Filatova's book published in English

[Creepy-cinq]

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.

Oh, don't worry. It happens to be consequential that I've paid attention to your posts, because they happen to show up in threads that I either participate in or read. It's like, nothing happens for a stretch, then a post of yours descends from up above to 'assist' members. It usually feels like god-presence parting the waves between bullshit and truth. Most times, your posts criticize others interpretations or sources of information, but, I don't normally see you offering an alternative except a nebulous wall of post of ambiguity disguised as the potential for 'advanced' understanding. Hence, the reason why I am persistent in knowing if you have anything of substance. And I see, you do not.

My apologies if I'm a bit critical. But, the arrogance is truly annoying.

[Crispy]

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.

Why would we make something different than socionics? Unless we discover some fifth dichotomy or something that would force us to alter intertype relations, I don't see any extreme changes happening. A universal theory like socionics does not "evolve". It has unchanging laws that have probably been here since the beginning of time. The only thing that can change is our perception of the theory as we find more laws that consistently govern it. As time goes on, both the East and the West will come closer and closer to the one Truth. Right now the East is winning.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm shocked that you are surprised. If you want to know what socionists (real socionists) think, then read Boukalov. Boukalov and Gulenko together lead the whole thing. Filatova is something of a comrade-in-arms who lends her EII mastery of motivations to the systems created by Gulenko, Boukalov... the alpha NT socionists in general. Basically, she's the description writer who takes the alpha NT pieces and unifies them into one whole.

The East is not the West. Psychotic loner scientists don't prevail over there nearly as easily as they do in the West, because the East doesn't have a capitalist tradition. Because of this, there is less pressure for professionals to rely on weak Ti in order to be taken seriously. Filatova is an EII... more than likely she just took in what Augusta, Gulenko, and Boukalov had to say and asked herself if it matched with her experience. Naivete replaced with understanding. Which is exactly what I expect you to use my ideas for, BTW.

EIIs do make pretty good writers. I wouldn't second-guess her authoring decisions.

But as for MBTI and socionics being different descriptions of the same system... don't you see? This is another competition between East and West, with the study of typology stuck in the middle.

As time goes on, both the East and the West will come closer and closer to the one Truth. Right now the East is winning.

Indeed. And it's doing nobody a bit of good.

[Mattie]

Oh, don't worry. It happens to be consequential that I've paid attention to your posts, because they happen to show up in threads that I either participate in or read. It's like, nothing happens for a stretch, then a post of yours descends from up above to 'assist' members. It usually feels like god-presence parting the waves between bullshit and truth. Most times, your posts criticize others interpretations or sources of information, but, I don't normally see you offering an alternative except a nebulous wall of post of ambiguity disguised as the potential for 'advanced' understanding. Hence, the reason why I am persistent in knowing if you have anything of substance. And I see, you do not.

My apologies if I'm a bit critical. But, the arrogance is truly annoying.

I don't really feel like I'm arrogant and of no substance, but if that's your conclusion, not much I can do about it now. Funny enough, I felt like you've come out of no where to nitpick me without much of a basis, and you sweep away all that I do provide and don't respond to as if it doesn't matter. If you don't find value in it, oh well.

Why would we make something different than socionics? Unless we discover some fifth dichotomy or something that would force us to alter intertype relations, I don't see any extreme changes happening. A universal theory like socionics does not "evolve". It has unchanging laws that have probably been here since the beginning of time. The only thing that can change is our perception of the theory as we find more laws that consistently govern it. As time goes on, both the East and the West will come closer and closer to the one Truth. Right now the East is winning.

You're taking what I'm saying a little bit too much into the extreme. All ideas that are not rooted in proof (and I imagine some that are as well) will evolve, because there's not much anchoring it. Think of religion, how many forms of Abrahamic religions are there? How we decide to define and use Socionics is enough of a change if it is different from how the East does it. I also don't see it as a race to a "Truth," as you put it.

[Crispy]

Most religions are not based on observations of the external world. Socionics is.
If we (the West) DO make a change, and the change is adherent to truth, I would expect the East to change their views to match ours. Right now the reverse is happening, as can be seen with the numbers of disillusioned MBTIers who have finally started to get "what it all means" when they are introduced to socionics and intertype relations. Personally I don't care who is ahead of the game as long as the rest of humanity reaps the benefits.

[1981slater]

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

All of us should learn Russian

But as for MBTI and socionics being different descriptions of the same system... don't you see? This is another competition between East and West, with the study of typology stuck in the middle.

MBTI describes "apparent" personality traits instead of HOW a person IS. For instance, I see myself as ENFP when I am in a night club, INTP at home, etc...BUT I am "always" the same ILE-Ti D

[1981slater]

Right now the East is winning.

Didn't the Cold War end when the US "Cowboys from Hell" conquered Moscow?

[1981slater]

Lars Ulrich wow!



BTW, is this thread about a book?

[1981slater]

BTW, is this thread about a book?

Yeah, I'm ordering it!

[tcaudilllg]

You're taking what I'm saying a little bit too much into the extreme. All ideas that are not rooted in proof (and I imagine some that are as well) will evolve, because there's not much anchoring it. Think of religion, how many forms of Abrahamic religions are there? How we decide to define and use Socionics is enough of a change if it is different from how the East does it. I also don't see it as a race to a "Truth," as you put it.

Well I do. And I won't let you pollute it. You hear me? The days of arbitrary interpretivism are ending. Soon, no matter what.

Question: do you have antisocial personality disorder?

Ti just laid down the rules for you. You've got a choice: are you going to accept strong Ti's dominance in theoretical matters, or will you face our wrath?

[Brilliand]

Ti just laid down the rules for you. You've got a choice: are you going to accept strong Ti's dominance in theoretical matters, or will you face our wrath?

Aw, shut up. What are you doing, using or something? means understanding, it doesn't have much to do with forcing others to submit.

For now, there is still wiggle room in Socionics, meaning that it isn't defined clearly enough to apply to only one part of reality. This doesn't mean that we are looking fro the one correct answer; it means that we're trying to add to it until it does just one thing really, really well. If different people add different things and get different results, then fine - we now have several different answers, each to its own question.

[tcaudilllg]

Aw, shut up. What are you doing, using or something? means understanding, it doesn't have much to do with forcing others to submit.

For now, there is still wiggle room in Socionics, meaning that it isn't defined clearly enough to apply to only one part of reality. This doesn't mean that we are looking fro the one correct answer; it means that we're trying to add to it until it does just one thing really, really well. If different people add different things and get different results, then fine - we now have several different answers, each to its own question.

It already does something very well. You're just not listening.

[Creepy-cinq]

MBTI describes "apparent" personality traits instead of HOW a person IS. For instance, I see myself as ENFP when I am in a night club, INTP at home, etc...BUT I am "always" the same ILE-Ti D

No. It depends on your source of information. If you want to skim quickly through internet sources and rely on them as your point of reference, this is often what you'll get. But, there are sound sources that are more elaborate and well researched, describing clearly the function processes for each. It's not based on personality traits. I've already provided a couple of references in this thread.

[Brilliand]

It already does something very well. You're just not listening.

Model A isn't actually the brain's structure; it's a simplification, and since we aren't yet clear on how the simplification corresponds to the real thing (the neurons), there's still flexibility as to where to attach it. Resolving that problem is far beyond current technology, I'm afraid...

(I'm not answering you directly because I don't think that it's terribly clear what we're talking about; I mean, you're right in a sense, but I'm not wrong either.)

[tcaudilllg]

Model A isn't actually the brain's structure; it's a simplification, and since we aren't yet clear on how the simplification corresponds to the real thing (the neurons), there's still flexibility as to where to attach it. Resolving that problem is far beyond current technology, I'm afraid...

(I'm not answering you directly because I don't think that it's terribly clear what we're talking about; I mean, you're right in a sense, but I'm not wrong either.)

Well it's one thing to argue a hypothesis, and quite another to argue facts.

But, Model A is fact. Bottom line is, whatever those neurons do in isolation, they still work together to effect model A.

Aw, shut up. What are you doing, using or something? means understanding, it doesn't have much to do with forcing others to submit.

Creative sub LIIs use Se quite a bit. It's how we keep society sane. I'm not forcing anyone to submit... I'm pressuring them.

[JohnDo]

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.

No, you misunderstood. I didn't enjoy Filatova's book, I didn't even read it. What I enjoyed was learning socionics from different unreliable internet sources...

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.

Yes, I agree with that...

[JohnDo]

Well I do. And I won't let you pollute it. You hear me? The days of arbitrary interpretivism are ending. Soon, no matter what.

Question: do you have antisocial personality disorder?

Ti just laid down the rules for you. You've got a choice: are you going to accept strong Ti's dominance in theoretical matters, or will you face our wrath?

It is embarassing that you claim to be an LII-IEI and that you actually migh be one...

1.) Descriptions of antisocial personality disorder just describe a typical SLE. How should an IEE ever develop this disorder? Are you really going to become a psychologist? Maybe you should learn more and forget about dual-types and all the stuff...
2.) Yesterday you didn't even know Filatova's type or if she was male or female. Today you can judge her. Hilarious...
3.) You fail to use your own dual-type theory. Isn't the energy type responsible for interests and talents?! What if Filatova is EII-LII or EII-ILE? Shouldn't she be a great socionist according to your theory then? Or did you change your opinion?! So now it's the information type that determines talents? No longer the energy type? Very interestinig...

[717495]

Anyone got a torrent for this. lol, torrent.

[Crispy]

I have never seen a socionics related torrent ever. There used to be enneagram related content on torrentz a while back tho.

[Mattie]

Anyone got a torrent for this. lol, torrent.

Socionics isn't going to be popular enough. The only people who would torrent this particular book would be someone from the forum, and they'd have to scan every single page as there isn't an e-book form. It's not expensive, so if you think you're going to benefit from it, you're not going to spende more than $20.

[Crispy]

Told you it had some good info!
I think it only costs around $12-16.

[Dmitri Lytov]

The funniest thing in this book is that it calls me a "professor of psychology". I've never been one.

In addition, the books contains a lot of typos, including such as "forewArd", "sychological types" etc.

[Olga]

Hello to all,
Does anybody know about the new book on amazon.com or may be have read it?

Filatova Ekaterina: Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes!

there's been a thread on it: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=31959

[717495]

I also posted a thread of something I read from it, a short segment of IM descriptions. There is something just as helpful I wish to post. Very short type summaries from page 29-31.

I like this book, it makes ILI a clear case for my type, and has gotten some good marks for basic reading.

[tcaudilllg]

The funniest thing in this book is that it calls me a "professor of psychology". I've never been one.

In addition, the books contains a lot of typos, including such as "forewArd", "sychological types" etc.

Did you ever figure out your EM type (or IEM type or 16-subtype or whatever you want to call it)?

[Danielle]

Read and enjoyed book. Nice to have a neat little reference.

Yes there are some little typos and overall the book "reads" like it was written by a non-native English speaker. I know Filatova had help from English-speakers, but I don't know if any of those people were really good writers. That's what it feels like the book could use: a strong writer in native English, who can go over it and make some of the weird sounding-phrases make more sense. Even with those issues, the book is not difficult to understand and get the gist.

I thought the descriptions of each type and the section on intertype relations were very good. I wish there had been more on the quadras but she chose to focus on clubs and temperaments which is fine.

Actually, the most exciting part for me was reading the foreword and introduction because I like seeing references to Socionics spreading into the west. My main issue with this forum and the state of Socionics in the West is the presence of very few people who are willing to do anything productive with it. It's not hard to see what needs to be done, although I know it is a lot harder to get them done. What makes it harder still are the people who do nothing but try to tear Socionics down. I guess they think they are improving it, but they've got it all out of order. They've got their Gamma before their Beta so to speak. This thread provided plenty of examples of what bugs me the most, but rather than call certain people out I'll just say what I'd like to see.

Everybody wants to compare Socionics and MBTI (and feel really superior), but there are other typologies that are similarly advanced. Look at Enneagram and how much work has been done with that. Why can't Socionics be like that?

- More along the lines of books like this, in specific areas. So a book on relationships in particular. A book on "Socionics and Team-Building", for the professional sphere (here is where clubs and quadras come in). Self-help psychology books have been the rage for as long as I've been alive. There is a market. And Socionics also needs marketers. I know there are a few blogs out there but more more more.

- Academic interest. I spent four hours last night reading and analyzing one of the many research papers written about the Enneagram that connect it to other psychology typologies (there are even more on MBTI). A good portion of that time I was kind of annoyed because I felt Socionics would have been a better topic for exploration. Socionics does not have to be some separate, "special" thing. It's a personality typology just like all the others. So research papers, experiments, theory, integrating systems, finding correlations between Socionics and mainstream typologies. In addition to psychology, Socionics could also be used in sociology and political science.

- There are potential professional uses for Socionics. Marriage and family therapists. Counselors. Life coaching. Conflict coaching. This is what I intend to do as I work on my degree, so I do intend to contribute somehow.

It's fun to me to think of all the things that could be done and this book got me doing that again.

[Jarno]

Read and enjoyed book. Nice to have a neat little reference.

Hi Danielle,

I think you might want to know that there is already another book in English about socionics.

http://www.amazon.com/MBTI-Socionics...1494309&sr=8-1

I haven't read it, but it seems interesting, you can 'search inside the book' on amazon.

[leckysupport]

Hi Danielle,

I think you might want to know that there is already another book in English about socionics.

http://www.amazon.com/MBTI-Socionics...1494309&sr=8-1

I haven't read it, but it seems interesting, you can 'search inside the book' on amazon.

The Socionist review:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2011/0...n-english.html

I have a strong feeling the book is rubbish.

[Jarno]

The Socionist review:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2011/0...n-english.html

I have a strong feeling the book is rubbish.

ah yes, thanks for the link.

I don't think I'm going to buy it.

[KazeCraven]

The Socionist review:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2011/0...n-english.html

I have a strong feeling the book is rubbish.

From amazon peek: "[Extraverts] have a lighter hair color than introverts, and almost everyone I met with reddish hair is an E**J type."



There should be limitations on who can publish books about this.

[eunice]

I have just received Filatova's book which I have bought online, and have only briefly glanced through the book. Anyway, I was thinking that since there are also other books written by established Socionists from Russia, wouldn't it be good to have these books been translated to English as well? In addition, it would have been advantageous if additional books relating to Socionics could be written as well in terms of local context and culture, since certain actions and behaviours could be perceived differently based on the country's culture.

[somavision]

I got this yesterday, had a proper skim read - and I'm quite ahppy. It's nice to have a socionics book which is good.

[Cybernetic]

Got this book in the mail today and I’m excited to read it. Came with a test that’s hard to cheat in the appendix which was fun.

[Cybernetic]

Alright, I finished this book today. A little mini review and some thoughts on it:

-I found it to be an easy read. Like others have mentioned it focuses on model J which uses 4 IM, making it easier for beginners and less likely to overwhelm a person with a bunch of new information.

-On the flip side, people who have read about model A may feel like information is “missing”, especially when it comes to the type descriptions and intertype relations. Depends on the person’s preference.

-Filatova uses excellent examples of the types and their relations to get her points across.

-There are some very minor typos, however the book is still understandable.

Overall I do recommend the book.

[nefnaf]

This book is worthwhile for the charts and diagrams alone. The portrait-style sketches are also nice. The other content is very hit-or-miss. In particular, the written type portraits feel lacking and many of the celebrity typings are questionable. It was a mistake for her to include assessments of English-speaking celebrities, and it seems that there are quite a few mistypes which is unfortunate.