Article Translation Requests (Please put your requests here!)

[godslave]

.

Echo, aren't these Talanov based definitions ?

[Braingel]

I like Talanov, I was typed iei there with an alt of eie by a student who assessed me via a written doc with questions that prob your cognition

[godslave]

Yeah, Model T !

Some of these definitions don't align with Model A and yet use the same nomenclature....

The theory said Objects (Ne, Se, Te, Fe) and Fields (Ni, Si, Ti, Fi)

Objects = Information relative to Objects themselves ; Field = Information relative to relations between objects.

Now keep that in mind and read Model T definitions...

Hey ! Talanov !




It doesn't make any Freaking sense at all !!!!!

[Echo]

Echo, aren't these Talanov based definitions ?

I believe they are another authors interpretation of Talanov’s work (but yes, basically building on his stuff)

[maresnest]

Here’s the first image translation, I’ll update this post with the others when I finish them:

This is awesome!!! Thank you so much.

I actually wanted to point out though that it isn't actually the 'first' image on the page. It's easy to miss since images on the page pop out more, but if you translate the webpage text from Russian under the first section it says that the image file was too large to host on the site, so they externally linked it.

Translated with Yandex:

1. A unique summary table containing a huge array of the most relevant socionic knowledge at the moment.
Semantic content of dichotomies, 84 small groups (out of 140), 24 functions (classical+questim-declatim in programmatic and creative forms), social strategies of sociotypes, the essence of dual and conflict relations in different pairs, recommendations for typing. In fact, for the first time in history, all socionics is in one table (before you couldn't even dream of it) Unfortunately, the functionality of the site does not allow you to upload images that are too large. You can download the table in one file by following the link.

This really interested me and I wanted to see that above all else translated. But I am not complaining about the other translations you did.

This is a good file hosting site for a large photo that imgur would compress to hell btw

[Echo]

Please note that further explanations of the groups in this diagram (in English) can be found here: https://sociotype.xyz/g

[Echo]

This is awesome!!! Thank you so much.

I actually wanted to point out though that it isn't actually the 'first' image on the page. It's easy to miss since images on the page pop out more, but if you translate the webpage text from Russian under the first section it says that the image file was too large to host on the site, so they externally linked it.

Translated with Yandex:

1. A unique summary table containing a huge array of the most relevant socionic knowledge at the moment.
Semantic content of dichotomies, 84 small groups (out of 140), 24 functions (classical+questim-declatim in programmatic and creative forms), social strategies of sociotypes, the essence of dual and conflict relations in different pairs, recommendations for typing. In fact, for the first time in history, all socionics is in one table (before you couldn't even dream of it) Unfortunately, the functionality of the site does not allow you to upload images that are too large. You can download the table in one file by following the link.

This really interested me and I wanted to see that above all else translated. But I am not complaining about the other translations you did.

This is a good file hosting site for a large photo that imgur would compress to hell btw

Finally finished the chart! Here it is:

[maresnest]

Please note that further explanations of the groups in this diagram (in English) can be found here: https://sociotype.xyz/g

Nice work. I noticed some errors in this—most of them are fine, but there were a select few that caught my eye. Not sure if they mistranslated or were there to begin with, but I know what small groups are associated with which types so I know what color the name of the small group would correspond to on the theory side (the square to the left of the type). You can see them too.

Communication styles:
Yellow should actually be Sincere (4D Fi)
Green should actually be Business-like (4D Te)

Temperaments:
Blue should actually be Receptive-Adaptive (Ip)
Green should actually be Balanced-Stable (Ij)

Worldview:
Yellow should actually be Complex Good World (questim + positivist)
Green should actually be Complex Evil World (questim + negativist)
Blue should actually be Simple Evil World (declatim + negativist)
Red should actually be Simple Good World (declatim + positivist)

[Echo]

Nice work. I noticed some errors in this—most of them are fine, but there were a select few that caught my eye. Not sure if they mistranslated or were there to begin with, but I know what small groups are associated with which types so I know what color the name of the small group would correspond to on the theory side (the square to the left of the type). You can see them too.

Communication styles:
Yellow should actually be Sincere (4D Fi)
Green should actually be Business-like (4D Te)

Temperaments:
Blue should actually be Receptive-Adaptive (Ip)
Green should actually be Balanced-Stable (Ij)

Worldview:
Yellow should actually be Complex Good World (questim + positivist)
Green should actually be Complex Evil World (questim + negativist)
Blue should actually be Simple Evil World (declatim + negativist)
Red should actually be Simple Good World (declatim + positivist)

You're right, well spotted. I’ve updated the original post with a link to the corrected image.

[maresnest]

Finally finished the chart! Here it is:

Due to the order of the posts the thread it made me afraid I was looking like kind of like a jackass for pointing out the minor errors of the other image right under this massive translation effort you’ve done because we happened to decide to post on this thread around the same time. Your work translating this and posting it isn’t going unappreciated. Thank you!!

I can see now it really is mostly a Talanov-based thing, but I still find it very interesting to see what’s come out of his work.

godslave gave the impression that they didn’t like that it was Talanov which made me feel a little bad, like I brought in something to be translated that I didn’t know people wouldn’t like.
I know Talanov isn’t Augusta’s Model A, but I like both for different reasons. Model A is still my main system to look at socionics through, but I like what Talanov’s perspective offers too because it gives a more reality-based look at how the expected Model A theoretical constructs and dichotomies map to people in real life. I think Talanov has done a pretty good job operationalizing the constructs of socionics as well as the preceding authors who have contributed up to that point, and it is fascinating to see what insights they have pulled from it.

I don’t think Talanov-based definitions conflict with Model A. They are not 1:1 definitions, of course, but it isn’t harmful either to think about how these concepts might realistically manifest in a person, what their application would look like. I think they circle around the same basic essence as Model A’s concepts, but Talanov frames it in terms of real-world manifestations in people because you need to operationalize the abstract concepts somehow. I think they can co-exist with each other. I mean back in 2022 I took the gargantuan Talanov questionnaire (in English) and my results returned (in Russian lol) LII on both the “scientific socionics” calculation and “classical socionics” calculation methods.

When taken together in the mind, I feel having both parallel perspectives gives me a more panoramic understanding of socionics rather than feeling like I learned net zero information or felt confused about which definitions are the “real” ones. That would be the case if they were contradictory, but I think they complement each other.
(Sidenote: I also think this is something IEEs deeply know the struggle of. I remember reading a thread of people talking about how they experience their PoLR function and one IEE talked about how they think similar to this— it hurts for people to grill them for being inconsistent when what they understand is how more than one definition can be true in contributing to the overall essence of something. Holographic types are deconstructive, particularly the Se → Ti → Ne arc. IEEs can you confirm?)

As for the content of this translation, I feel like I’ve seen most of these concepts making up the top half of the chart on sociotype.xyz already, but there was stuff that was new for me on here: “THE FUNCTIONS” section (bright green) and below it, which is amazing!

For a while I was having trouble wrapping my head around the questim/declatim functions (Qe, Qi, Di, De) thing in Talanov since it felt lopsided for the irrational types and I didn’t understand the rationale behind it. I was thinking, why do only the rational types get one of these? In my thinking, irrational functions could still be said to possess asking/declaring traits…
For instance, there’s -Se! (deconstructing, declatim Se in SLE’s ego and IEE’s superego), and +Se? (constructing, questim Se in SEE’s ego and ILE’s superego).
(And just so nobody gets confused, for the charges of the functions, I use SCS’s charge system, which makes the most sense to me as the ‘default’ in terms of using it with Model A. In general these principles of the charges near-universally fit this scheme.)

So my questions were:
Why wouldn’t base -Se! and -Ne! (SLE and IEE) be considered De,
Why wouldn’t base +Ni? and +Si? (IEI and SLI) be considered Qi,
Why wouldn’t base +Se? and +Ne? (SEE and ILE) be considered Qe,
and why wouldn’t base -Ni! and -Si! (ILI and SEI) be considered Di?

I was thinking in terms of how similar types in the ring of benefit were, especially synthesizing Gulenko’s thoughts on that small group and their quadra role stuff, and some of Strati’s stuff.
But seeing how this big chart describes the functions and then “anti-functions” due to their creative counterpart (e.g. Se vs anti-Se [creative Ne]), and then seeing that same relationship for the questim/declatim functions below that helps it make a little bit more sense. I think I know what they’re getting at now instead.

The sociotypes as survival strategies is pretty cool. You can tell how duals’ survival strategies would complement each other and bring the other half meaning to the endeavor.

I also think the root of the discordance between conflict pairs is also super interesting and astute taken everything I’ve read. What always interested me was that conflictor types have the same information elements on their inert and contact vertical blocks, just with different charges and swapped in position. For example, LII and SEE both have sensorics (Se/Si) and logic (Ti/Te) in their inert side, ethics (Fi/Fe) and intuition (Ne/Ni) in their contact side. And you can see how that connects to the conflictor clash as described here. I’m looking at how this applies to the other types too.

[Braingel]

Due to the order of the posts the thread it made me afraid I was looking like kind of like a jackass for pointing out the minor errors of the other image right under this massive translation effort you’ve done because we happened to decide to post on this thread around the same time. Your work translating this and posting it isn’t going unappreciated. Thank you!!

I can see now it really is mostly a Talanov-based thing, but I still find it very interesting to see what’s come out of his work.

godslave gave the impression that they didn’t like that it was Talanov which made me feel a little bad, like I brought in something to be translated that I didn’t know people wouldn’t like.
I know Talanov isn’t Augusta’s Model A, but I like both for different reasons. Model A is still my main system to look at socionics through, but I like what Talanov’s perspective offers too because it gives a more reality-based look at how the expected Model A theoretical constructs and dichotomies map to people in real life. I think Talanov has done a pretty good job operationalizing the constructs of socionics as well as the preceding authors who have contributed up to that point, and it is fascinating to see what insights they have pulled from it.

I don’t think Talanov-based definitions conflict with Model A. They are not 1:1 definitions, of course, but it isn’t harmful either to think about how these concepts might realistically manifest in a person, what their application would look like. I think they circle around the same basic essence as Model A’s concepts, but Talanov frames it in terms of real-world manifestations in people because you need to operationalize the abstract concepts somehow. I think they can co-exist with each other. I mean back in 2022 I took the gargantuan Talanov questionnaire (in English) and my results returned (in Russian lol) LII on both the “scientific socionics” calculation and “classical socionics” calculation methods.

When taken together in the mind, I feel having both parallel perspectives gives me a more panoramic understanding of socionics rather than feeling like I learned net zero information or felt confused about which definitions are the “real” ones. That would be the case if they were contradictory, but I think they complement each other.
(Sidenote: I also think this is something IEEs deeply know the struggle of. I remember reading a thread of people talking about how they experience their PoLR function and one IEE talked about how they think similar to this— it hurts for people to grill them for being inconsistent when what they understand is how more than one definition can be true in contributing to the overall essence of something. Holographic types are deconstructive, particularly the Se → Ti → Ne arc. IEEs can you confirm?)

As for the content of this translation, I feel like I’ve seen most of these concepts making up the top half of the chart on sociotype.xyz already, but there was stuff that was new for me on here: “THE FUNCTIONS” section (bright green) and below it, which is amazing!

For a while I was having trouble wrapping my head around the questim/declatim functions (Qe, Qi, Di, De) thing in Talanov since it felt lopsided for the irrational types and I didn’t understand the rationale behind it. I was thinking, why do only the rational types get one of these? In my thinking, irrational functions could still be said to possess asking/declaring traits…
For instance, there’s -Se! (deconstructing, declatim Se in SLE’s ego and IEE’s superego), and +Se? (constructing, questim Se in SEE’s ego and ILE’s superego).
(And just so nobody gets confused, for the charges of the functions, I use SCS’s charge system, which makes the most sense to me as the ‘default’ in terms of using it with Model A. In general these principles of the charges near-universally fit this scheme.)

So my questions were:
Why wouldn’t base -Se! and -Ne! (SLE and IEE) be considered De,
Why wouldn’t base +Ni? and +Si? (IEI and SLI) be considered Qi,
Why wouldn’t base +Se? and +Ne? (SEE and ILE) be considered Qe,
and why wouldn’t base -Ni! and -Si! (ILI and SEI) be considered Di?

I was thinking in terms of how similar types in the ring of benefit were, especially synthesizing Gulenko’s thoughts on that small group and their quadra role stuff, and some of Strati’s stuff.
But seeing how this big chart describes the functions and then “anti-functions” due to their creative counterpart (e.g. Se vs anti-Se [creative Ne]), and then seeing that same relationship for the questim/declatim functions below that helps it make a little bit more sense. I think I know what they’re getting at now instead.

The sociotypes as survival strategies is pretty cool. You can tell how duals’ survival strategies would complement each other and bring the other half meaning to the endeavor.

I also think the root of the discordance between conflict pairs is also super interesting and astute taken everything I’ve read. What always interested me was that conflictor types have the same information elements on their inert and contact vertical blocks, just with different charges and swapped in position. For example, LII and SEE both have sensorics (Se/Si) and logic (Ti/Te) in their inert side, ethics (Fi/Fe) and intuition (Ne/Ni) in their contact side. And you can see how that connects to the conflictor clash as described here. I’m looking at how this applies to the other types too.

When you say model A, do you mean scs or sss? Or even a combination of them.. From how you write, you don’t mean A as in the watered down wss kind..

I have not been officially typed, but I have had people read my questionnaire and type me eii, and most classical people on here have me as eii.. I believe it makes sense from what I have picked up on scs.. Now in Talanov, I am clearly an iei-ni.

Ah, I skimmed, I read you you use Scs’s charge.. but I don’t know anything about sss, and maybe you do infuse other means in, since it only averts upon charge

[Braingel]

I don’t know overly much about either model, but scs has the whole social norm focus that Talanov doesn’t have. I was typed as Fe ego in Talanov because I focused on emotional expressions with my reactions, I’ll have to dig up what I wrote exactly, but I am more aware of my own inherently and don’t consciously focus on others’ moods. I believe the social norm mean is biased to attachment enneagram types a bit, but still the consciousness would fit of awareness of what the functions encompass.. My Fe is used selfishly (ID) and unconsciously.

[Echo]

Due to the order of the posts the thread it made me afraid I was looking like kind of like a jackass for pointing out the minor errors of the other image right under this massive translation effort you’ve done because we happened to decide to post on this thread around the same time. Your work translating this and posting it isn’t going unappreciated. Thank you!!

I can see now it really is mostly a Talanov-based thing, but I still find it very interesting to see what’s come out of his work.

godslave gave the impression that they didn’t like that it was Talanov which made me feel a little bad, like I brought in something to be translated that I didn’t know people wouldn’t like.
I know Talanov isn’t Augusta’s Model A, but I like both for different reasons. Model A is still my main system to look at socionics through, but I like what Talanov’s perspective offers too because it gives a more reality-based look at how the expected Model A theoretical constructs and dichotomies map to people in real life. I think Talanov has done a pretty good job operationalizing the constructs of socionics as well as the preceding authors who have contributed up to that point, and it is fascinating to see what insights they have pulled from it.

I don’t think Talanov-based definitions conflict with Model A. They are not 1:1 definitions, of course, but it isn’t harmful either to think about how these concepts might realistically manifest in a person, what their application would look like. I think they circle around the same basic essence as Model A’s concepts, but Talanov frames it in terms of real-world manifestations in people because you need to operationalize the abstract concepts somehow. I think they can co-exist with each other. I mean back in 2022 I took the gargantuan Talanov questionnaire (in English) and my results returned (in Russian lol) LII on both the “scientific socionics” calculation and “classical socionics” calculation methods.

When taken together in the mind, I feel having both parallel perspectives gives me a more panoramic understanding of socionics rather than feeling like I learned net zero information or felt confused about which definitions are the “real” ones. That would be the case if they were contradictory, but I think they complement each other.
(Sidenote: I also think this is something IEEs deeply know the struggle of. I remember reading a thread of people talking about how they experience their PoLR function and one IEE talked about how they think similar to this— it hurts for people to grill them for being inconsistent when what they understand is how more than one definition can be true in contributing to the overall essence of something. Holographic types are deconstructive, particularly the Se → Ti → Ne arc. IEEs can you confirm?)

As for the content of this translation, I feel like I’ve seen most of these concepts making up the top half of the chart on sociotype.xyz already, but there was stuff that was new for me on here: “THE FUNCTIONS” section (bright green) and below it, which is amazing!

For a while I was having trouble wrapping my head around the questim/declatim functions (Qe, Qi, Di, De) thing in Talanov since it felt lopsided for the irrational types and I didn’t understand the rationale behind it. I was thinking, why do only the rational types get one of these? In my thinking, irrational functions could still be said to possess asking/declaring traits…
For instance, there’s -Se! (deconstructing, declatim Se in SLE’s ego and IEE’s superego), and +Se? (constructing, questim Se in SEE’s ego and ILE’s superego).
(And just so nobody gets confused, for the charges of the functions, I use SCS’s charge system, which makes the most sense to me as the ‘default’ in terms of using it with Model A. In general these principles of the charges near-universally fit this scheme.)

So my questions were:
Why wouldn’t base -Se! and -Ne! (SLE and IEE) be considered De,
Why wouldn’t base +Ni? and +Si? (IEI and SLI) be considered Qi,
Why wouldn’t base +Se? and +Ne? (SEE and ILE) be considered Qe,
and why wouldn’t base -Ni! and -Si! (ILI and SEI) be considered Di?

I was thinking in terms of how similar types in the ring of benefit were, especially synthesizing Gulenko’s thoughts on that small group and their quadra role stuff, and some of Strati’s stuff.
But seeing how this big chart describes the functions and then “anti-functions” due to their creative counterpart (e.g. Se vs anti-Se [creative Ne]), and then seeing that same relationship for the questim/declatim functions below that helps it make a little bit more sense. I think I know what they’re getting at now instead.

The sociotypes as survival strategies is pretty cool. You can tell how duals’ survival strategies would complement each other and bring the other half meaning to the endeavor.

I also think the root of the discordance between conflict pairs is also super interesting and astute taken everything I’ve read. What always interested me was that conflictor types have the same information elements on their inert and contact vertical blocks, just with different charges and swapped in position. For example, LII and SEE both have sensorics (Se/Si) and logic (Ti/Te) in their inert side, ethics (Fi/Fe) and intuition (Ne/Ni) in their contact side. And you can see how that connects to the conflictor clash as described here. I’m looking at how this applies to the other types too.

No worries! I like Talanov too. Anyone can request any article they want, it doesn’t matter whether everyone finds it useful or not.

Regarding your questions on Qi/Qe and Di/De, i’m going to quote an earlier post, and attach a link to another article that explains them a bit more. I also suggest checking out this site if you haven’t already:

https://socionavigator.com/

This is what I found on talanov’s website:

Functions of Positioning the Individual in Society (“Questim-Declatim Functions”)

The higher functions, which on an intraspecies level are actualized only in the most developed species (those forming complex, personified communities where individuals possess a well-developed individuality and self-awareness); these functions reflect the balance between the interests of the collective and the individual, as well as between tradition, which favors indigenous populations, and the desire of newcomers to alter the structure of society so that their interests are also considered.

Qi (“White Questimity”) = Isolation of Individuality

+Qi (LII, ESI):

• Striving for independence
• Defending personal freedom and justice
• Protecting personal space (privacy zone) from intrusion by outside agents
• Moral revulsion and a desire to maintain ethical purity
• Distancing from society as a source of falsehoods and vices
• Unconditional priority of personal principles over the prevailing societal behavioral norms
• A focus on defending individual rights (not only one’s own, but also others’, based on a sense of justice, even for those who are not allies) in conflict with collective opinion
• Tendency toward low stress tolerance in social interactions and increased susceptibility to seasonal illnesses (due to weakened immunity as a consequence of physical distancing from the majority)

-Qi (IEE, SLE):

• Collectivism in the sense of rejecting the division of things, ideas, etc., into “ours” and “theirs” (does not require this division, as it does not create anything unique worth protecting from external borrowing, making it easier in such a situation to borrow and alienate what was originally created by someone else)
• Patriotism and nationalism
• Herd Instict
• Any propaganda (manipulating people to prove that the actions of authority serve the common good)
• Group cohesion through mutual accountability by participating in collective activities with morally questionable or legally dubious content (corruption schemes; mobbing—the collective bullying of outsiders or “black sheep”; war)

Qe (“Black Questimity”) = Isolation of Nobility

+Qe (EIE, LSE):

• Aversion to the low, foreign, physically dirty, and sick (anything that contact with might transmit a contagion, turning a person into a socially ostracized outcast)
• Disgust for low-quality resources; desire to work only with high-quality materials
• Elitism—the desire to feel part of a hereditary “club of the chosen” (noble lineage, professional dynasty, etc.)
• Inclination to surround oneself only with refined, glamorous, branded items (also related to +Se)
• Strong feelings of envy
• Irritation from discomfort
• Feelings of resentment and anger when needs are frustrated

−Qe (SEI, ILI):

• Acceptance of all things (acknowledges the existence of everything in the world, sees value and purpose even in what most consider junk or trash)
• Tolerance of human quirks, vices, and any bodily dirt
• Willingness to do “dirty work” (in both physical and moral senses) that others avoid for fear of becoming a pariah or “untouchable”
• Ability to survive even “at the bottom” of society, or, like a collaborator, balancing among various groups, adapting to each a bit without fully belonging to any

Di (“White Declatimity”) = Acceptance of Subordination

+Di (LSI, EII):

• Belief in fate and predestination; submissive acceptance of destiny—when one simply follows what is ordained from above; to some extent, indifference to one’s fate
• Patience
• Resilience to hardship
• Collectivism in the sense of following the majority opinion
• Tendency toward unquestioning obedience to socially recognized authorities, especially if their opinion is presented as the majority’s view
• Places faith and hierarchy above personal intellect
• Willingness, even desire, to be like everyone else—a “gray mouse” that does not stand out from the group, a “cog” in the machine of a totalitarian state
• Political conservatism—key preservers of social “bonds”

−Di (ILE, SEE):

• Nonconformism
• Impatience, unwillingness to wait long for desired results
• Willfulness
• Activism in opposition to the majority
• Rejection of predestination—believes each person is the master of their own fate
• Individualism expressed as distinct personal uniqueness
• Readiness to seek and utilize any opportunity, including unconventional or unofficial methods, even those explicitly rejected and condemned by the majority, to achieve goals
• Reformist potential—a desire to challenge, overturn, or dismantle the existing authority structure to release resources unjustly held within it

De (“Black Declatimity”) = Acceptance of Cooperation

+De (ESE, LIE):

• Individual activity that seeks common interests and opportunities for equal collaboration, overcoming any social-class “barriers,” as well as state, language, and cultural boundaries
• “Omnivorousness” in terms of willingness to exchange resources/services and form situational alliances with others—regardless of partners’ personal traits, views, and values
• Strong understanding of one’s own and others’ needs
• Willingness to engage in the mainstream and involve others in their work
• Strong multitasking abilities
• Often optimistic, to the point of being overly confident

−De (IEI, SLI):

• Detachment
• Lack of initiative
• Self-doubt
• Frequent uncertainty about what to pursue
• Tendency toward procrastination
• Seeking unique paths and performing original work in hopes of gaining privileges for unique skills—aiming to live without encountering unpleasant situations or people

So essentially, rather than manifesting the same as in its inert form:

Contact Qi is the opposite of Inert Di
Contact Di is the opposite of Inert Qi
Contact Qe is the opposite of Inert De
Contact De is the opposite of Inert Qe

↑
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-of-the-psyche

[maresnest]

When you say model A, do you mean scs or sss? Or even a combination of them.. From how you write, you don’t mean A as in the watered down wss kind..

I have not been officially typed, but I have had people read my questionnaire and type me eii, and most classical people on here have me as eii.. I believe it makes sense from what I have picked up on scs.. Now in Talanov, I am clearly an iei-ni.

Ah, I skimmed, I read you you use Scs’s charge.. but I don’t know anything about sss, and maybe you do infuse other means in, since it only averts upon charge

Don’t worry I’m a SCS baby. I remember when SCS was in its infancy and Karniv announced plans to make it on PDB. I was one of the earlier members near the end of 2022 because it was really promising. I was invited by mods on two separate side servers dedicated more strictly to discussing Model A constructs and theory and I really really enjoyed the small side server more than the main server. The first one eventually died out so they recreated it but that one barely even got off the ground before dying again. But being invited to the second one after all that time, I guess they liked having me there and thought I made good contributions.
That small side server really really helped me understand the angles and intricacies of Model A through meaningful discussion of it, it was only active for a few months but I feel like I have a PhD in Model A just because I think about it so much outside of that group. My understanding is ultimately a combination of everything I’ve read that I felt was compatible with what I have observed, and putting different weights of importance to models that are more substantial. It largely overlaps with SCS, including Gulenko’s cognitive styles, but is still ultimately derived from me using socionics model A as a tool to apply my own everyday observations of people towards. I sort of went to the server to bring my insights to the table, but since it died I kinda kept my knowledge of it to myself except for one-on-one friends.

[Echo]

No worries! I like Talanov too. Anyone can request any article they want, it doesn’t matter whether everyone finds it useful or not.

Regarding your questions on Qi/Qe and Di/De, i’m going to quote an earlier post, and attach a link to another article that explains them a bit more. I also suggest checking out this site if you haven’t already:

https://socionavigator.com/


↑
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-of-the-psyche

Inert De: LIE + ESE
Contact De: ILI + SEI
Inert Di: EII + LSI
Contact Di: IEE + SLE
Inert Qe: EIE + LSE
Contact Qe: IEI + SLI
Inert Qi: LII + ESI
Contact Qi: ILE + SEE

[godslave]

I can see now it really is mostly a Talanov-based thing, but I still find it very interesting to see what’s come out of his work.

godslave gave the impression that they* didn’t like that it was Talanov which made me feel a little bad, like I brought in something to be translated that I didn’t know people wouldn’t like.

You don't have to feel bad about that ! I was half-jokingly (almost affectuously) mocking Mr.T because he dichotomizes stuff too much. It's scary Lol ! I've never really tried to take a deep dive in his model because it looks like chaos to me. The way he presents his charts are like a warning "Enter at your own peril !". That said I've explored it a bit a while ago.

I know Talanov isn’t Augusta’s Model A, but I like both for different reasons. Model A is still my main system to look at socionics through, but I like what Talanov’s perspective offers too because it gives a more reality-based look at how the expected Model A theoretical constructs and dichotomies map to people in real life. I think Talanov has done a pretty good job operationalizing the constructs of socionics as well as the preceding authors who have contributed up to that point, and it is fascinating to see what insights they have pulled from it.

In my humble opinion, it doesn't give more or less real look on TIM carriers than Model A since it is still a theoretical model even if it is oriented towards a more behavioristic approach similar to Model G and most interpretations of Model A. To me Model T is strictly theoretical and the alleged more defined "reality based look" is just a projection. We see what we want to see don't we ? I understand the passion though, you're LII after all ! I probably don't have the ability "to recognize the incarnation" lol.

I don’t think Talanov-based definitions conflict with Model A. They are not 1:1 definitions, of course, but it isn’t harmful either to think about how these concepts might realistically manifest in a person, what their application would look like. I think they circle around the same basic essence as Model A’s concepts, but Talanov frames it in terms of real-world manifestations in people because you need to operationalize the abstract concepts somehow.

Like you said , some Model A definition don't align with Model T, and "not 1:1" is an understatement. I think that the definition of the concept are of the concept itself, if you alternate such definitions to a certain degree then you are not describing the same concept ans therefore the application of the newly described concept is not relevant to the initial one anymore. You can modify certain definitions of Model A and still be in the scope of the initial concept because of the number of parameters you can tweak or fine tune or customize. But Mr.T redefined the very essence of certain Information Aspects and that constitutes a departure imho.

As for the need to operationalize the abstract concept, I think that's exactly what the designation of famous names as prototypes (Dumas; Robespierre, Joukov, Dostoyevski etc...) and type descriptions (profiles) do. I mean the typing process is in and of itself an process by which the theory is put into practice.

I think they can co-exist with each other. I mean back in 2022 I took the gargantuan Talanov questionnaire (in English) and my results returned (in Russian lol) LII on both the “scientific socionics” calculation and “classical socionics” calculation methods.

That's what all LIIs do, they think that everything can be integrated to a system ! But from my perspective the "two objects cannot occupy the same space" rule prevails ! Where you see points of connections, I see overlaps. Where you see integration, I see violation of space. This a point of divergence that is purely type related, it's more like a bias really. I had the same perspective issue with @Tallmo on some of our past discussions but it's all cool, well and good !

I presume that both calculation methods you mentioned are somewhat based on Dichotomies (mostly Reinin) so the fact that they produced the same results is not that surprising. Beside, one person result correlation is not really significative. I mean if you have enough convergente parameters in both calculation you have higher chance to hit the same target. Also the size of the target can be configured (Type spectrum width e.g "LII-----------LII"). I'm just nitpicking but you get the picture .

When taken together in the mind, I feel having both parallel perspectives gives me a more panoramic understanding of socionics rather than feeling like I learned net zero information or felt confused about which definitions are the “real” ones. That would be the case if they were contradictory, but I think they complement each other.

Yes, I do take info from different perspective too (regardless of the topic), the more you get details the better.

(Sidenote: I also think this is something IEEs deeply know the struggle of. I remember reading a thread of people talking about how they experience their PoLR function and one IEE talked about how they think similar to this— it hurts for people to grill them for being inconsistent when what they understand is how more than one definition can be true in contributing to the overall essence of something. Holographic types are deconstructive, particularly the Se → Ti → Ne arc. IEEs can you confirm?)

I have said something similar in a recent post. The object itself is not its essence. But if you don't agree on the designation of said object (concrete or abstract) then you can't see it (conceptualize it) in the first place and therefore you can't explore it from within (or in the absolute) to determine what constitute its essence. It's similar to what I said above "two objects cannot occupy the same space".

Anyway, thank you for your time and insights ! (sorry for the rampling !)

* btw, I'm a dude !

[Echo]

I’ve said it once, I'll say it again:

The map


is not

the territory.