Model Discussion split from "New Type Representatives" thread

[Creepy-male]

"In a nutshell: Socionics is more applicable as a theory about cognition than it is a theory about behavior. I'm less interested in what you do, I'm more interested in how you do it, and in the ways a person seems to think, feel, and perceive."

And yet:

He values temperament.
He values temperament enough to have claimed to be most closely aligned with DCNH compared to other Socionics widgets. (Not what you said Mr Ashton, feel free to correct me on this.)
He stubbornly types me as ILE seemingly because I have a bubbly extraverted persona, based off the above.

I'm not sure what he sees in me to believe I "think, feel and perceive" the same as JRiddy, Penn Jilette, Michael Moore, Ozzy Osbourne, etc.

Or even, for that matter, what in common the above even have with one another in terms of thought, feeling and perception.

[leckysupport]

Evaluating temperament isn't the same as evaluating behavior though. All I do is look at things like the person's physical poise, demeanor, muscle tension in certain parts of the face, and so forth. I'm not analyzing behavior when I do that.

IMO physical poise, demeanor, muscle tension etc. count as mannerisms and mannerisms are classed as behaviour in most dictionaries.

mannerisms - definition of mannerisms by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[Creepy-male]

I used temperament a very long time before I knew DCNH even existed. And I don't actively use DCNH much at all or anything. I just found it closely resonates in part w/ some ideas I'd thought up before.

Which is precisely why I fear you type people exclusively based on extremely superficial characteristics, considering DCNH is like a theory of surface temperament (with some additional points).

That wasn't why I type you ILE… either way, now you apparently agree you are one, so I must've been onto something lol.

Evidently the joke was completely lost on you

A lot of various subtleties. Much of it's difficult to put into words, especially without appropriate context.

I'll give you some time. Drop me a PM when you have the words.

Bear in mind these people came from radically different backgrounds and upbringings than you did. You also should factor in the enneagram differences and what not as well.

I call shenanigans on using the enneagram to justify typings. Same with subtypes.

See, here's how DCNH works: "It's subtle, but X and Y are the same type, they just have some superficial (albeit marked) differences that make them seem like a different type."

Here's how misusing subtypes or a completely distinct and discrete theory to bullshit people of different types together works: "X and Y are actually different types, but have superficial characteristics in common if you look at them through the lens of this superfluous system. As a bonus said superfluous system also justifies tiny discrepancies in said superficial characteristics."

Here's an analogy:

Good way: some apples are green, some apples are red, but at the end of the day they're still apples.

Bad way: if you paint this orange red, it looks vaguely like a really wrinkly apple, therefore this orange is now in the same set of fruit as all other apples.

[Words]

Socionics is just a hypothesis and Model A is something Ashura created to describe the hypothesis.

One model is as good as another until it's all proven.

Besides, even with model A, it seems a lot of people disagree on what constitutes a manifestation of a function within a particular position - and even if w/e it is is actually related to type.

As far as i'm aware, the main (or perhaps only) source about Model A is on wikisocion. I don't really care if someone uses w/e model...as long as I can see how it can manifest in my actual life. Models are just models not proof...and if a particular model helps explain things better, then fine.

On that... Model X as I understand it was something Ganin came up with to describe the valued functions, for instance in Model X the functions are represented at each of the crosses in clockwise order, Ti Ne Fe Si, so it's not saying anything different than what socionics mainstream says.

End of day is that with many things in psychology, it's open to interpretation, it's not like going into a shop and you know for a fact that something costs X because that's what it costs, or buying a limited edition bottle of whiskey and knowing it should increase in value over time so you can sell it and make a bit of an investment return.

Whatever model it is or not using a model, I don't mind someone doing something which makes socionics more applicable to real life.

A part of me is coming to the conclusion that Jung with his psychological types was basically describing archetypes through the functions. No ones even proven that the archetype a person uses can't change - even although Jung said it can change. People just make an assumption in socionics that "your type can't change" or Model A is God. If that's what works for a person then fine, but disagreeing with someones typing because they don't use Model A or take various assumptions as being correct isn't something I can see a particular use for. Perhaps i'm wrong too of course, I suppose i've got less energy to debate a bunch of theoretical stuff that can never be proven anyway, whether it's with a model or without a model.

So end of it, I might not agree with all of Ashtons typings...but he's a reasonable guy and he discusses things reasonably which is all I can ask for in this game, from anyone.

[Creepy-male]

My goodness, where do I even begin... it's like you're operating in a different reality, one forsaken by any kind of sanity, abandoned by the very laws of predictability I hold sacred. It is not often someone's mind takes me to a place beyond simple good and evil and abandons me there, shivering, alone, and overcome with loathing and self-doubt...

Congratulations, Ashton, yours was one such profoundly and utterly ineffable a post. Bravo, sir, bravo.

What're you wanting?

To hear why I'm ILE.

You're better off using them in concert IMO, as it gives a more well-rounded understanding. For instance, knowing that you're an Ne-ENTp 9 readily explains many differences between you and say, Ti-ENTp 7s (like Vero or something). Aside from that, it should still be obvious that you're both ENTps, simply by noting the presence of EP temperament and α-quadra values—that's all that's necessary. So you can can ditch subtypes and etypes altogether if you want. But incorporating the two will yield greater specificity and that's a good thing.

Oh please. "A more well-rounded understanding". Hollow rhetoric, and a more glamorous way of affirming that you do indeed fudge typings by layering on excuse after excuse as justified by "subtypes" and "enneagram".

More plainly stated, it's a lie.

At any rate, it's laughable to call me EP temperament. If it isn't for the bubbly extravert persona (as you so kindly clarified), I can't imagine what you'd be basing it off. You have time to gather your thoughts, so no wriggling out with "But the words don't come to me easy."

I'd like to hear how I compare with other Ne-ENTp E9s. If I am the sole proud member of my dying race, then so be it, I will hold my head high and bear my solitary legacy... with honour.

Also, to clarify, I'm not advocating simply omitting enneagram and subtype under your system. I'm saying your system is flawed to begin with because of its treatment of them--misuse of subtype on the one hand, and even incorporating the enneagram on the other.

I'm aware of many people that seem to superficially come off like an alternate type. You're actually a good example of that—often times you would appear as though you were using lots of , to a point that you believed yourself ISFp for some time… but it was obvious to me that it wasn't the of an ego. And that you were an EP temperament w/ α-quadra values, so therefore ENTp.

Protip: I still "believe" myself to be an SEI. The type in my signature is a joke. That's why it's so sparse. Also, my Fe usage has nothing to do with my self-typing. My self-typing, in summary, is based on:

Intertype relationships
The observations of close friends and family (one case who knows socionics well, and has typed me)
The workshop wiki SEI description (corroborated by intertypes)
Temperament (cyclical moods, low energy, tendency towards relaxation/inertia/a "de-mobilised" state--how this is EP is beyond me)
Base function (tied in with temperament above)

Yeah, you don't have to explain this to me. I'm well aware.

Apparently not, because earlier in that very post you actually admitted to the bungle of calling an orange an apple if you look at it the right way!! (one more time for emphasis: ):

You're better off using them in concert IMO, as it gives a more well-rounded understanding. For instance, knowing that you're an Ne-ENTp 9 readily explains many differences between you and say, Ti-ENTp 7s (like Vero or something). Aside from that, it should still be obvious that you're both ENTps, simply by noting the presence of EP temperament and α-quadra values—that's all that's necessary. So you can can ditch subtypes and etypes altogether if you want. But incorporating the two will yield greater specificity and that's a good thing.

[jughead]

Yes ashton is insane and loves using troll circular logic and always subtlety never fully explaining himself. Its always too long and difficult to write here or anywhere.