Filatova's book published in English

[glam]

Ekaterina Filatova's socionics book "Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics" has been published in English. it's been mentioned on the Workshop and Rick's blog recently, but i don't think anyone has mentioned it here yet. here's a brief summary for anyone who may be interesting in buying it:

it starts with:

- a Foreword by Betty Lou Leaver, Ph.D
- a Preface by A.V. Sokolov
- Acknowledgments from Ekaterina Filatova
- an Introduction

then it goes on to three main parts:

Part I: The Basis of Socionics - Jungian Functions — in this section she goes over the four Jungian dichotomies, the eight functions, the Jungian model (Model J). types are organized and discussed according to club (Socialists, Researchers, Humanists, Pragmatics).

Part II: Psychological Types — this section goes over each of the sixteen types, with profiles and functional descriptions for each.

Part III: Intertype Relationships — this section provides descriptions and functional explanations for all fourteen intertype relationships. quadras are briefly mentioned.

it ends with: two Appendices, one is an analysis of the types and relationships of the characters in Gone With the Wind, and the other is a socionics test based on dichotomies by Filatova. then there is a Literature page listing various socionics, typology, and psychology resources. lastly there is a page linking to various resources on the web (specifically: Socioniko.net, Socionics.us, Socionics.ibc.com.ua, The16types.info, Socionics.com, and Similarminds.com)

skimming through i did see that there are minor differences in the terminology, for example functions are called "Channels", e.g. Suggestible Channel. information elements are known as (Jungian) Functions. Logic is replaced with "Thinking" and Ethics is replaced with "Feeling" including in the type names, e.g. instead of SLE, the type is called STE, etc. also as previously mentioned Model J (the four function model) is used in this book; though Model A is briefly mentioned as the "full" model of the human psyche.

anyway i haven't started reading it yet; if anyone else has and would like to discuss it please share.

you can order it at Amazon.com: Amazon.com: Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction…

[Not A Communist Shill]

It, next to the16types url, calls this forum the best English forum for Socionics on the web, probably. "probably the best English-speaking socionic forum in the Internet + some basic information about Socionics" Obviously referring to when the site had some type descriptions on its main page and before it became just a forum.
Next to socionics.com, it says "a site presenting a non-traditional view on Socionics as a theory of <<visual identification>> of people" lol. So true.

oh wow. we're going to have to put some "basic information about Socionics" up on the main page to make it fir the description again I guess.

(Thanks for the review/s...although I'd already ordered the book )

[Mattie]

Makes me feel like we should try cleaning up that wiki right about now... I'll be getting the book soon, just to have something directly and translated through something other than Babelfish Wish I could see more into it though, if there is something I can learn or know is a good reference.

[Creepy-cinq]

Maritsa is a fan of Filatova. Any mention of ties to morphology?

[Not A Communist Shill]

The way I see it, by supporting official releases of translated books of this sort, it might serve as an incentive to get more books published on Socionics which have been published and have been acclaimed at large for the Russian-speaking world.

Yeah, sure. I only care about my commission.

[Crispy]

Maritsa is a fan of Filatova. Any mention of ties to morphology?

Idk about morphology, but yes, Filatova practices VI, and quite well I might add.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...portraits.html

[Not A Communist Shill]

Idk about morphology, but yes, Filatova practices VI, and quite well I might add.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...portraits.html

Ah, but she only put photos into relevant folders after people had determined their type, and she took the photos out if a person had doubts or decided upon another type. I don't believe she used VI to type those people, or subsequently used those photo groupings to type others.

(Can someone find the link on this?)

EDIT: http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html

Scroll down to: "Who are on the portraits?"

[Crispy]

Oh yes I didn't mean that she came up with those using VI (although I guess that's kinda what I said) but that the results are useful for us to VI
In any case, those portraits can be relatively trusted for VI.

[Not A Communist Shill]

maybe... but I would think it's clear at least that Maritsa and Filatova probably wouldn't get on so well.

[Creepy-cinq]

Idk about morphology, but yes, Filatova practices VI, and quite well I might add.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...portraits.html

Yes, I'm aware of her portraits. I was curious to know if Filatova provides something more substantive. Much of what Maritsa preaches is based on Filatova and morphology. Unfortunately, she provides no evidence to validate based on solid research.

[Creepy-cinq]

Not a lot. She does suggest there exist dopplegangers of sociotypes and she is apparently of the belief that identical twins usually share the same sociotype, to make a point that there is a link to physiology and type. But she doesn't over-state this and she may have a point, but she focuses primarily on the psychological processes and behavior of each type. She does, however, give a general physical description of each type for when introducing a type and then giving a profile that goes into each information element pertaining to the type and how it is fit into the model. The physical descriptions are not, as to be expected, universal, but they are not entirely incorrect, either, as physical traits I have observed (same, to an extent, with Gulenko, whose ideas she obviously based these physical descriptions off of), but not, again, as something which is always evident and shouldn't be the point of focus or to be used as a cheap substitute to understanding a person's type based on the elements demonstrated by their pattern of thought, behavior, and so forth which have more consistent links to type.

In other words, she reveals that she believes physiology and type have a link, but she does not base her research and understanding of Socionics or method of typing on physiology or VI and would probably object to the idea of using VI and other physiology methods as being made a central practice and method (because many people would properly label such practices as pertaining to pseudo-science, eliminating any credibility Socionics has).

Thanks.

[Creepy-cinq]

Just to be clear, and to satisfy the member who PM'd me a few minutes ago - I'm not trying to judge Filotava on Maritsa. My post was just to satisfy a curiosity.

[Crispy]

Yes, I'm aware of her portraits. I was curious to know if Filatova provides something more substantive. Much of what Maritsa preaches is based on Filatova and morphology. Unfortunately, she provides no evidence to validate based on solid research.

Filatova is not the author you are thinking of. I believe Maritsa has a separate English book from some INTj author.

[717495]

Coooooooooool. A Socionics boooooooooook, written by one of the bad-As of Socionics yeauh.

[Crispy]

Just bought it, awwwwww riiiiiight

[717495]

Just bought it, awwwwww riiiiiight

Can I borrow it?

[Crispy]

No I must hoard this precious knowledge in my den. No one will lay visage upon it.

[717495]

Can I watch you read it?

[Crispy]

Naw bro, reading is a private activity that I prefer to do naked.

[Creepy-cinq]

My copy of Filatova's book is being shipped as I post. I'm looking forward to its arrival in time for the long weekend.

Has anyone else read the book, and what are your thoughts so far on her views?

[Mattie]

I have read the majority of the book. Basically, if you've read Wikisocion, you won't be surprised of anything that is in the book, as a lot of that stuff if from her. I think it's strictly introductory, and is useful for someone who has context and also availability to more advanced material afterwards.

There are a couple of things I don't like that are attributed to my personal view on Socionics, and other instances that are just plain shameful.

For me personally, I felt like it wasn't that distinct from MBTI. If someone who didn't know about MBTI or Socionics picked up this book and an MBTI book, they would find very little difference between the two systems and the types. Still having my old MBTI books, I compared the two and see that Filatova's book is trying to cover a lot more ground while not offering a typing method to type other people; but there's an obvious advancement of intertype relations that MBTI never really focuses enough on. MBTI books tend to make their books to equip the reader on how to type, and do more of a dichotomy compare/contrast to imply what intertype relations would be like. All of the descriptions were overly stereotyped and two-dimensional descriptions, and there is little expansion on the IAs and IMEs, and as well, not all of the functions. This would be fine if she had a second book, or there was another more advanced book, available in English, because her book on its own poorly equips the reader with Socionics methodology. If it was my choice, I would have picked MBTI for the clarity and more clear definitions of its terms, as well as having a methodology ready for me to mess with.

Some things that were embarrassing to read were its claims for Socionics being experimentally tested and genetically traced without any evidence or point to resources what-so-ever. Filatova made it seem like Socionics was figured out to be a part of reality and the panacea of inter-relational problems, and anyone worth their salt would see the bullshit in these claims.

So, overall, let's say you wanted to introduce a friend to this forum and Socionics discussion, but want them to have a more uniform base of knowledge, you can easily use this book for that. Also, if you generally agree with Wikisocion's descriptions of all the terms, this book will make things more clear and I guess give you a name to refer to, for some sort of credibility, though I'm not sure how much that's worth. For someone already familiar with Socionics looking to further their understanding, this book isn't for you.

[Creepy-cinq]

I have read the majority of the book. Basically, if you've read Wikisocion, you won't be surprised of anything that is in the book, as a lot of that stuff if from her. I think it's strictly introductory, and is useful for someone who has context and also availability to more advanced material afterwards.

My understanding is that Filotava bases her understanding on Model J, not Model A. So, there would be some immediate discrepancies between the site and her book.

There are a couple of things I don't like that are attributed to my personal view on Socionics, and other instances that are just plain shameful.

For me personally, I felt like it wasn't that distinct from MBTI. If someone who didn't know about MBTI or Socionics picked up this book and an MBTI book, they would find very little difference between the two systems and the types. Still having my old MBTI books, I compared the two and see that Filatova's book is trying to cover a lot more ground while not offering a typing method to type other people; but there's an obvious advancement of intertype relations that MBTI never really focuses enough on. MBTI books tend to make their books to equip the reader on how to type, and do more of a dichotomy compare/contrast to imply what intertype relations would be like. All of the descriptions were overly stereotyped and two-dimensional descriptions, and there is little expansion on the IAs and IMEs, and as well, not all of the functions. This would be fine if she had a second book, or there was another more advanced book, available in English, because her book on its own poorly equips the reader with Socionics methodology. If it was my choice, I would have picked MBTI for the clarity and more clear definitions of its terms, as well as having a methodology ready for me to mess with.

Well, I have and read most MBTI related books from Myers Briggs kids to Keirsey, Thomson to Nardi and Beren. They are not all created equal. To brush them all with the same stroke is a bit unfair. MBTI suffers from the same issues as Socionics - different interpretations, different models of understanding, all couched under the MBTI umbrella. So, it would probably be more worthwhile to be more precise in choosing similarities between Filatova's book and some MBTI related model/understanding.

Some things that were embarrassing to read were its claims for Socionics being experimentally tested and genetically traced without any evidence or point to resources what-so-ever. Filatova made it seem like Socionics was figured out to be a part of reality and the panacea of inter-relational problems, and anyone worth their salt would see the bullshit in these claims.

So, overall, let's say you wanted to introduce a friend to this forum and Socionics discussion, but want them to have a more uniform base of knowledge, you can easily use this book for that. Also, if you generally agree with Wikisocion's descriptions of all the terms, this book will make things more clear and I guess give you a name to refer to, for some sort of credibility, though I'm not sure how much that's worth. For someone already familiar with Socionics looking to further their understanding, this book isn't for you.

Well, I'll agree with you on lack of evidence for claims. However, any savy and reasonably intelligent reader will weigh this accordingly in evaluating the overall worth of the book and the author's claims. Much of socionics is based on theory and speculation, afterall.

Personally, although I enjoy deep and complex material, I normally find simple and direct is the most efficient means for communicating ideas. Much can be said in few words. There is fine elegance in simplicity.

So, If you were to recommend a reliable source of Socionics Information for a better foundation, what would you recommend?

[Crispy]

If someone who didn't know about MBTI or Socionics picked up this book and an MBTI book, they would find very little difference between the two systems and the types.

Why are reputable socionists making MBTI and socionics look the same? That is soooooooooo weird.

[tcaudilllg]

What is Filatova's type, anyway?

And are they man or woman?

[Crispy]

EII female I believe.

[Mattie]

So, If you were to recommend a reliable source of Socionics Information for a better foundation, what would you recommend?

Well, the main issue is there isn't any in English. As far as I know, this is the best source of Socionics information in English. I don't think this would fare well without further context... So, let's say this is the only source of English Socionics information a person has, and they just randomly heard the name dropped, I don't think it'd be taken too seriously, especially if the person had an MBTI background. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about MBTI having it's faults, but I said in my post that my opinion came from if someone just grabbed an MBTI book and this one, seeing that this is one of the very few Socionics books in English (and the only from Russia) without the rest of Socionics' context. I wanted to make it clear that if a person read it and then joined discussion here, it would be a lot more helpful than someone who just randomly picked up this book. The main point behind me bringing up their claims is that the "savy and reasonably intelligent reader" would put down this book as a crock of shit after reading it. They will know that it's not true. MBTI doesn't make those sorts of claims, though I will admit to not being on the cutting edge of MBTI "culture," if you will. The last time I was involved, MBTI was aware of merely labeling and categorizing behaviors that you knew to exist, but weren't aware correlated with one another. It's more like "See all these behaviors? They are Extraverted, and these are Feeling!" and play with how they interact with one another.

Again, I don't mean to be taken as some sort of Socionics fatalist, I'm just trying to provide what I think a random person who knew nothing of either would think if they picked up this book, and how useful it effects us as a community who already has this knowledge.

Why are reputable socionists making MBTI and socionics look the same? That is soooooooooo weird.

Not sure if this is joking or not, but it was admitted to be used to explain more abstract methods easier, and that there wasn't a lot seen as too much different at first.

EII female I believe.

Yes, she self-types as FiNe.

[Skeptic]

This is a good find, surprised I missed it. I shall be checking it out asap...

[Creepy-cinq]

Well, the main issue is there isn't any in English. As far as I know, this is the best source of Socionics information in English. I don't think this would fare well without further context... So, let's say this is the only source of English Socionics information a person has, and they just randomly heard the name dropped, I don't think it'd be taken too seriously, especially if the person had an MBTI background. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about MBTI having it's faults, but I said in my post that my opinion came from if someone just grabbed an MBTI book and this one, seeing that this is one of the very few Socionics books in English (and the only from Russia) without the rest of Socionics' context. I wanted to make it clear that if a person read it and then joined discussion here, it would be a lot more helpful than someone who just randomly picked up this book. The main point behind me bringing up their claims is that the "savy and reasonably intelligent reader" would put down this book as a crock of shit after reading it. They will know that it's not true. MBTI doesn't make those sorts of claims, though I will admit to not being on the cutting edge of MBTI "culture," if you will. The last time I was involved, MBTI was aware of merely labeling and categorizing behaviors that you knew to exist, but weren't aware correlated with one another. It's more like "See all these behaviors? They are Extraverted, and these are Feeling!" and play with how they interact with one another.

Again, I don't mean to be taken as some sort of Socionics fatalist, I'm just trying to provide what I think a random person who knew nothing of either would think if they picked up this book, and how useful it effects us as a community who already has this knowledge.

Well, I don't think it's wise to essentially criticize MBTI if you are not well read in the subject. It's as bad as slapping terrible stereotypical labels on socionics types. You definitely have to pick and choose your sources. If I would recommend an MBTI related book, it would be "8 Keys to Self-Leadership - From Awareness to Action" by Dario Nardi. He does an excellent job differentiating the 8 cognitive functions, and there are reasonable similarities to socionics IMs (not in all functions however). There is no "I have feelings so I must be a feeler" in this book. I recommend as well publications from Naomi Quenk.

Regardless of your opinion on this book, what really do you think is a worthwhile source of information - be it an english book, spanish, or something in Russian or Ukraine off the internet? I've read quite a few of your posts over the last several months. I don't know if you realize, but, many of them criticize sources. I don't really get a clear picture as to what you consider is an actual worthwhile source of socionics information - something that takes us beyond the elementary and fundamental. Do you feel nothing measures yet to your ideal, or, that nothing exactly articulates well what you think is the truth? Or, do you have the Holy Grail somewhere of information that would help enlighten us all? If you can fix the 16types members from all of their misinterpretations of the theory, what would it be?

[DividedsGhost]

I will have to read this.

[tcaudilllg]

EII female I believe.

Ah... that explains everything.

[Crispy]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge this particular individual on her Fi-Domness. Filatova began her career as a physicist, if that matters.

[Not A Communist Shill]

She was also a supporter of You-Know-Who.

[Mattie]

Well, I don't think it's wise to essentially criticize MBTI if you are not well read in the subject. It's as bad as slapping terrible stereotypical labels on socionics types. You definitely have to pick and choose your sources. If I would recommend an MBTI related book, it would be "8 Keys to Self-Leadership - From Awareness to Action" by Dario Nardi. He does an excellent job differentiating the 8 cognitive functions, and there are reasonable similarities to socionics IMs (not in all functions however). There is no "I have feelings so I must be a feeler" in this book. I recommend as well publications from Naomi Quenk.

I'm not really looking to criticize MBTI, and I don't know why you're taking what I'm saying as a critique. Is it a broad generalization? Yes, definitely, I'm not up and current with MBTI, I only have my MBTI books from years ago to compare with. But seeing that this book was published around the same time as the books that I own, and both are more introductory level, I feel like it's not unreasonable to compare them. And honestly, I feel like you're looking to scrutinize my details rather than understand what I'm trying to communicate. Just stating how I feel.

Regardless of your opinion on this book, what really do you think is a worthwhile source of information - be it an english book, spanish, or something in Russian or Ukraine off the internet? I've read quite a few of your posts over the last several months. I don't know if you realize, but, many of them criticize sources. I don't really get a clear picture as to what you consider is an actual worthwhile source of socionics information - something that takes us beyond the elementary and fundamental. Do you feel nothing measures yet to your ideal, or, that nothing exactly articulates well what you think is the truth? Or, do you have the Holy Grail somewhere of information that would help enlighten us all? If you can fix the 16types members from all of their misinterpretations of the theory, what would it be?

My ultimate problem with Socionics is that we don't have a good amount of English sources. I have a problem with machine translated material, I have a problem with socionics.com, and other things. I do like, for the most part, what Rick has contributed, I'd say I would feel the most comfortable recommending his blog and site, but I wouldn't claim it is the bastion of must-know information that everyone needs to see at the same time. I feel like we have been getting secondhand information until an official translation was presented to us (Filatova's book), and that having "current" Socionics discussed only on on this forum (for English-speakers) is almost claustrophobic to me. It's possible that a lot of people think that growing into an understanding of Socionics by shifting through whatever is bullshit and what isn't is fun and enjoyable, but I personally felt misled for a long time, I would have rather had a direct and clear understanding rather than to realize "Oh, Wikisocion is not really seen as the best source of information."

And what's the deal with reading through my posts? I feel a bit under a microscope now.

Either way, I don't think there is a clear source of information that takes us beyond what's elementary, I've gotten into "advanced" (WTF is advanced anyway?) purely by discussion. I believe the point where people were telling me I was applying "advanced" knowledge to newcommers when I decided that typing by IME placement in function was the most reliable method of typing. I don't think that's an advanced concept, but maybe it is? You can learn that from Wikisocion and other sources, but I guess the leap to that is intuitive? I don't know, I can't claim my method to be better than anyone's, but I feel like I've made a good enough argument in the past on how typing by identifying IMEs' positioning is one if not the most reliable method of typing. Peoples' responses were "Well, not everyone is good at identifying IMEs and functions and using that to type." I personally don't think that's advanced, and you can easily find that information elsewhere.

Now, I've started to realize (I think ever since I "returned," which is probably when all of my bolder posts started after I was away from the forum for a bit) that we don't all think the same thing when we talk about terms because we use descriptors that are easily influenced by a subjective understand and personal experience. So, if we're both talking about x, but you think x is described as f, g, and h, but I think x is described as r, s, and t, but these distinctions aren't wildly different enough to say the other is blatantly "wrong," we're communicating two different things and will come to differing conclusions when we shouldn't. This is probably the time I was weary about all sorts of information because I disliked the words they used to describe the terms because they were easy to be personally adapted. So my aim ever since was to find some way to create definitions that are the least influenced by a subjective understand as I could possibly get them. I don't think this is available to us in English.

In my posts, you might have seen that I suggested an active community effort to revamp Wikisocion to update it to our current knowledge and understanding. If we already think that there can be better descriptions of terms and types, and tell people to take certain things on there with a grain of salt, should be just change it so we can start to actively source it and point it to newcomers and veterans alike as a reliable source of information? I don't think just because it was written by the community that it makes it right, but we don't really have that much information that isn't already interpreted through people, and that was through a machine translation from Russian. I still want an effort to rewrite the wiki, though I don't have a methodology worked out because I don't think anyone is going to take the suggestion seriously.

I also think your questions assume that I think that I (an certain others) have a correct understanding and everyone else does not. I'm not so arrogant and mislead to think this. I do, though, want to add in my perspective of what I think is important, and if it's extreme, at least allow others to find their place between the extremes. I think that we need more information translated under the watch of the original authors to make it over here, and we need to keep in mind that because there aren't concrete and objective definitions for a lot of our terms, we have to keep open that everyone can possibly have a valid interpretation.

All of that said, I don't think that just because there are few reliable sources of information means we should just "settle." I also think if we want the community to grow with progressive discussion, it wouldn't be ideal to just throw new people to unreliable sources and hope that they are "savvy" enough to discern what is valid information, seeing that a lot of people take things as a given that aren't proven on here. I don't think that I'm one of the few who are disillusioned, but I don't think the ideal of having an equal, clear, and shared base of knowledge so we don't get lost in the interpretations we don't realize have went on is completely unreasonable.

[Crispy]

She was also a supporter of You-Know-Who.

Oooo, please tell me.

[Aiss]

What is Filatova's type, anyway?

And are they man or woman?

It ends with "ova" - same as with "ska", it's a safe bet to consider a person female. Filatova's male relation of the same name would be Filatov. Dostoyevski's female relation of the same name would be Dostoyevska. Surnames with other endings tend to be the same for both genders.

Names of immigrants' children born in US are another matter - most bear masculine form regardless of gender because retarded legal system can't accept one letter difference.

[JohnDo]

It's possible that a lot of people think that growing into an understanding of Socionics by shifting through whatever is bullshit and what isn't is fun and enjoyable

As an INTj I enjoyed it, indeed. That's much more challanging and exciting than reading books everyone considers reliable...

In my posts, you might have seen that I suggested an active community effort to revamp Wikisocion to update it to our current knowledge and understanding.

Yeah, that's exactly what we should do. The only website that has the potential to deveolop into a complete and reliable English socionics source is definitely wikisocion. Unfortunately, hardly anyone tries to improve it. There is much more knowledge on this forum than on wikisocion. It's a shame...

I still want an effort to rewrite the wiki, though I don't have a methodology worked out because I don't think anyone is going to take the suggestion seriously.

Why so pessimistic? 5 people would be enough to bring it on an acceptable level I think.

I think that we need more information translated under the watch of the original authors to make it over here.

I don't think that many Russian socionics books will be translated into English in the next 10 years. The americans have their MBTI and a lot of books about it...

[Mattie]

As an INTj I enjoyed it, indeed. That's much more challanging and exciting than reading books everyone considers reliable...

I don't think being TiNe would make you more or less likely to like this (I can already see my best friend chucking this into a fire), but considering your positions on Socionics that you are vocal about, I can't say I'm surprised that you enjoyed the book.

Why so pessimistic? 5 people would be enough to bring it on an acceptable level I think.

I mentioned it before, and didn't seem to get a response. I guess I'll try again.

I don't think that many Russian socionics books will be translated into English in the next 10 years. The americans have their MBTI and a lot of books about it...

I think it means the English-speaking branch of Socioncs will develop down it's own path, and will come up with something different- this will just have to be a sort of divergent evolution situation, and I don't think it's something bad. There is no real obligation to any sort of authority, we're allowed to take information and use it for what we find true and effective.

[Jarno]

Why are reputable socionists making MBTI and socionics look the same? That is soooooooooo weird.

I was thinking the same. When do people here wake up and understand that the 16 different types are the same all over the world.

[Mattie]

I was thinking the same. When do people here wake up and understand that the 16 different types are the same all over the world.

It's possible that the current way the Russian community describes the types is synonymous to the the descriptions of the types in MBTI. However, there is no obligation for us to agree if we find that the way the IAs manifest don't yield the say qualities that the Russians, or whomever else, has found. It's an interesting question of "When are you far enough from Socionics to not have what you're talking about be Socionics anymore," so I don't think I'm going to be as combative to your position as it isn't unreasonable for you to come to your conclusion as it is that I have come to mine.

[Mattie]

Am I the only one who doesn't buy the notion that the Russians' Socionics in general, is any more 'advanced' than what we have in the West already? Aside from a few outliers here and there who seem genuinely onto something… by and large, judging by what I read most of the great vaunted Russian Socionists saying, heh, you might as well call Socionics the "MBTI of the East." I've read Russian Socionics forums before too, and they're no less utterly retarded than this one, if not worse.

I'd kill for an English-translation copy of that Semantics of Information Elements book by Mironov, et al. though.

I would say it's only fair to allow people the time to come to the conclusion that the "Russian" way of doing things isn't necessarily the way we have to do something; it's a natural conclusion seeing where we're getting our information, and how scare it seems to be since we're at the same time trying to translate what they are saying. Right now I'd only think to place the Russian way of Socionics on a pedestal as one of many options, but not better than way. I won't know until more books are published, but if Filatova's book is representational of how Socionics is treated in the East, then I do not agree with the methodology and wouldn't consider it more "advanced." I would say just different and we're going to come up with something different as well.