Want I really want from this thread, hmmkr, is for people to understand that although you try to look smart, you're actually an idiot.
Regarding the spread of socionics, it's not about how many people are aware of the theory, but who. To grow socionics, it is necessary to inform high talent people who have an interest in optimizing their success.
Your sense of urgency is misplaced and will not be shared by others.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Which "others"?
I think highly talented people who have an interest in optimizing their success are going to say, "not interested, I got better things to do."Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
It's probably college kids, who get bored surfing the internet get interested in, along with a small group of misfits, outcasts and lovable n'er do wells.
Anyways if you meet a highly talented person interested in optimizing their success, what if they steal your work!!!
Or they'll put it to their personal, private advantage. After realizing that people were making acquaintance with me just to drain my brain, I stopped advertising my expertise on dating sites.
But that was your strongest selling point!
True, but I've found some viable candidates by means of skillful application of the theory. At this point, the best way to "sell myself" is to increase my financial worth to a point on par with the buyer's. That discrepancy is proving to be a major issue.
But where did you get your first buyer?
Socionics -
the16types.info
Is there urgency in socionics? I think there is. I think socionics could someday be used to stop a lot of killing. It is perhaps not useful to the survival of the species, no; but still, I think socionics plays a role the search for peace. It helps people understand each other, and when people understand each other they are less fearful of each other.
Beyond that, we need to move forward with understanding the brain as fast as possible because there are people suffering dementia today. They could probably be healed if appropriate neuron cells were cultured and implanted. Delusions are made up of information aspects gone awry, thanks to neuron misfires. (the same thing drives the experience of hallucenogenic drugs).
I wonder why they haven't figured out how consciousness works, yet.
What are the standards for the journal? What is considered baseline model A?
I'd like to close by observing that there won't be much to write about. Socionics itself isn't that complicated and doesn't allow for many different observations. It deals with the highest layer of the psyche, which floats above the interpersonal and cognitive layers. It's Te-centric and deliberately marginalizes Fe and Fi. It's an abstraction of an abstraction, much of it resting on a prejudice against beta. There may be some but most of that is already done. I don't see a future for this project. Not saying people won't, but they won't be able to prove them unless they go into deeper layers of reasoning which you can only get by integrating political types, EM types, etc. People who don't acknowledge their sources -- or their inspirations -- are seldom respected. So have your fun but I can already see how this is gonna turn out: good for me and people who agree with me because it will illuminate a thousand quirks and vices in the perspectives of the writers (which we know what to make of), but not so reputable or reliable as befits the understanding of types, which have mostly been explored already to the extent permitted with the tools (the functions and positions) available.
And I don't care much for classical socionics, either, because as far as I can see it firmly favors the right wing: it glosses over legitimate conflicts in the name of cooperation at any price, and essentially brainwashes towards dictatorship. It's the interpersonal + organizational layers that point the way forward to change, the arrow of the right's foibles and the left's correction and recovery. And that, quite frankly, is what I think hkkmr is really after: a world without change, the cyclical world suggested by classical socionics. But we do not have to accept every result produced by studies, because sometimes we have choice and the correct response to troubling findings is to rebel against the forces that made them true.
If you're gonna make a journal based on classical socionics, you should make it focus on data and studies. For example, is type X more likely to live in rural areas or metropolitan areas. You should also build your studies on MBTI, because most objective observers see the correlation between the two and repeating studies done on the same types without regard to MBTI probably isn't kosher. I dunno though, because it seems like the motivations of most in this community and mine do not coincide.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-21-2012 at 10:56 AM.
I don't follow classical Socionics nor wish anyone to follow any sort of classical Socionics.
The problem of Socionics is that it's concepts and information are unclarified and ambigious, and clarity needs to be brought into many matters. As far as baseline Model A, I don't think one should focus on following some baseline of Model A, but strive to find ways to be compatible with Model A and/or deeper more explanatory model which Model A can be deduced from. Furthermore, criticism of weaknesses within Model A would also be welcome, as this would help identify flaws within Model A.
From what I've observed, most alternative Models either expand upon Model A with additional axioms, or introduce new means of categorization via subtypes, dual types and other divisions. A lot of which is fairly hard to substantiate and sometimes not even deduced from Model A. If a model is produced which would replace Model A, it better either conclusively falsify Model A or be able to deduce Model A. I am of course assuming Model A has some validity, otherwise I wouldn't be interested.
Some basic general guidelines and ideas for people to think about. Think of this as priorities more than requirements, as any well written clear articles on this subject can be useful.
1. Model A compatible or explains Model A in a new way, think QM vs Classical Mechanics instead of geocentric vs heliocentric
2. Correlation/association of Model A with other fields of study, especially those of academic acceptance, (Philosophy, science, psychology, information science)
3. Criticism of Model A and proposals to falsify Model A (I think this is actually really hard to actually do, but thought experiments to falsify Model A may provide a interesting discussion and create a dialectic which will allowed a nuanced investigation of the Model)
4. Experiments which could be designed to test Model A observations
5. Designs on how to create a more objective means of identifying a TIM
6. Commentary and observations on Socionics
MBTI is not a typology I believe is compatible with socionics, but it's not bad to know, however it is like a geocentric view of the world vs socionics which is heliocentric. I don't think MBTI offers anything better or more accurate, except maybe ENTP exists in both typologies, just as Jupiter exists in the solar system.
The purpose of the Journal is to approach other disciplines with this topic and speak in a language in which other disciplines can understand without confusing the message.
classical socionics = soocionics based on Model A rules alone. It's actually an oxymoron because Model A itself isn't ENOUGH to create a type. It's just a collection of similarities between people of the same type, which really aren't dependent on each other for validity. If model A were enough, Boukalov wouldn't have proposed Model B.
It's impossible, because Model A is not an emergent pattern, just a pattern of skepticisms and misgivings. But even those are due to external criticisms by people of other types. If the criticism is taken hard, the function is weak (super-id). If it's ignored, there must be an ethical issue (id). Superego block is our way of trying to avoid evil. Augustinaviciute probably explained these somewhere, but we don't have that book available to us. You know Rick... ask him about it.The problem of Socionics is that it's concepts and information are unclarified and ambigious, and clarity needs to be brought into many matters. As far as baseline Model A, I don't think one should focus on following some baseline of Model A, but strive to find ways to be compatible with Model A and/or deeper more explanatory model which Model A can be deduced from. Furthermore, criticism of weaknesses within Model A would also be welcome, as this would help identify flaws within Model A.
First you say you're not a strictly classical socionist, and now you criticize systems that aren't derived from model A. Self-contradiction. If you question such basic premises as political types and maladaptive attitudes, then you are naive.From what I've observed, most alternative Models either expand upon Model A with additional axioms, or introduce new means of categorization via subtypes, dual types and other divisions. A lot of which is fairly hard to substantiate and sometimes not even deduced from Model A. If a model is produced which would replace Model A, it better either conclusively falsify Model A or be able to deduce Model A. I am of course assuming Model A has some validity, otherwise I wouldn't be interested.
I spent seven years figuring this shit out. You can't believe how dark it was, how many times I doubted myself. You cannot take that away from me. You don't have the right.
Some basic general guidelines and ideas for people to think about. Think of this as priorities more than requirements, as any well written clear articles on this subject can be useful.
We'll see proton decay before that happens.1. Model A compatible or explains Model A in a new way, think QM vs Classical Mechanics instead of geocentric vs heliocentric
Model A IS psychology. The others don't make sense. Information science IN THEORY but, there's just no road there. Give the girl her due: she did this right.2. Correlation/association of Model A with other fields of study, especially those of academic acceptance, (Philosophy, science, psychology, information science)
This is very hard to do. Maybe even impossible.3. Criticism of Model A and proposals to falsify Model A (I think this is actually really hard to actually do, but thought experiments to falsify Model A may provide a interesting discussion and create a dialectic which will allowed a nuanced investigation of the Model)
Why would these be published here? You'd need a university format to test these observations at convincing scale. Those have to be approved by a review board before they are even being undertaken. Besides these are the kinds of studies that are the subject of masters' theses. It would make more sense to publish in a reputed journal, which probably has policies against multiple submissions.4. Experiments which could be designed to test Model A observations
5. Designs on how to create a more objective means of identifying a TIM
6. Commentary and observations on Socionics
"A more objective means of identifying a TIM" -- you mean neuroscience. Well, get their attention and you may have something.
Greek mythology vs Roman mythology is probably more apt. Nothing in the original MBTI is inaccurate; even their official test from as recently as the 70s is perfect at testing only Model A relevant traits and nothing else. There have been some corruptions of the theory in recent years by people other than Myers and Briggs, but that doesn't invalidate the original design. It's simply a dead end that can't be applied to the study of EM types the way Model A can. But MBTI was based on Jung's theory, which was designed to identify differences in people. Augustinaviciute wanted to know more than that there were many different types of people -- she wanted to know why -- so she made the leap to information metabolism.MBTI is not a typology I believe is compatible with socionics, but it's not bad to know, however it is like a geocentric view of the world vs socionics which is heliocentric. I don't think MBTI offers anything better or more accurate, except maybe ENTP exists in both typologies, just as Jupiter exists in the solar system.
I get the impression you look at all my claims and say, "you can't prove these" or "you haven't proved these". This is a waste of time. You just don't want people to believe I know what I'm talking about. You think I'm some horrible influence or whatever. I'm just an annoyance to you but you'll never be rid of me.
And how are you gonna do that without prestige? This is a recipe for making people mad.The purpose of the Journal is to approach other disciplines with this topic and speak in a language in which other disciplines can understand without confusing the message.
thanks hkkmr for the info
when I said "baseline model A" I meant more like a collection of solid resources to reference or something. I mean are forum posts and wikisocion considered viable resources or should we be like reading up on translated russian articles?
Nobody gets mad about these things... LOL!
Socionics -
the16types.info
I would say this article Aiss translated is a good starting point.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...lation-Model-A
All the content within the CMS outside of viewpoints is translated work and probably as of right now viable resources. There's a good number of people on this forum who are professionals, academics and people who have done a lot of studying and education, in school or otherwise. I really don't see the difference between a forum like this site vs the informal academic discussions Augusta originally formulated this topic with.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
