I think the names of each 'school' ought to be depersonalized as well. No 'Expatian', 'Niffweedian', 'Trevorian', or anything like that.

My thoughts exactly.

Let's take it to another thread.

Sounds good. For anyone else reading this, the "another thread" is here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=37228