I remember now that I'm actually a 6w5 rather than a 5w6, I just got confused between the two, I'll make the change now on my signature.Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon
Oh my bad, Galen is 6w5. Would that be so much different from 5w6?
And, i dont think Galen is mistyped. I relate to him a lot.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Almost any type can be a 6, so it changes everything.
No man, that's not Socionics, Model A, that I was talking about, not the methods I use. I use stuff that is not part of Socionics for the same purpose too, but using them does not make them Socionics.
Thinking styles are yet other vague mental masturbation of Gulenko, they are much more ambiguous than the dichotomies and the personality descriptions. Nothing about them was demonstrated, neither how they were deduced from observations, whether they are all the cognitive styles of this kind nor how they apply to the types claimed to apply. IME on this forum, these descriptions are used for typing by people who don't understand very well fundamental concepts. I never met so far someone who understands the Socionics concepts and on their basis to demonstrate how they fit with types, all we got is a set of assertions that types X, Y, W and Z use thinking style A. The mechanisms for cognition are pretty clearly explained by the Model A they are not in the least matching Gulenko's cognitive styles. This is what Socionics is about, part of it - Model A - deals precisely with cognition, the other main one with relationships.
Gulenko's research - undeservedly called intuction - started off the hypothesis that *maybe* types that are connected into supervision rings might share a dichotomy. This is where Socionics ends and his wish to find a link between these types starts. Just like superstitions.
ILI and IEE are different types and can be differentiated through means of the sociotype. First of all one is Introverted while the other is Extroverted, then one uses Te for judgments, the other uses Fi. Only these two create a huge difference between the two types of psyche... Basically when such is the case, the typer is either confused or the subject is atypical (different factors), case in which mysticism does not help, it is foolish to believe that while the clear fundamental distinctions can't help, these shamanic last-resort solutions will tell the truth.
It is surprising that you find subtypes distracting though you believe these are revealing...
Then I do not see the need of the comment you made which caused my quote. If you restrict Socionics to Model A, of course it's not "kosher" Socionics. But the way you said "it's not Socionics" suggested it's invalid for typing purposes. You also recognize its (at least potential) usefulness.No man, that's not Socionics, Model A, that I was talking about, not the methods I use. I use stuff that is not part of Socionics for the same purpose too, but using them does not make them Socionics.
Cognitive styles are based in dichotomies. I could agree with you that even IF the three dichotomies used were completely true, this does not make automatically the combination Gulenko made (ie, CS) correct.Thinking styles are yet other vague mental masturbation of Gulenko, they are much more ambiguous than the dichotomies and the personality descriptions. Nothing about them was demonstrated, neither how they were deduced from observations, whether they are all the cognitive styles of this kind nor how they apply to the types claimed to apply.
I was also skeptic about dichotomies, but after observing some of them at work in their corresponding types, then I opened my mind. And I'm not speaking only about such dichotomies with a direct translation in model A, like merry/serious. I'm sure you will agree with me that both of us fit well in the process side of that dichotomy, for example.
Obviously I do not say with this that I have changed from simply rejecting (0%) to simply accepting (100%). I was skeptic, and I actually put in them a certain degree of confidence, specially in dichotomies. Even if their "bastard" descendant CS were bullshit, dichotmies are still different for IEE and ILI, so we can still choose between them by this alternative way.
The "different mathematical basis" argument I made in my "type me" thread did not affirm they do not exist, but I simply did not see their usefulness at that time (~meaningless). Once I observed at least some of them, I have reinterpreted them a bit, still similar but in a way that des not "deny" their potential: let's imagine every type like a set of elements, made by pieces which are the model A functions. Let's imagine these sets are circles. Different types will share some portions of their inner reality (area). So we have intersections between these circles. Sometimes these intersections will fit exaclty with pieces (model A functions) as happens with merry/serious, for example. But sometimes these intersections will be "weird" like process/result. Anyway, you can define (fill the area) of every set (type) using intersections as well as you do it with pieces. The problem would be conceptualizing them, but they are still valid.
If you take CSs as a particular combination of some of these dichotomies, the problem is the same, proper conceptualization. But they are still, at least, "mathematically valid".
When you ask for demonstrations, I agree with you that I find some descriptions of dichotomies Gulenko used a bit strange, specially when speaking about physical effects. Anyway, and what it's much more important, you ask for demonstrations with a gap in mind about kosher/non kosher Socionics. And the question is: IS SOCIONICS EVEN DEMONSTRATED???? The answer is no. Socionics is not demonstrated, typology is not demonstrated, and many aspects of Psychology are not demonstrated. The fact that you could think in a lot of Aushra followers making studies about their theories and achieving conclusions does not make any of this demostrated even a bit. Yeah, the more people working in a area the more probability of success (with the rest of variables unchanged) but still not proven in a scientific level. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. Am I implying with this that there's zero usefulness or relation with reality with all of this? No, simply that this is simply a model, nothing more nothing less. A model in a set of models, none of them being demonstrated. Being extremely confident in one and rejecting all its competitors, even when they try to speak about the same, is a bit arbitrary, IMO.
My answer to this is implicit in the previous paragraph. I like when you qualify Gulenko ideas as mere superstition as if Socionics were not at similar level.IME on this forum, these descriptions are used for typing by people who don't understand very well fundamental concepts. I never met so far someone who understands the Socionics concepts and on their basis to demonstrate how they fit with types, all we got is a set of assertions that types X, Y, W and Z use thinking style A. The mechanisms for cognition are pretty clearly explained by the Model A they are not in the least matching Gulenko's cognitive styles. This is what Socionics is about, part of it - Model A - deals precisely with cognition, the other main one with relationships.
Gulenko's research - undeservedly called intuction - started off the hypothesis that *maybe* types that are connected into supervision rings might share a dichotomy. This is where Socionics ends and his wish to find a link between these types starts. Just like superstitions.
I see what you are trying to say, affirming things after a word like *maybe* is not logic. But I see it as simply making hypothesis. The fact that model A Socionics could be structured in perfect logic (and I do not know if this is the case) does not make it correct if the relation beetween all of this and reality ends being ZERO.
LOL. I was not suggesting the user to ignore "Model A" style, I simply offered him an alternative. It's funny how you qualify as *shamanic* what you seem to not understand, or does not fit in your previous conceptions. As if there were *one perfect truth* in this stuff of typology, Socionics, etc. My answer to this: prove that Socionics, or your style of Socionics, is real. If not, that kind of argumentation is simply bullshit.
Easy: subtypes are not an alternative way of choosing types. They're a smaller catergory. It's a different question.It is surprising that you find subtypes distracting though you believe these are revealing...
Last edited by ssss; 06-23-2011 at 11:13 PM.
Consistency with Model A and type descriptions is a necessity of something to be Socionics, there's no need to restrict anything to it, but to stay consistent with it. Something that contradicts the Model is not Socionics; something in which the Model is irrelevant can't be used in typing, easy. Birds can fly doesn't imply the horse is a mammal.
If you're talking about Process/Result, then I certainly disagree: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...571#post773571 (5th answer). ILEs don't fit the Process dichotomy.
Weird is one thing, contradictory is another. Process/Result, at least Gulenko's interpretation falls in the latter category.
This is irrelevant and the necessity you make up is fallacious. The problem is that the CSs can't be demonstrated to fit Socionics, like other dichotomies or traits (eg quadra common traits, temperaments, type introversion, clubs and so on).
Yes, Socionics is a model and therefore there are conditions for something to be correct in respect to it, in order to be called "Socionics". The fact you don't seem to understand is that Socionics is a definition of some concepts, therefore something that doesn't fit is not Socionics. Otherwise, if some alternative to Socionics is true but contradictory with it, then yes, that system is worth something and Socionics is wrong. I'm sorry, but when an author recognizes as true both the Model and some hypotheses contradictory with it, then I'm not going with him/her. Gulenko does this for a living, he's a charlatan who made a name by working with Aushra and now makes up a lot of bullshit to entertain the audience. His work is largely denied by most Russian Socionists, FTR.
That's because Aushra explained what observations made her conclude what. She has not started of imaginary assumptions about Jung or Kempinski's theories, but the other way around, she found those theories usable as a starting point to explain her observations. Unlike Gulenko, she neither made claims that she "refined" Jung's system, but made hers loosely based on Jung's. She clearly stated what in Socionics contradicts Jung and why the two systems are different, ncluding different criteria for typing. Therefore typing in Socionics doesn't make your type a Jungian one, neither typing in a different system based on Socionics does not make the types the same.
If Gulenko asserts that each type has a color of his aura, would you use this for typing? Why? How could you consider that "helpful" when nothing else works since you can't even prove to yourself that each type has a certain aura color?
AND FOR THE FUCKING LAST TIME: whether sociotypes are real or not is irrelevant. Are you so retarded to fail comprehending that if something does not fit a definition that is a fact, it is irrelevant whether that definition entails something empirically provable? The type traits are a material implication of Socionics, its necessary consequence, I don't need to prove anything to you. When you talk of the Socionics IEE and ILI, they have some necessary characteristics that nothing can change.
In Christianity, there is a God that created the world and Jesus is his son. If you deny that and consider yourself an atheist or other religion, that's fine, if you deny that and consider yourself a Christian, then you're an idiot. Please stop this shitty argument, no one is required to prove to you something conceptual that is true by definition. You claimed earlier that E5w6 has the core of a 5 and the whatever of a 6. Why? What if someone comes with a "refinement" claiming that 5w6 has a loving, peacemaking, indifferent core (like 9) with an individualist, uniqueness touch (like 4), is that true to you? No, because that's now how Enneagram defines them, whether the Enneagram is true or false it's totally irrelevant.
However, they are often misguiding, I thought you acknowledged that already. There were numerous cases of mistypings, especially Introvert vs Extrovert based on their confusion. When a SEI-Fe is a "more Fe" SEI (whatever that means), it does not make it "more ESE", like most people believe, because ESE has different dichotomies, different arrangements of functions. In Socionics the functions are discreet, so yes, when this confusion is made, then they are actually incompatible alternatives to Model A.
Remember when Director Abbie suggested you're a Te subtype? Why are you a Te subtype since among Gamma NTs it's the ILI who's critical and nitpicking? But then you're neither Ni, because IEIs are not like that and logical clarity doesn't come from that IE. The same goes for "anal ILEs", neither LII nor IEE is so uncompromising and pushy on logical grounds. You will see that there will be people willing to type you as LSI or LSE based on this attitude which does not come from the functionality of your psyche as defined in the model, neither it is consistent with typing others who are not like this as T-Base. These amateurish double-standards made some guys who "want to be always right" Beta ST based on this trait, the same type with others who don't give a shit.
Just by reading the latest threads, I stumbled upon an example: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...468#post784468 (DCHN). In theory, one may arguably say that such subtype systems don't step the model on its toes, in practice (especially typing), that actually happens. Besides the attempts to find the subtype on purpose, which is normal, I witnessed countless justifications of someone's type based on these side hypotheses (subtype, cognitive styles, etc), basically they can't tell you why someone doesn't fit a type, but they can tell you how it fits a subtype (or a CS). This is ridiculous. Such anomaly made for instance user Gulanzon being accepted in this pop-science community as an Alpha Introvert (allegedly "SEI-Fe", LOL), while if subtypes have not existed type he would have been a clear cut Alpha Extrovert.However, they are often misguiding, I thought you acknowledged that already. There were numerous cases of mistypings, especially Introvert vs Extrovert based on their confusion. When a SEI-Fe is a "more Fe" SEI (whatever that means), it does not make it "more ESE", like most people believe, because ESE has different dichotomies, different arrangements of functions. In Socionics the functions are discreet, so yes, when this confusion is made, then they are actually incompatible alternatives to Model A.
Raver, welcome back!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
