Model Discussion split from "New Type Representatives" thread

[Krig the Viking]

It's not a 'new way' of looking at type—you've probably never taken the time to see how much overlap of agreement there actually is. If you did, you'd likely find out that there's nothing radically divergent going on. I might disagree on a few 'mainstream' typings, but what of it? The Socionists disagree with each other often too, if you haven't noticed.

There's no 1 tried and true way of looking at this stuff and so-called "classical socionics" is far from being a coherent, established paradigm. So you may as well cease w/ the brainwashing newspeak here.

In my opinion, the differences between your typings and the "mainstream" are significant enough to say that you belong to a distinct "school" of socionics. All I'm saying is that the newbs should be aware of that when deciding who to believe. Confusion doesn't help either side.

[Suz]

In my opinion, the differences between your typings and the "mainstream" are significant enough to say that you belong to a distinct "school" of socionics. All I'm saying is that the newbs should be aware of that when deciding who to believe. Confusion doesn't help either side.

tbh i've never saw any "mainstream" typelist--most celebrity benchmark lists have quite a lot of disagreement among them.

Ashton's celebrity typings made the most sense to me (and mind you i dont always agree on all of them). We also tend to have a lot of consensus on typings using his methodology (which is still albeit vague), and typings I come up with using his school of thought do generally check out in my real life interactions. This is why i've come to trust Ashton's typelist and Ashton's school of socionics the most--because it's checked out for me in practice and I feel to date, it has been the most reliable.

I dont think Ashton's "school" is anything out of the "mainstream" it's just that socionic manifestations can be understood in many many different ways, and it's hard to actually pinpoint what is what unless we all sit as a group and analyze people and come to a consensus.

Also, for example, Fe-valuing people will be seeing the Fe whereas Fi-valuing people will be seeing the Fi, which also leads to differing opinions. I think the key is to analyze motive which isn't always easy or straightforward.

[xerx]

I think labeling people's views into various 'schools' of thought is intellectually dishonest, as it typically devolves into a means for one 'side' to bash and marginalize the other. It's like in economics debates I've heard often heard said things like, "oh don't listen to them, they're Keynesians" and so forth. Sure, the label is convenient, but it's preloaded with connotations and what not that risk prejudicially distorting what others may actually think and believe.

I disagree. Most people are mature enough not to be prejudiced when deciding on a typing. We shouldn't wear kiddie gloves just because some people choose to ignore a potentially valid typing that came from a group they dislike.

I'd rather just hear it straight from individuals themselves on what their thoughts/outlooks are per reality as they see it, not arbitrarily lump them into a subjective categorization.

Categorization into a distinct school is by essence objective if two or more people share the same typings, and is probably the first goal of any empirical effort.

[xerx]

I don't necessarily agree with that. No two people AFAIK share 100% of the same typings.

And even if they did, it tells you nothing about the methodology they used to come to those typings. Two people may come to the same typing for entirely different sets of reasons.

They don't have to share 100% the same typing for the similarities to be relevant. Just because correlation doesn't imply causation doesn't reduce its effectiveness for understanding similarities and differences between typers.

Though for the record, most people are pretty vocal about why they choose to agree with someone.

[Aiss]

They don't have to share 100% the same typing for the similarities to be relevant. Just because correlation doesn't imply causation doesn't reduce its effectiveness for understanding similarities and differences between typers.

Especially its effectiveness at conveniently dismissing someone's typings by assigning them to a "school" they never subscribed to nor agree with in the first place. Which is the sort of reason that leads to creating most labels in the first place.

By the way, weren't you in agreement with Pinocchio about a lot of socionics stuff? I suppose that qualifies as "jxrtes is using Pinocchionics"... about as much as "being from Ashton's school" for most people it's used against.

[xerx]

Especially its effectiveness at conveniently dismissing someone's typings by assigning them to a "school" they never subscribed to nor agree with in the first place. Which is the sort of reason that leads to creating most labels in the first place.

By the way, weren't you in agreement with Pinocchio about a lot of socionics stuff? I suppose that qualifies as "jxrtes is using Pinocchionics"... about as much as "being from Ashton's school" for most people it's used against.

I don't recall ever being in agreement with Pinocchio about 95% of what he said, but if I were in full agreement about anything, I'd find it completely natural that we'd be grouped together on that position and would probably defend it as the correct one.

Statistical correlation between typers is harmless and helps us intuit where people are coming from, what assumptions they're agreeing with and what they disagree with, as well as any assumptions we maybe using or overlooking -- that's certainly true for me anyway. It's also the first step to studying cases that everyone can agree on, to understand why they're special. Arguing against generating lists is the same as arguing that ignorance of facts is better than knowledge.

I don't see it as some great taboo that needs to be avoided just because people are afraid their ideas will be stereotyped and lumped unfairly. People who'll use it to dismiss ideas will find a way to do it with or without help. People who complain that their typings aren't being accepted just need to provide better reasoning to make them stand out.

[717495]

Well yes you two come to different typings often, partly because one of you, in my opinion, base your typings on unnecessary stereotypes of how a type should be, and probably aren't aware of the external diversion there exists with people who think on similar wavelengths. That's what I've noticed, and ironically, hopefully you have too from this quandary you've discovered. There is no solution however but to accept this characteristic.