Bumping Kamensky

[Smilingeyes]

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.

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.

there is no scientific evidence that type is fixed, and that a person has only one inborn type. that is pure theosophy.

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.

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))

Socionists had better type descriptions. (Ti)
MBTI was more effective at type diagnosis. (Te)

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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

+ -
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.

[Raver]

I like this guy, what he's saying is pretty true. Especially this quote:

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.

That is very true. I think when we take a test or figure out our personalities we should seriously take this in to account.

[Cone]

I like this guy, what he's saying is pretty true. Especially this quote:

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.

That is very true. I think when we take a test or figure out our personalities we should seriously take this in to account.

Actually, that is a completely meaningless theory. It is impossible to know WHEN exactly one will act as a certain type, thus predictive power is zero.

[Raver]

I like this guy, what he's saying is pretty true. Especially this quote:

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.

That is very true. I think when we take a test or figure out our personalities we should seriously take this in to account.

Actually, that is a completely meaningless theory. It is impossible to know WHEN exactly one will act as a certain type, thus predictive power is zero.

I think it is more random than anything when our personality changes to another type. I find it hard to believe that our personality uses the same two functions consistently in the same order.

[Cone]

But then why even have a typology? They are reduced to mere labels.

[Raver]

But then why even have a typology? They are reduced to mere labels.

That is true, though our personalities are more complex and diverse, instead of calling yourself an INTp and me calling myself an ENFP. It would best to call myself 54% ENFP and you call yourself 61% INTP, etc...

[Smilingeyes]

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.

Actually, that is a completely meaningless theory. It is impossible to know WHEN exactly one will act as a certain type, thus predictive power is zero.

I think it's just a generalized comment on the impossibility of proving and lack of necessity for the idea that type is always the same.

At other points he is suggesting that some characteristics of type change easier than others. He suggests an order of J/P>T/F>S/N>I/E. (though I disagree with the order)

Also he suggests that in most cases people have a dominant type, one which they are the most usually. This would typically be the type that creates the external signs and life choices according to which it is possible to use type-finding techniques to find the person's socionic type in a standard manner.

It's easy to find references to a person sometimes acting different from his type, simulating another type. This is the standard socionic interpretation: "acts like but isn't". I find this claim to smell slightly bad. If type isn't how a person acts, what is it?

[Smilingeyes]

Brought in from another thread....

"Why do you think so?"

Because then inter-type relations are left as a rather impractical bumper to the theory rather than leave it as some sort of predictive tool.

It also undermines the concept that the situation can bring about different effects depending upon a person's functional order, for if the functional order itself is dependant upon the situation, then there could be no correlation---no simply one, anyway.

There are 16 types, which would evenly divided give an amount of 6,75% of your time to be in a single type. But this idea seems silly. It seems probable that most people have a dominant type that they spend at least 50% of their time in, leaving 3,33% of their time per each other cathegory, though most probably even the rest of their time is spent in a type that is close to the original one, maybe more something like this ISFp 55%, ISTp 30%, INFp 11%, others 4%.

Now would there remain significant predictive value? Yes, there would. Do we find that our type descriptions are 100% predictive? No, we don't.

Considering the other point you raise... Something has to create the functions themselves. Type creates personal experience but in some way at some point of life "the situation" decides the type. Humans are biological constructs, constantly in flux, it's very difficult to find any trait that isn't mutable to an extent. If type did not change at all, ever, it would be a most exceptional thing.

Of course, a suggestion that there might be a slow slide from one state to another during a person's lifetime is a far cry from Kamensky's suggestion that a person might be first and ISTp for 5 minutes and then an ISTj for the next 5, but even he himself admits that's an exagerration.

If a dominant type is the norm, which it seems to be according to most evidence, there's little need to know for certain the factors that might make a given person change his type. Socionics that speculates a constant type is reasonably good predictor of relations in the long term if this is true.

Is there any reason to speculate on subtypes if socionics works without them?
Well... that depends... Is there ever a reason to strive to make a useful tool even more useful?

[Cone]

Yes. Growing necessity.

[Raver]

Brought in from another thread....

"Why do you think so?"

Because then inter-type relations are left as a rather impractical bumper to the theory rather than leave it as some sort of predictive tool.

It also undermines the concept that the situation can bring about different effects depending upon a person's functional order, for if the functional order itself is dependant upon the situation, then there could be no correlation---no simply one, anyway.

There are 16 types, which would evenly divided give an amount of 6,75% of your time to be in a single type. But this idea seems silly. It seems probable that most people have a dominant type that they spend at least 50% of their time in, leaving 3,33% of their time per each other cathegory, though most probably even the rest of their time is spent in a type that is close to the original one, maybe more something like this ISFp 55%, ISTp 30%, INFp 11%, others 4%.

Now would there remain significant predictive value? Yes, there would. Do we find that our type descriptions are 100% predictive? No, we don't.

Considering the other point you raise... Something has to create the functions themselves. Type creates personal experience but in some way at some point of life "the situation" decides the type. Humans are biological constructs, constantly in flux, it's very difficult to find any trait that isn't mutable to an extent. If type did not change at all, ever, it would be a most exceptional thing.

Of course, a suggestion that there might be a slow slide from one state to another during a person's lifetime is a far cry from Kamensky's suggestion that a person might be first and ISTp for 5 minutes and then an ISTj for the next 5, but even he himself admits that's an exagerration.

If a dominant type is the norm, which it seems to be according to most evidence, there's little need to know for certain the factors that might make a given person change his type. Socionics that speculates a constant type is reasonably good predictor of relations in the long term if this is true.

Is there any reason to speculate on subtypes if socionics works without them?
Well... that depends... Is there ever a reason to strive to make a useful tool even more useful?

Awesome explanation.

This means that everyone has their base type and the other types are basically sub-types that are used either randomly or in the situation.

So my main type is 52% ENFP and then my other types the rest of the time are SFs and NTs.

[implied]

[Gilly]

I find it funny that people take this seriously in spite of the fact that they readily dismissed TC's crosstype theory when they are essentially saying something very similar.

[Raver]

I find it funny that people take this seriously in spite of the fact that they readily dismissed TC's crosstype theory when they are essentially saying something very similar.

That is true, TC's theory does correlate with this actually. I actually take both as seriously as I take socionics and MBTI. They are all theories after all, so why would I discredit one if it doesn't coincide with a popular theory? Cross-types are basically those that are balanced between two types or many types. Like an ExTp is:

33% ENTP and 32% ESTP, 8%INTP, etc......

[Gilly]

I think I'm most likely something like 35% ENTp, 20% ENFj, 15% ENFp, 5% INFp, 5% INTj, ~1% others

[Smilingeyes]

I find it funny that people take this seriously in spite of the fact that they readily dismissed TC's crosstype theory when they are essentially saying something very similar.

Please, now. There is no connection to the crosstypes-theory and it takes a huge misunderstanding to find any similarities. I'm not going to comment the crosstypes theory in any other words, it's just not worth it.

[Raver]

I think I'm most likely something like 35% ENTp, 20% ENFj, 15% ENFp, 5% INFp, 5% INTj, ~1% others

You said that when your on meds your an ENFJ, so that means that medication or stress can change someone's personality type to their secondary type for extended periods of time.

I think mine is like: 40% ENFP, 15% ISFP, 15% ENTP, 10% INFP,
10% INFJ, 5% ESFP, 5%-others.

I think that an ENFP is more likely to switch to an INFJ for the fact that they just have to switch their dominant functions. Mirror switching is the easiest to occur, of course you can get an ENTP switching to an ISFJ, though that is probably in times of stress and vice versa.

[Jimbean]

This is very interesting stuff! But it only looks like speculation. Let me give this some thought though.

[Rick]

Much of this speculation comes from misconceptions about socionics or not being rigorous about the underlying socionics concepts. What is type? How one acts in various situations? If this is the case, then obviously we all have lots of types, since our behavior is very flexible. 'Type' then becomes a description of situational behavior -- basically, an adjective:

"You're being very pushy right now" = "Your SLE type seems to be turned on" (or something like that)

We can say this if we want, but this has nothing to do with socionics' understanding of types (nor Jung's understanding). Socionics describes 8 functions of the psyche. Behavior fluctuates widely depending on which function is activated in any given moment and whether the function is receiving positive or negative signals. With this understanding alone the need to describe people in terms of many different types completely disappears.

[discourse]

All I can say is that you can start acting like some other type. From that the question arises: is it or not healthy the way you act. If you become a lot like another type, the psychopathological illnesses arises. A chanche of having a neurosis is possible. I have seen it by myself and that is why I accept the Jungs idea of the same.The neurosis is an ilness of useing the function the way they are not ment. In such cases one can not decide which type it is. In tests as one thing may arise, is the problem of j/p. ''Am I rational or irrationl?'' Such people act wierdly and one can say they are insane the way they behave. And right they might be, because with the mental problems, the way the type acts, is not normal to the standard types. So the model A is not functioning correctly. Healing a person back to mentally normal, also needs to make it to behave like it is standard for it's type. Of that I am sure!

So one can see that the way we are in model A can change. N can become into S type. And it is not sadisfied.

The reason for that is that the other functions may arise more strongly into the types conciousness, but using them as the leading functions of it, will start causing problems.

Why? Because for example if you are a dominant and becomes more strong, then using it as your leading function is impossible. is meant to be your Role function and using it like ENp uses it's is like using your feet instead of your hands. One can see the dangers of that.

But it is also possible to use your other functions like you were an other type.

For this you should not try to change your type! I already explained how this leads to mental problems. You should adobt the sides of other types into your behaviour. Also to learn to use them when needed, with the knowledge that they are your wheak ones. ENTp can use it's Ni, but for not to solve all sort of problems. It hasn't become into Ni dominant, it has learned to use it's 7th function more perfectly. And became into looking little bit like INp. When this is happening and you are typing someone, without knowing that he or she is useing it's weak functions, you will type that person wrongly. This is one of the reasons why the types here are changing.

Learning to use your other functions besides the ones that are in your EGO block, is something we should to. It is good for our self development. For becoming into more harmonious people. And this also teaches us to understand other types more perfectly.

The functions we are using is also related to the people who are near by us. If you are ENTp and near by the ISFp, your becomes stronger and you start to use it better. It sadisfies you because it is your dual seeking function. Being ENTp around ISFj causes you to use your more strongly and this irritates you because you are using your PoLR.

These are some of my thoughts on investigating the types under different situations.

[Smilingeyes]

Much of this speculation comes from misconceptions about socionics or not being rigorous about the underlying socionics concepts. What is type? How one acts in various situations? If this is the case, then obviously we all have lots of types, since our behavior is very flexible. 'Type' then becomes a description of situational behavior -- basically, an adjective:

"You're being very pushy right now" = "Your SLE type seems to be turned on" (or something like that)

We can say this if we want, but this has nothing to do with socionics' understanding of types (nor Jung's understanding). Socionics describes 8 functions of the psyche.

Interesting. I tried to find anything similar to this post from you from the archives but I couldn't. I've seen how controversial mr Kamensky is, but is there a specific reason his words got such a rise out of you? If there has been a long debate of Mr Kamensky's opinions in the russian socionist community I'm afraid I'm unaware of the particulars and details would be helpful.

Also ... usually you tend to accept that socionics is ultimately a hypothesis. If someone makes a claim that does not follow a hypothesis it's inaccurate to call it a misconception. It's another hypothesis, a counter-hypothesis if you will.

Also, if socionic type is not correlated to a person's actions, how do you perceive it? What is it's essence?

Basically I have found no difference between saying a person has a type x but that only predicts 60% of his actions and with saying that a person acts like type x 60% of time yet there seems to be a firm conviction on the part of many people that this is unacceptable.

I think this correlates to having an intuitive idea about what is type. The word is associated with certain qualities yet it lacks a clear, concise meaning. It's not well-defined.

Of course, it is common to side-step the issue by making a claim that a type is defined by functions but socionics also lacks a clear definition of the functions. A definition is commonly substituted by a list of traits, but that lacks the quality of a definition.

You make a claim that:

"Behavior fluctuates widely depending on which function is activated in any given moment and whether the function is receiving positive or negative signals. With this understanding alone the need to describe people in terms of many different types completely disappears.

Yet you concede on this forum at many points the limits of socionics theory in what it can do. How then can you stand by the claim that there is no need for other characterizations of the psyche?

[Creepy-]

For example, just because I have a relatively strong for an ESTp, doesn't mean that I'm an ExTp, or 60% ESTp and 40% ENTp or any of that crap. I still use as my role function regardless, and even if it is somewhat strong, doesn't make me ENTp in any way.

Ah, sanity...

I agree. Sometimes the functions guiding my thought processes aren't or but that doesn't mean I'm acting like any other type. When rears it's ugly head I do not become an SEI all of a sudden. I become an insecure, obsessive IEI.

[Rick]

Interesting. I tried to find anything similar to this post from you from the archives but I couldn't. I've seen how controversial mr Kamensky is, but is there a specific reason his words got such a rise out of you? If there has been a long debate of Mr Kamensky's opinions in the russian socionist community I'm afraid I'm unaware of the particulars and details would be helpful.

To tell the truth, I don't know who Mr. Kamensky is -- I just assumed he was a forum member who was active in the past. I have come across an attempt or two to treat people as 'conglomerations' of types in Russian socionic literature, but they seemed simply speculative in nature and were based on playing with blocks and functions in some way

Also ... usually you tend to accept that socionics is ultimately a hypothesis. If someone makes a claim that does not follow a hypothesis it's inaccurate to call it a misconception. It's another hypothesis, a counter-hypothesis if you will.

I agree that socionics is a theory -- a hypothesis, if you will. But I see that this hypothesis contradicts too much of socionics theory to fit together well with it. I am calling a misconception the notion that something like this can somehow logically fit together with socionics. I'm just raising my hand in support of the regular socionics theory, because I think it provides a more satisfying and deeper explanation of things.

Also, if socionic type is not correlated to a person's actions, how do you perceive it? What is it's essence?

I think there are correlations, but they become very elusive as soon as you try to quantify the behavior you want to correlate with type.

Sticking to fundamental socionics ideas, socionic type is first and foremost about processing information and about the relative strength and role of various information "channels" in the psyche. For example, everyone "avoids" new information of certain kinds, preferring to use only tried and tested formulas. In other areas they freely gobble up everything and immediately react to and process signals of a certain kind. And so on. Socionic type describes these patterns.

These patterns seem to be more consistent than the actual behavior of an individual. That's why I see information processing as more fundamental than behavior. The downside is that information processing requires training, experience, and receptivity to see (feel) because it involves completely new categories of reality that are hard to understand at first. Behavior, on the other hand, is more readily visible and easier to discuss.

Basically I have found no difference between saying a person has a type x but that only predicts 60% of his actions and with saying that a person acts like type x 60% of time yet there seems to be a firm conviction on the part of many people that this is unacceptable.

I don't agree with either of these statements. But I would probably agree with something like "Person X currently operates in a type Y ego-block state 60% of the time."

Of course, it is common to side-step the issue by making a claim that a type is defined by functions but socionics also lacks a clear definition of the functions. A definition is commonly substituted by a list of traits, but that lacks the quality of a definition.

I agree. Words are inadequate in this area. You can feel and observe and intuitively understand much more than you are able to express verbally in a way other people would understand.

You make a claim that:

"Behavior fluctuates widely depending on which function is activated in any given moment and whether the function is receiving positive or negative signals. With this understanding alone the need to describe people in terms of many different types completely disappears.

Yet you concede on this forum at many points the limits of socionics theory in what it can do. How then can you stand by the claim that there is no need for other characterizations of the psyche?

There is a need for other characterizations. But I prefer to use non-socionic terms to explain a lot of specific behavior and also many important personal traits that are specific to the individual. I have an article on exactly this topic at http://www.socionics.us/intro/limitations.shtml

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, by the way

[Smilingeyes]

I have come across an attempt or two to treat people as 'conglomerations' of types in Russian socionic literature, but they seemed simply speculative in nature and were based on playing with blocks and functions in some way

Hmm, yeah I've seen some of those. They make me want to hit something with a sledge hammer. Kamensky claims to be an INFp first and an ENTj second which might perhaps be his way of understanding a true type of ENFj or whatever. I don't know. But I'm pretty certain the man has no Ti in his cognitive functions.

I haven't seen what kind of a system the man has created though I remember him telling about a functional test he had created which gave results in terms of 14% type x 19% type y 3% type z and so on.

But I see that this hypothesis contradicts too much of socionics theory to fit together well with it.

Just to make sure, do you see any other conflicts than the one about constancy of type?

I'm just raising my hand in support of the regular socionics theory, because I think it provides a more satisfying and deeper explanation of things.

I understand and agree with your decision to speak up. For the record I think standard socionics works fine and is useful as it is. Nevertheless I'm curious about the things that socionics does not explain but are nevertheless related to the theory.

I think there are correlations (to actions), but they become very elusive as soon as you try to quantify the behavior you want to correlate with type.

Sticking to fundamental socionics ideas, socionic type is first and foremost about processing information and about the relative strength and role of various information "channels" in the psyche. For example, everyone "avoids" new information of certain kinds, preferring to use only tried and tested formulas. In other areas they freely gobble up everything and immediately react to and process signals of a certain kind. And so on. Socionic type describes these patterns.

I agree that there are difficulties, but I find these difficulties to be on a similar level to those one has when one is trying to define type, personality, informational space or informational channel.

These patterns seem to be more consistent than the actual behavior of an individual.

I agree due to personal experience.

That's why I see information processing as more fundamental than behavior. The downside is that information processing requires training, experience, and receptivity to see (feel) because it involves completely new categories of reality that are hard to understand at first. Behavior, on the other hand, is more readily visible and easier to discuss.

Again, agreed.

Basically ... unacceptable.

I don't agree with either of these statements. But I would probably agree with something like "Person X currently operates in a type Y ego-block state 60% of the time."

Hmm, when you call something a type Y ego-block state are you referring to what functions are at that moment in the ego block or the state of those functions that are in the ego block? If the first, this would seem to be again another way to say call a temporary type. If the second, it's something new to me. I haven't found any texts discussing possible different states of ie. a first function Ti.

There ... I have an article on exactly this topic at ...

Read the article. Very nice of you to make it available to the community.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, by the way

It's always a pleasure to discuss with thoughtful people and I find it wonderful of you to make yourself available to such discussion on a forum meant mostly for laymen. I often find it tedious to explain things to people who find it in themselves to challenge a status quo and I appreciate the time your taking in this thread.

I'd like to stop side-stepping the actual problem I see with the concept of type as it stands.

I'm a medical doctor and I've done some research with MRI, EEG, MEG. I've worked with psychologists, cognitive scientists and computer programmers. I've helped my ex-wife with her work at social sciences and created plays based on personality and role theory. So I see a sort of different side of socionics...

Now what bugs me is that there does not seem to exist a neurophysiological mechanism that would simultaneously have the properties of 1. Does not change 2. Has draftic effects on all actions of a person 3. Can have multiple modalities.

If we agree that thoughts are creations of electrochemical activity in the brain and that personality means consistent pattern thereof we are faced with a limited amount of levels on which the decision of pattern can be created.

1. Major neurostructural connections between different parts of the brain. (tend to be standard in all healthy humans, no modal normal variation)

2. Minor neurostructural connections (tend to change due to new cells forming, creation of more axonal dendrites)

3. Local cellular density (changes due to age and cellular damage)

4. Diffuse chemical factors (change due to diet circadian rhytms etc.)

5. Local chemical factors (as above)

6. Vascular factors (tend to follow, not create brain activity, also are liable to change too much)

7. Electrical activity of particular neurons (even more liable to change)

Now biology just doesn't lend itself to absolute resistance to change. Reading here: http://www.socionics.us/works/jungs_typology.shtml
I find that you at least quote material that agrees that a situation in which two or more functions are of equal strength can exist, even if said situation might not be a beneficial one.

In the quote about changing of type on the same page there is no claim that type does not change, there is just a claim that certain side effects ie. a neurosis accompany this change.

What this seems to suggest is that there is for a given person a theoretical optimal state of mind which is called the personality type. Fluctuation from this state seems according to Jung to be so common that he can point out characteristics that accompany this fluctuation. It seems that the claim of type not changing is actually an idealization because the state of the person's personality type does not always exist.

(there are some other matters mainly concerning role theory and strategic life choices that might be productive to bring to the discussion but they're a bit off topic for this thread. PM me if you wish to discuss them or join "the other thread" which should be rather easy to find on the forum.)

Finally I'd like to say that I find myself to be in accordance with the views on your web pages to a remarkable extent. I believe that this discussion is mostly over nomenclature which I'm quite possibly using in a not-standard socionics manner.

[Rick]

Just to make sure, do you see any other conflicts than the one about constancy of type?

I'm not dogmatic about constancy of type; I just don't see any reason to suppose that it would not be constant. People who claim that type changes almost always understand type in a more superficial way. With my understanding of, for example, what it means to be suggestible in a certain area, I can't imagine something like socionic type ever changing, or why it would need to change.

If you do flesh out the idea of different types existing in one person, you would have to specify that a person 'displays' some types more multi-dimensionally than other types. For example, I can be a very flexible and active IEE, a pretty good ILE, a depressed EII, and a very rigid and sensitive LII. Someone else might just the opposite -- a very flexible and active LII, a pretty good LSI, a depressed ILE, and a very rigid and sensitive SLE.

In other words, one's subjective experience (i.e. positive/negative, flexible/inflexible, etc.) of one's various behavioral roles differs according to which functions are activated in his single socionic type.

I agree that there are difficulties, but I find these difficulties to be on a similar level to those one has when one is trying to define type, personality, informational space or informational channel.

Yes, it becomes a quagmire when you demand written definitions

Hmm, when you call something a type Y ego-block state are you referring to what functions are at that moment in the ego block or the state of those functions that are in the ego block? If the first, this would seem to be again another way to say call a temporary type. If the second, it's something new to me. I haven't found any texts discussing possible different states of ie. a first function Ti.

I mean that certain states are associated with the usage of each function. For example, when you come across something to do where you can freely use your ego functions, your brain gets a spray of dopamine or some chemical like that . If someone challenges you on information related to your first function, a chemical is released that makes you want to actively argue and overpower your opponent rather than backing off and slinking away.

I suspect that each possible leading function is physiologically expressed as a certain pattern of brain activity. One's leading function is sort of the 'default' pattern of brain activity -- the brain's path of least resistance. All other brain states require greater expenditures of energy. At the same time, even your default brain activity will wear out the psyche if overdone. One's suggestive function is the pattern of brain activity that allows the brain centers that usually are most at work to relax completely. In other words, the psyche returns to equilibrium; brain chemicals and minerals return to equilibrium levels across all areas of the brain.

This is my just personal take on likely physiological mechanisms behind socionic type. I'm not a specialist -- I just have a general knowledge of evolutionary psychology and my own introspection to guide me. Maybe as a doctor you will be able to add something to this (or refute it). It's nice to have a specialist on board .

What this seems to suggest is that there is for a given person a theoretical optimal state of mind which is called the personality type. Fluctuation from this state seems according to Jung to be so common that he can point out characteristics that accompany this fluctuation.

I totally agree with this. (Jungians are careful to call their types 'psychological types,' implying that they go deeper than personality. MBTI uses 'personality types' to make sense to the masses.)

Fluctuation from one's 'optimal' state is normal and is easy to explain evolutionally -- rigid roles work for bees, but not for social mammals (more on that at http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/evolution.shtml).

Finally I'd like to say that I find myself to be in accordance with the views on your web pages to a remarkable extent. I believe that this discussion is mostly over nomenclature which I'm quite possibly using in a not-standard socionics manner.

Probably . At this point I don't have problems with what you're saying, either.

[MysticSonic]

Smilingeyes: my basic qualm with the idea is that the concept just didn't sit right with me. I'll have to think about it and get back to you.

[Smilingeyes]

General agreeable nodding of head occurs after reading the posts above. Not much to comment.

[science as magic]

I find it funny that people take this seriously in spite of the fact that they readily dismissed TC's crosstype theory when they are essentially saying something very similar.

cone is kissing smilingeyes' ass and Y&C is just enfp

(<----- this makes it all better)

[tcaudilllg]

I'd like to hear more about about this Kamensky. Is his work translated?

[Smilingeyes]

cone is kissing smilingeyes' ass and Y&C is just enfp

(<----- this makes it all better)

Yo man! Don't mess with the gamma posse or ya gonna get it biathlon style. PPP

[Cone]

*kisses Smilingeyes' ass some more*