There's a rather interesting thread buried in the archives

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...er=asc&start=0

that is unfortunately also filled with fighting and personal attacks not worthy to be dug up. I thought I'd repost a collection of Kamensky's ideas without the bad things.

disclaimer: It seems Lev posted numerous times under "guest" so I can't be 100% that all of these comments are his.
disclaimer2: At some points herr Kamensky was explaining the thoughts of other socionists and even one's who he disagrees with.

Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
1. Each individual is a combination of all sixteen psychological types (archetypes) in different percentages. If you are 50% INTj and 50% INTp for instance, what it means is that you will act as INTj in 50% of the situations and an INTp in 50 % of the situations.

2. Pedro asks: If you are 50% INTJ and 50% INTP then your dual would be 50% ESFJ and 50% ESFP. What if in all the situations in which you act as INTJ the dual acts as ESFP and when you act as INTP they act as ESFJ?

3. Than strictly speaking they are NOT your “Dual”, but your “Conflictor”. Although he may have the same GENERAL appearance as your dual.

4. If you are a fairly even mixture of different types, your Dual will not simply be someone who ha a complimentary type to yours, but someone who acts in a way complimentary to how you act in every situation.
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
there is no scientific evidence that type is fixed, and that a person has only one inborn type. that is pure theosophy.
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
1. Most of them are in Russian. Both of Talanov's tests were translated to English. Ask Dmitri Lytov about them.

2.a. I think there are several factors in Type. I think Rationalit/Irrationality and Thinking/Feeling preferences are inborn. They form the "Physical" Type that Jung mentioned:

“One man, who was 36 years old, came to me with a neurosis of the heart. He was a strong extravert, while his wife was overly, pathologically introverted. They got divorced. Than he married an extremely extraverted woman, and his cardio-neurosis vanished. He suddenly turned into a typical feeling introvert—which in fact was his real type. This man was a successful self-made entrepreneur, who made his way up from the very bottom. His natural introversion was suppressed by his unceasing struggle for success, and his iron will. This led to a marriage with an introverted woman, for which he paid with a cardio-neurosis”.

I think a person's temperament may change gradually throughout his lifetime, usually to the dual temperament.

Than what remains is pretty much flexible. Of course minor variations in all these preferences are constant. There are elements in type that are like the skeletal system and there are others that can be stretched, grown, or cut like muscles.
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
Quoting from “Introducing Psychology: “Although we often use the word “prove” in everyday life, strictly speaking NOTHING CAN BE PROVED. This is simply because NO amount of evidence is sufficient – there is always a possibility of new, conflicting evidence.

A cartoon follows: Once there was a Theory that all swans were white…But then Black Swans were discovered…No-one yet found a Spotted Swan…

So, just collecting lots of data to SUPPORT a Theory is of limited use: a good Scientist looks for evidence to DISPROVE a Theory.

Science is a bit like Law: even in court, it’s not possible to PROVE someone is guilty – only that they are, “beyond reasonable doubt”. There have been many convictions where later evidence has led to a reversal!

In “Science”, we can also never be certain that a Theory is “correct” or “true” – we therefore prefer to think of a Theory as being USEFUL, until a better one comes along. Newton’s Theory of Gravity (attraction of objects) was replaced by Einstein’s Theory of Gravity (distortions in space).”

I prefer to think of Jung’s methodology or Socionics as useful (living symbols), rather than absolute truth:

“An expression, which stands for a known thing, is a sign, and never a symbol. A symbol is alive only so long as it is “pregnant” with meaning. Once the meaning has been born out of it - the expression is found which formulates the thing sought, expected, or divined even better then the symbol - it becomes a conventional sign for associations that are more completely or better known elsewhere. (Or it retains only a historical significance)

Any psychic product, if it is the best possible expression at the moment for a fact as yet unknown or only relatively known, may be regarded as a symbol, provided that we accept it as the expression for something that is only divined, and not yet clearly conscious.

Since every scientific theory contains a hypothesis, and is therefore an anticipatory description of something still essentially unknown, it is a symbol.”
“A symbol really lives only when it is the best and highest expression of something divined but not yet known to the observer. It then compels his unconscious participation and has a life-giving and life-enhancing effect.” ((Jung))

So what I am saying is let's not get fanatical about theories. They may not make sense -- but symbols never do:

"Such products are so constituted that they would lack any kind of meaning were not a symbolic one conceded to them.

Taken as a bare fact, a triangle with an eye enclosed in it is so meaningless that it is impossible for the observer to regard it as a mere accidental piece of foolery. Such a figure immediately conjures up a symbolic interpretation." ((Jung))
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
Socionists had better type descriptions. (Ti)
MBTI was more effective at type diagnosis. (Te)
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
(quoting forum member trey):"what i'm taking out of this is that there is a skeletal, persistant psychological type.. and there are learned types, being manifestations of how a person believes he should think and act in a situation"

that seems logical. not a whole four letter type may be skeletal but some of the preferences.
OK, but the learned types effect type relations just as the skeletal one does.
since what is ultimately relevant to relationships is how a person acts.
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
Actually J/P (Rationality/Irrationality) is a much more significant dichotomy than Introversion-Extraversion.

Introversion-Extraversion is related to temperament.

Rationality-Irrationality is related to the physical type, i.e. brain centers.

You can change your version, but not your ality.

Even your dual type has the same ality (life rhythm) as you.
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
And the second biggest devision according to the results of Talanov's research group is between Feeling and Thinking. Even Intuition and Sensation are either Feeling (Humanitarian) Intuition or Thinking (Scientific) Intuition; and Feeling (Social-Hedonistic) Sensation or Thinking (Technological-Pragmatic) Sensation.

That's the reason for function distances:
Humanitarian Intuition is N -, Scientific is N +
Hedonistic Sensation is S +, Pragmatic is S -

Being a Feeler, I tend to start with the most complex solution possible (unlike the thinker who starts with the simplest possible solution to the problem, and progress to the more complex only if necessary). I am not only looking to solve the problem itself, but to necessarily find an elegant solution.

Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
These two dichtonomies have a MAJOR impact on a person's life. They define his life rhythm.

The next biggest thing is probably Staticism-Dynamicism. What it is basically is how sensetive or thick skinned you are. Static types seek arousal because they are underaroused. They are also more calm under pressure than dynamic types. Dynamic types are more sensitive to nuances, Static types tend to not "get stuck on trivia" (subtypes dilema).

The next in the ladder of importance is probably Sensation-Intuition.

The last is probably Introversion/Extraversion. It flactuates constantly. Depressed people are more introverted. Introversion can be described as passivity, and Extraversion as aggression. The same person may be passive in certain situations and aggressive in others. Both of these processes coexist.
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
So I speculate Extraversion-Introversion is the most superfecial dichtonomy and Rationality-Irrationality -- the most skeletal.

Not to be confused with observability. Introversion - Extraversion is much more observable than Rat-Irrat
Quote Originally Posted by Lev Kamensky
+ -
Engaged Aloof
Applied Theoretical
Situational Universal

any one of these words might apply:

+ : engaged, applied, practical, warm, interpersonal, micro
- : aloof, theoretical, universal, cool, societal, macro

the distance depends on the function in with which it works


irrational functions
Ni
Te gives + sign to Ni, and conversely Ni gives - to Te
Fe gives - to Ni, and conversely Ni gives + to Fe

Si
Fe gives + to Si, and conversely Si gives - to Fe
Te gives - to Si, and conversely Si gives + to Te

Ne
Ti gives + to Ne, Ne gives - to Ti
Fi gives - to Ne, and Ne gives + to Fi

Se
Ti gives - to Se, and Se gives + to Ti
Fi gives + to Se, and Se give - to Fi

rational functions
see above
Hmm, yeah, that about it.
Some of this stuff I still find very interesting.