What people don’t understand about socionics

[Braingel]

I am a bit irritated with this, but I do not blame others really for not getting socionics accurately, because most of modern understanding has beat out the fundamentals in which socionics has based on… The ego blocks and how conscious or not, a function is, then in addition, I have sort of pioneered an understanding with shadows, which I later on realized that Aushura had even intended to have in.. She just died prior to being able to finalize her model.. (Then Jung emphasized shadows largely, and Beebe caught them in clinical practice over a 40 decade span)..

Socionics vastly has do with informational metabolism and ego blocks.
People have reduced all of their socionics understanding to caricatures and stereotypes of behavior, without looking at the context to the behavior and how someone gets to behave of this way, relative to their internalization of the information..

I do not honestly feel that I can contribute much to this site, when others are dead-bolted into their conception of behavioral socionics, and people are gonna see me as idiotic and misinterpreting the theory, because I am not basing my understanding of IME on surface qualities that modern has done.. And people are unable to see socionics holistically in how its ideas emerge..
Leading them to devalue my insights, and to see me as delusional and a person not of worth, in what has say.

Even ITR would base around the ego blocks; they are why you clash with or mesh well with other types at a propensity, and I say propensity, because human relations are no law. It is these views a psyche has of their function placement, in how values, relationships that are responsible for some, not all of the behavior has within a person (there are other dynamics at stake that socionics doesn’t encapture) that even allow socionics to exist, but because the west has distorted these to superficial images and behavioral stereotypes, this pinnacle core of socionics has been lost.

When you are basing on typing others without a focus on their mental/vital track in regards to their egoic blocks, you aren’t even really averting on socionics, more of a superficial archetype inspired by socionics.

Because socionics doesn’t encapture all reasonings for behavior, you can’t even really rely on behavior as a primary way to type, you’ve to look at someone’s relationship to an element and how this is able to integrate information, in either constructive or dysfunctional ways..

If people want to type primarily by an archetype, this is fine, but it says little about their actual information metabolism, which is what socionics is all about, how this informational metabolism enables relations and social roles.

I could be wrong, but I do not believe Model G has any focus on ego blocks.. Filatova has them in brief, but they are distorted with their lack of the mental/vital focus, and are defined in ways that aren’t fully congruent to how these blocks work in a Freudian and Jung way.

Yes, the ego blocks of course show behavior, but the issue is once again, that socionics has become this archetype of images based fully on stereotypical behavior, how happy a person is, how reactive a person is… When everyone has these things, they show up in different ways relative to the placement in the ego block of the function.

My primary reason for being upset about it is because people are devaluing my insights, which is something I had expected a bit of, as people are slow to change their understanding, most times, some people have been in behavioral socionics for years upon years, making it hard to undo the bias of this.. They built understandings of life around this and it challenges their idea of inter type relations probably, maybe for some people, especially for a type like 6, it would be a source of insecurity..
It is also a bit frustrating for myself to be viewed as wrong when I am most certainly correct in what I have stated, this may have do a bit with the placement of my Ti, as well as my 1 fix, feeding my core 4 in having to be seen as right in my insights, as a source of others acknowledging my value and worth..

I understand why people are resistant to my ideas; they’re attached to what they understand socionics and don’t want believe they could’ve misapplied things they feel helped broaden their life and self understanding… Most schools have done away with this premise, the pinnacle of it all, and most base their understandings around what is most valued and the consensus.. Then, my shadow conception isn’t apart of socionics, even though it was supposed be, and was my own intuitive grasping of barely studying aushura and skimming some of John Beebe’s book..

I am not angry with anyone, I just wish they would value and consider what I had say more.. This is all.. And I want to run down in a way others can grasp, how it all works, I am trying to explain, how I see the mental/vital and ego blocks as the absolute basis for all socionics, aside from the jungian functions their own self and what they encompass, of course.

It is also admittedly annoying to me, how repulsed and certain people are in assuming I have mistyped myself as an EII, without even understanding the principles I’ve arrived to this conclusion, and relying on a western blown up, superficial archetype of EII, and I’ve even said, I don’t type EII in that archetypal model..

[necrosebud]

I do think you might hypermentalize sometimes

https://voca.ro/1b04xgZNlDiA

Maybe I should have written it out but since it’s recorded I’m just sharing it

[Braingel]

One thing I would like say, is that with EII in an unhealthy presentation, they would shadow into FeNi. I believe this has a lot to do with why EIE has gotten a bad rep, and it’s actually unhealthy EII’s being mistyped eie, from a lack of shadow existence in socionics, responsible for this overtype.. Fe egos have their Fe in a mental ego block, a confident and conscious/deliberate, controllable area, where their neurosis wouldn’t show in as much, they would get what they want with their Fe, but it’s not what self-serves and acts in a destructive way, it is the conduit in which the destructive beliefs and emotions and functions can actually have a hand into influencing.

The whole “type image” of EIE isn’t even accurate, and it is far more an EII who has gripped into their rigid FeNi use.. The whole type image of EIE is ID, unconscious, neurotic and self-serving, uncontrollably and hemorrhaging Fe-..

[necrosebud]

But you type yourself EII

Or is that intentional

[SacredKnowing]

I do not honestly feel that I....

"Don't ask me what I feel, ask me what I think." - Cardinal Francis George, whenever a reporter inquired regarding his feelings about a subject instead of his thoughts.

[Braingel]

But you type yourself EII

Or is that intentional

It’s intentional, an EII would seem like a model
G’s idea of eie under stress (I don’t type myself EII in archetypal/fully behavioral socionics to be clear, I type myself as an iei in that).

[necrosebud]

Do you think the behaviors indicate something about your cognition

[Braingel]

Do you think the behaviors indicate something about your cognition

Yes, somewhat as I explained, the ego constructs influence what information sees and takes in and what puts out, but I don’t believe socionics is built to capture every behavior in its classification, thereby making it a premise to not type by well. There are far too many motives for behavior… And the functions just influence what you see and the ego block of how beliefs form, but like a digestive track, it can obstruct and throw up— behave in a way it doesn’t normally, it would’ve had potentials making it more likely to react X, but these at this point wouldn’t be reducible to typology always.

[necrosebud]

I know

also I wouldn’t ascribe all that to socionics per se

I’m saying is There anything to be gained from others perception of you even if you think it’s inaccurate

[Exodus]

I'm not quite clear on what you mean, but the idea that typings can't refer to non-ego block functions is too extreme. Yes there should be some evidence of the ego block functions but to only use the ego block is some kind of Panjungian idea. I think that's probably not what you mean but maybe you can give an example.

Mental/vital on the other hand is totally irrelevant and is no longer used by any modern school for typing people as far as I know, it is not an observable dichotomy.

[godslave]

I'm not quite clear on what you mean, but the idea that typings can't refer to non-ego block functions is too extreme. Yes there should be some evidence of the ego block functions but to only use the ego block is some kind of Panjungian idea. I think that's probably not what you mean but maybe you can give an example.

Hi Exodus ! I've just learned what "Panjungian" really means. I guess I'm the ultimate anti-Panjungian because I don't like cross-typology correlationism to begin with. Secondly I don't consider socionics like "Jungian" in the sense that socionics is just partially inspired by some Jung principles but socionics is not inscribable within the Jungian Paradigm that is Jungian Psychology. Jung would have rejected socionics had he been alive that makes no doubt in my mind. I think of Aushra as the Dr. Frankenstein and socionics as his creature, it's a chimera albeit functioning.

I think ultimately all typology systems overlap if we look at them through the lens of type descriptions especially when the number of types possible in a given paradigm doesn't symmetrically align with the number of types of the paradigm it is compared to. It is a mistake to use a typing system to validate or invalidate the typing result of another typing system . People don't do that intentionally but it's a side effect of Typological correlationism. Indeed, correlationists would claim that adding results from different system should produce some kind of a coherent HD Type image. Some claims that it's because each system is treating a different layer of the psyche (or "personality" ) for instance they would claim that Psychosophy is about Behavior, Socionics is about cognition, Enneagram is about Motivation etc...

The problem is that while claiming that each typology treats a different layer of the psyche (or "personality") when you read the "Types descriptions" of each type of these typing systems you will find that these "profiles" cover a certain number of behaviors and mindsets that overlap with each other. That is to say that from just one layer of the psyche (or "personality" ) each typology system is capable of describing the whole behavior of a given type which of course inevitably induces overlap between types description of all these systems. So much for just "one layer" of the human psyche. Consequently I think the "different layers" argument doesn't hold water, I suspect that it is a commercial argument, it's good for business especially when you offer services covering several typology systems.

Edit : I Prefer to consider each typological system as they should be considered, namely separately. Each system is a closed system, a standalone. Now, theoretically an accurate type identification should be reasonably coherent with the result of other accurate type identifications from different system in terms of type descriptions overlappings but that's just an secondary expectation.

As a rule : One System, one type.

Mental/vital on the other hand is totally irrelevant and is no longer used by any modern school for typing people as far as I know, it is not an observable dichotomy.

Aren't you familiar V..D. Ermak's School of System Socionics and Irina Eglit's typing methodology ? Or would you consider it as a 'non-modern" school ?

http://en.socionicasys.org/bibliotek...-of-indicators


1. TIM identification protocol Recede (ILE)
2. TIM identification protocol Myst91 (SLE)
3. TIM identification protocol Verglas (EIE)

May I ask you what are the criteria for a "Model A based" socionics school to be qualified as Modern ?

[fiorale]

In real life, I see people with the 16 distinct internal cognitive structures. It's not a man-made concept/system. It's real and it's there. There are of course different expressions of the same type due to culture, upbringing, health levels (it's possible for the same type to look like completely different "personalities"), but the internal structure is clearly there, and their reactions and behaviors can be somewhat predicted (maybe 50%) based on that structure.

I don't understand how you can type the same person with functional stack (whether socionics or MBTI) as different types in different systems, if you can truly correlate the internal essence of a function to what's happening in real life. Even if the description (Si-Ne) differs with different systems/scholars, the reality (Ni-Se) remains unchanged.

I guess that makes me Panjungian, which is apparently disliked by many? That's okay. I have to be true to what I see.

[Braingel]

In real life, I see people with the 16 distinct internal cognitive structures. It's not a man-made concept/system. It's real and it's there. There are of course different expressions of the same type due to culture, upbringing, health levels (it's possible for the same type to look like completely different "personalities"), but the internal structure is clearly there, and their reactions and behaviors can be somewhat predicted (maybe 50%) based on that structure.

I don't understand how you can type the same person with functional stack (whether socionics or MBTI) as different types in different systems, if you can truly correlate the internal essence of a function to what's happening in real life. Even if the description (Si-Ne) differs with different systems/scholars, the reality (Ni-Se) remains unchanged.

I guess that makes me Panjungian, which is apparently disliked by many? That's okay. I have to be true to what I see.

Was trying respond an hour ago, but internet/this site was poor..

I agree in theory that it would be ideal to directly transfer over, but people change definitions too much of some things, or miss the essence of type and water them down into surface qualities, like by how much someone writes, how reactive they are, etc.. To where peoples’ definitions often change to a point of a different type in their own system that may or may not be equivocal to other models.. Then some takes are outright inaccurate.

There is no 100% correct typology at this time, but one day, it will progress into this and there will only be one ultimate type.

[Braingel]

I'm not quite clear on what you mean, but the idea that typings can't refer to non-ego block functions is too extreme. Yes there should be some evidence of the ego block functions but to only use the ego block is some kind of Panjungian idea. I think that's probably not what you mean but maybe you can give an example.

Mental/vital on the other hand is totally irrelevant and is no longer used by any modern school for typing people as far as I know, it is not an observable dichotomy.

I am not a Pan Jungian, per se, in that I believe it is possible to be different types across systems, but believe this is due to too much changeability in definitions, as well as some people invent outright inaccurate systems. No system is 100% accurate at this current time, and it’s best to take what works from them all..

It is just that I believe prioritizing behavior in typing is a wrong approach. This is how you get most typing me EIE, and one guy here even trying type me SEE because I am “reactive”. Not even bothering to look at the context as to my reactivity— complex ptsd triggers over being emotionally invalidated in my self-concept, which shows face on a core 4, 6 fix, enneagram actually being something that would pertain more to psychiatric pathology, because of its averting on emotional motivations, what I mean is that’s a core 4 reason in which ptsd emotional flashbacks activate.

I don’t believe that the mental or vital track is supposed be blatantly observable, as it is a cognitive process interplaying one’s own outlook and inner dialogue. It is sort of like how enneagram isn’t fully observable, some behaviors can happen from different types and the ultimate dictator of which one it is, is where it motivates and the overall cons to platoon of fitting the type’s outline.. Since you asked for examples, take it as this; if a person wears a mask in fear of contracting an illness, this could be a sign of a head type, if they do it out of an embarrassment over how they look (I’ve done of this with my nose injury), then this would point more image, or it can be completely unrelated to enneagram and motivate in some trauma or some cultural belief, but from an outward appearance, you can’t know the motive alone in that mask wearing.. Most would probably assume it as the former and it is wrong.. That person can even have compromised immunity and have a justification in fearing the contraction, to where it wouldn’t automatically imply head if fearful, or if they’ve lost a loved one or something, to that illness.. But people who focus on behavior would just think, “Fear. Head type.”

Online typing in general is awry, as you know, everyone, including once yourself prior to interacting with me on voice chat and our in person meet up, has thought me as a dead example of an EIE… Behavioral things aren’t always as they seem, and the emergence isn’t to focus on, but rather on how and why it leads up to that emerging..

I can give you one example, though, of how I’d fit, for instance, vital Fe.. I am not aware of the tones and interactions around me, to a point I often ignore them, it’s my own expression, befitting the placement of an ID self-serve, and I am not consciously trying impact others’ moods, if you observe me overtime, enough, you’d notice this is not at the forefront of my conscious.. I am not either conscious of my mental imagery or of time, yet have exceedingly strong capacities in these both, to a point my own unconscious wakens me when I need be up, in a half hour time span… It is sort of night versus day, I suppose.. The ones that light in night are dimmed from sight.. The ego block would be the most noticeable, as well as the super ego in how it aspires towards.. But the issue is that the mental and vital track have a role in how functions define, and as I explained, I even see how they base 50% of the premise for the whole ITR theory.

An example of someone who wouldn’t have conscious ability to track surroundings (which would go to Se in some systems and Si in others, I personally believe it can be both), they’d more often run into objects.. But then you’d have factor in a disorder like adhd that can affect this, as well. Which is why behaviors are less reliable to type by, because they can motivate in a myriad of things, not even related to typology at all times.

It is better to look at the had relationship of the element.. Is it something someone is confident in, understands it well, and can use it maturely? Is it something someone uses to compensate for something in and there is over-reaction in that area? Is it something that has a hard time in explaining, when a person tries do this.. And if so, are they indifferent, or are they trying compensate for this.. How are they compensating for it, if so? Their stronger elements would be how they compensate with..

Is it something someone wants recognition for? I would say people want recognition on their ego, hidden agenda and super ego.

Competence in understanding the function and how the function registers in emotion and in use are very indicative of type. Now, sometimes a person can be insecure in stronger functions for different reasons.. If their childhood wasn’t great and they weren’t acknowledged in their base, I can see, for instance, some insecurity in some facets, but they’d be isolated to specified scenarios, I feel, and not globalized with that overall element, those things would more be enneagram-motivated, the isolated insecurities in even a strong function, I mean.

It takes a degree of sensitivity with someone’s overall make up and history to accurately discern their own type, and a knowing of isolated versus global focuses, that can masquerade certain things.

You've how well someone understands the element, how someone approaches and feels about the element, how they have outlooks when they apply those functions in general (not isolated, that can be indicative of enneagram or outside factors of typology) and far more things that reveal a type than mere directly observable behavior. The ego blocks are the formed lenses of the functions, relative to their strength and their placement in conscious and unconscious focus. I would imagine the super ego aspires towards, because it’s conscious and is weak, but because there’s consciousness of it, presidency puts to it, and there is great pain around their insufficiencies in these.

I mean, without the ego blocks, you’d be stuck between Quasi identical types, anyhow.. You wouldn’t even be able to rule them out..

[Braingel]

I mean for the record, I have myself as a classical socionics EII, a modern IEI, a meyers Briggs FiNe (infp) and a Jungian Ni(F). The only system that I type myself the same as in virtually every model is the enneagram; I am a 4 as by Ichazo, Naranjo (social 4), and Riso and Hudson (social 4w5).
Even by John Luckovich’s 4, I would be social 4. Enneagrammer could try type me as something else, but I’d still befit 1 and 2 lines. Their 4 just doesn’t capture a 6 fixed one..

It is not that I believe I’ve “different types”; it is that the systems change how they define of things, for instance, mbti Fe is judging by the group and collective to formulate decisions, which I don’t at all do.. Modern socio Fe is primarily about expression but in classical I am an Fi lead, who isn’t aware (not mental Fe) of my own impact upon moods. As I also have little control over my emotional expression, it is something my that happens unconsciously.

Overall, it makes sense for me to be an Fi type in real typology, with strong Ni.. Jung’s Ni feeler is Ni with Fi, no contradiction there.

[Braingel]

Now which Jungian systems do I see as most accurate? John Beebe and SCS. That is why I am primarily rejecting modern socionics. It is watered down behavioral values and surface observation. It is honestly most designed for sensory types, but SHS (model G) is even more.. At least Filatova influenced western with WSS has the whole bold versus cautious..

In western socionics, an obvious sensor like Bimbo is able to be a type like EIE, merely because all you need *exhibit* to be classified as a beta is present with inclination to dramatic behavior..

SCS is far from being 100% accurate, and it isn’t a complete model, as I said, there needs be a shadow conception, and some of their takes are more enneagrammatic than jungian function processing, in my view.. But that is easily the most accurate form of socionics, in my own view. It actually gives a premise for how functions process within a person to formulate the values and outlooks they have.. For how I see it, even certain functions mesh, admire, clash or fully oppose with others relative to those held viewpoints that develop from how things take in relative to their placements in strength and egoic block.. The basis of ITR, though, these things should only be taken as a propensity, not a firm law.

I mean if people wanna blow up functions into pure behavioral stereotypes like WSS/Filatova and Model G do, fine, it’s one way to approach it, but I believe it is a very poor way. Maybe I am skeptical of it because my Se is weak… This is a very Se way to type, WSS, G, etc, going by what is physically manifesting and observable in an overt, concrete way.. The reason why I do not like it, is because I see there are many things that can result in the behavior, and the thing motivating it/ causing the result, is what actually dictates if it is related to cognition or not… Everything internalizes via cognitive functions, but not every behavior that is had can be said to be the result of the cognitive functions. Some things are the result of disorders, pressing circumstances, parts of personality that typology doesn’t have a metric for, etc. Therefore, to try lump in every single behavior under a cognitive function is fallacious. Because they are not all-encompassing for behavior, they are all-encompassing for how you internalize information. It is quite possible there are more than 16 ways people internalize information, however, the combination and stacking of functions… Or the times they use for..

The functions determine what outlooks can form, and some behavior stems from outlook.. But some of them are related to environmental stressors, deficits, etc. for instance, you can say that I write a lot so it makes me extroverted, but I write a lot in a scattered way because I have executive dysfunction. Really, an introvert should be writing more, because they internalize information deeper (from stereotype), but yeah, I don’t believe in these kinds of stereotypes. Also, apart of outlook would be in the scope of enneagram. When there are complex emotions involved, this is where enneagram is had, and they may show up through certain functions, just as the functions will internalize info and allow those complex emotions to form; they’re symbiotic.

Most models aren’t even complete enough to use behavioral typing as the primary methodology.. There is an absence of pathological manifestation, shadows, and this sort, or a consideration for non typological scope behavior.

What I ask is that people respect how I reach my typing conclusions. Even if they don’t agree, you can’t just say I don’t understand or am wrong, I am not basing on the crappy superficial stereotypical socionics most people are focused on. And yes, my typings are gonna conflict most, because I’m grasping the essence of the functional placement, not just on seemingly placed things relative to “what a person values”. A person can love a certain food, but be allergic to it….. You can value a function, and it can be weakened and unable to well digest, and one can be unaware it can’t digest, as the ego deludes it to believe it so, if someone doesn’t know what diarrhea is, and it doesn’t cause them conscious discomfort, then they aren’t going to think it poor.

I am not primarily typing by behavior. If I am primarily typing by behavior, it is because I am typing in a model like WSS/Filatova to correct someone who got something wrong in those models, or whatever. Or to explain how I’d be an Fe type on that type of model, due to me being more expressive..


How I base my typings:

• What a person is able to understand
• How a person forms a view they have
• How a person has developed overtime, that can result in biases unrelated to typology
• The relationship a person has to a function (confidence, insecurity— with compensation, or with slight discomfort and otherwise indifference), aspiration
• Where someone’s focus is
• Where someone is not aware/doesn’t notice

I used to base on superficial stereotype, with my own pattern recognition and all.. When I was focusing too much on behavioral means.. And whilst I have had a high accuracy in typing in those specific systems, I believe those systems are dull and miss the roots of a person’s cognition and outlook/processing that inform their decisions and relations/world contact

[godslave]

I mean for the record, I have myself as a classical socionics EII, a modern IEI, a meyers Briggs FiNe (infp) and a Nungian Ni(F). The only system that I type myself the same as in virtually every model is the enneagram; I am a 4 as by Ichazo, Naranjo (social 4), and Rido and Hudson (social 4w5). Even by John Luckovich’s 4, I would be social 4. Enneagrammer could try type me as something else, but I’d still befit 1 and 2 lines. Their 4 just doesn’t capture a 6 fixed one..

I don't understand how or to what degree an Enneatype could be different if the variable is just the Enneagram "school" (let's put it that way for a change !). I mean core Enneatypes should be the same construct as determined initially by Ichazo (Ego fixation, holy Idea, Passion , Vertue (Thanks wiki !)) since there is a consensus about Ichazo's structural conceptualization of the Types. Consequently no matter if an Enneagram core type is described by Naranjo, Rido and Hudson, or whomever, it should be the same type.

Now, If you tell me that you are a 4 you don't need to add that you are also a 4 according to xyz. To me whether you are a 4 so or 4sx or 4sp or 4w5 or 4w3 doesn't matter, you're a 4. Of course I used 4 as an example but it's the same for all the other Enneatypes, what matters is the core type. Of course if one wants to play the inter-typology correlationism game one needs to expand the number of Enneatypes from 9 to 16 at least but that's just the beginning. Indeed, people will never be satisfied and they'll want their type to fit perfectly with their personality but that's an impossible endeavor. All that leads to is the broken glass effect..

...imho.

[Braingel]

I don't understand how or to what degree an Enneatype could be different if the variable is just the Enneagram "school" (let's put it that way for a change !). I mean core Enneatypes should be the same construct as determined initially by Ichazo (Ego fixation, holy Idea, Passion , Vertue (Thanks wiki !)) since there is a consensus about Ichazo's structural conceptualization of the Types. Consequently no matter if an Enneagram core type is described by Naranjo, Rido and Hudson, or whomever, it should be the same type.

Now, If you tell me that you are a 4 you don't need to add that you are also a 4 according to xyz. To me whether you are a 4 so or 4sx or 4sp or 4w5 or 4w3 doesn't matter, you're a 4. Of course I used 4 as an example but it's the same for all the other Enneatypes, what matters is the core type. Of course if one wants to play the inter-typology correlationism game one needs to expand the number of Enneatypes from 9 to 16 at least but that's just the beginning. Indeed, people will never be satisfied and they'll want their type to fit perfectly with their personality but that's an impossible endeavor. All that leads to is the broken glass effect..

...imho.

Enneagrammer tries do away with holy ideas, so.. There is the explanation. Their system seems more focused on instinctive animal pulls.. But I still fit 1 and 2 lines, and fit the triads of a 4, they just act like a 6 fixed 4 doesn’t exist, doesn’t make me not a 4 in their model, they’d just be reluctant to type it.

[Braingel]

Now which Jungian systems do I see as most accurate? John Beebe and SCS. That is why I am primarily rejecting modern socionics. It is watered down behavioral values and surface observation. It is honestly most designed for sensory types, but SHS (model G) is even more.. At least Filatova influenced western with WSS has the whole bold versus cautious..

In western socionics, an obvious sensor like Bimbo is able to be a type like EIE, merely because all you need *exhibit* to be classified as a beta is present with inclination to dramatic behavior..

SCS is far from being 100% accurate, and it isn’t a complete model, as I said, there needs be a shadow conception, and some of their takes are more enneagrammatic than jungian function processing, in my view.. But that is easily the most accurate form of socionics, in my own view. It actually gives a premise for how functions process within a person to formulate the values and outlooks they have.. For how I see it, even certain functions mesh, admire, clash or fully oppose with others relative to those held viewpoints that develop from how things take in relative to their placements in strength and egoic block.. The basis of ITR, though, these things should only be taken as a propensity, not a firm law.

I mean if people wanna blow up functions into pure behavioral stereotypes like WSS/Filatova and Model G do, fine, it’s one way to approach it, but I believe it is a very poor way. Maybe I am skeptical of it because my Se is weak… This is a very Se way to type, WSS, G, etc, going by what is physically manifesting and observable in an overt, concrete way.. The reason why I do not like it, is because I see there are many things that can result in the behavior, and the thing motivating it/ causing the result, is what actually dictates if it is related to cognition or not… Everything internalizes via cognitive functions, but not every behavior that is had can be said to be the result of the cognitive functions. Some things are the result of disorders, pressing circumstances, parts of personality that typology doesn’t have a metric for, etc. Therefore, to try lump in every single behavior under a cognitive function is fallacious. Because they are not all-encompassing for behavior, they are all-encompassing for how you internalize information. It is quite possible there are more than 16 ways people internalize information, however, the combination and stacking of functions… Or the times they use for..

The functions determine what outlooks can form, and some behavior stems from outlook.. But some of them are related to environmental stressors, deficits, etc. for instance, you can say that I write a lot so it makes me extroverted, but I write a lot in a scattered way because I have executive dysfunction. Really, an introvert should be writing more, because they internalize information deeper (from stereotype), but yeah, I don’t believe in these kinds of stereotypes. Also, apart of outlook would be in the scope of enneagram. When there are complex emotions involved, this is where enneagram is had, and they may show up through certain functions, just as the functions will internalize info and allow those complex emotions to form; they’re symbiotic.

Most models aren’t even complete enough to use behavioral typing as the primary methodology.. There is an absence of pathological manifestation, shadows, and this sort, or a consideration for non typological scope behavior.

What I ask is that people respect how I reach my typing conclusions. Even if they don’t agree, you can’t just say I don’t understand or am wrong, I am not basing on the crappy superficial stereotypical socionics most people are focused on. And yes, my typings are gonna conflict most, because I’m grasping the essence of the functional placement, not just on seemingly placed things relative to “what a person values”. A person can love a certain food, but be allergic to it….. You can value a function, and it can be weakened and unable to well digest, and one can be unaware it can’t digest, as the ego deludes it to believe it so, if someone doesn’t know what diarrhea is, and it doesn’t cause them conscious discomfort, then they aren’t going to think it poor.

I am not primarily typing by behavior. If I am primarily typing by behavior, it is because I am typing in a model like WSS/Filatova to correct someone who got something wrong in those models, or whatever. Or to explain how I’d be an Fe type on that type of model, due to me being more expressive..


How I base my typings:

• What a person is able to understand
• How a person forms a view they have
• How a person has developed overtime, that can result in biases unrelated to typology
• The relationship a person has to a function (confidence, insecurity— with compensation, or with slight discomfort and otherwise indifference), aspiration
• Where someone’s focus is
• Where someone is not aware/doesn’t notice

I used to base on superficial stereotype, with my own pattern recognition and all.. When I was focusing too much on behavioral means.. And whilst I have had a high accuracy in typing in those specific systems, I believe those systems are dull and miss the roots of a person’s cognition and outlook/processing that inform their decisions and relations/world contact

The reason I spelt this out so much, is because I feel that people find me typing myself as an eii ridiculous, and it would be ridiculous if I was typing myself by a purely behavioral model, and I don’t extend that self-type to said behavioral models… Unless.. I just am truly so shadowed from my traumatic abuse, I have completely bled in expression that is not my inherent nature.. This is a possibility, but I’d have to regain my default state which will take years, and there’s currently no shadow conception in socio, though it was intended to be. This doesn’t mean that there is no shadow dynamic, with it not yet existing, so technically it isn’t impossible to be an eii in some western models, but I definitely wouldn’t fit suggestive Te in how modern defines it.

I am FiNe in most models— John Beebe, Nardi, SCS, Meyers Briggs, most other neo jungian.. The only places I am an Ni type are in western and in OPS and Jung.

[necrosebud]

You kind of ignored my post

k don’t know if people do this and that as much as you might think they do regardless and start responding with very long posts to what you might they “they” (???) do

[Braingel]

You kind of ignored my post

k don’t know if people do this and that as much as you might think they do regardless and start responding with very long posts to what you might they “they” (???) do

They do, I just don’t feel like giving names or whatnot.. At least 4 people

[necrosebud]

I mean just from what happened recently too not mentioning particulars but it seemed like there was strong hyper mentalizing or projection going on and so I do wonder about the rest

you seem completely certain


it reminds me so much of Ne ignoring often

I don’t mean it in a you’re def this and that type in xyz systems just noticing patterns

[necrosebud]

Stuff like, most salient kh

people are disgusted with me being EII etc

like I just don’t see any evidence of that?

[Braingel]

Yes, I am an Ne ignoring in behavioral socionics (pretty conspicuously so if you ask me, don’t even know why people think eie atp, but it’s stereotype is why).. Yes, I can intuit the sort of energy of a person, and I can “feel” them, and also just by how some people have expressed skepticism and disagreement with my more recently evolved views in the past.. I really don’t feel like giving names, but one guy who types as an eii most definitely disagrees with my takes.

But yes, in cognitive-informed systems I am far from being an Ni/Se intuitive.

[necrosebud]

I’m not saying your feeling is 100% wrong but just suggesting some skepticism towards taking it as fact

Seriously

[Braingel]

I mean, you can say that I mentalize, but I am very sensitive to energy, I can’t explain it well, but just the other day, I’d a prophecy with my boyfriend in a dream of a person he met and I had met the person in the dream before he met her, and I was right, he was astounded..

This link will expire, discord changes its policy https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...456bf25b5a278&

What I think some would call mentalizing is a hyper energy sensitivity

[Braingel]

It’s something that I can’t easily put into words, because it is an unconscious channel of my psyche.. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...ed3092032b105&
But even, I knew my father had heart issues the morning he was told he has an enlarged heart.

[necrosebud]

Sjwkwkdjbdnwjwjwjwkekjdndnsnwn

I know you trust your intuition but you haven’t given any real consideration to literally any of my potential suggestions is what it comes off as

not saying it’s personally offensive or something just

………..

[Braingel]

I did listen to your audio, and I considered it, but I just believe that my intuition is right. I am good at reading the vibes of things, and I do feel others are put off by my typing. Not just that guy who insulted me for typing me an eii, the one who tried eie-c me, and the. The one who has typed me SEE, but just other things. And then people are just too dug into behavioral
socio, and I kind of expect others won’t be able to get me typing of myself from this lend.. I don’t say this to be mean, but there is a tendency that you come to see what I saw later on.. Like with my father, like with the guy who was actually getting at me, etc.. I don’t say this to take a jab, but rather I believe you are very generous in your views of people, which isn’t a bad thing at all, and yes, it fits Ne creative and Fi+ in behavioral socio.. Please do not take this offensively.. But I believe that I am just super skilled at reading underlying vibes, to a point others, virtually almost everyone, miss what I see, it’s far from yourself. If I’m very honest, the only type that is receptive to my seeing this is western SLE.. Once I point things out, they’re generally like, “Ohhhh yeah, I see it..!!!” I guess because that system primarily bases around values, it’s useful for that kind of thing specifically, like who will agree or whatnot.. One facet of communication.. Something in their unconscious I guess registers, I don’t mean mental vital track in this, but I wouldn’t surprise if they are still 4D Se types in scs who just then see it, or have Ni in a placement of receptivity to like super ego. It has happened a few times with SEE and LII.

For the record, I don’t believe people like you, Maritsa, Distance, godslave, etc, see me as ridiculous.. Even though I feel from three mentioned in this, an “ah no she’s IEI” in a soft tone.

And yes, I am now aware that my tone comes off arrogantly, but I am not the type of person who really doubts my own intuitions.

To be very clear, this all is 4D vital ID Ni ^ Ni serving the self, not basing on societal comparison. And it isn’t a show off like a super Id.

[Braingel]

And you’re right when you mentioned the past part in your audio, but I’d say it just makes me far more sensitive to the energy to begin with.. I had this ability without trauma, but it is probably true to say that trauma magnified this. I certainly have mentalized, but I am not generally wrong with my reads on vibes.. Trauma put that ability I have on steroids.

[necrosebud]

So then is se however you think of it the only thing that pulls you out of any rut thsn

??

[Braingel]

I will answer you at the right time, with how I see Se.. I see Se a bit more nuanced than socionics does, briefly will say a global awareness to track surroundings is one, which SCS would disagree with me on, they’d put this to Si. Again, I don’t agree with every single thing of scs.

[Braingel]

So then is se however you think of it the only thing that pulls you out of any rut thsn

??

How I see Se:

Se is a matter to me, relative to where it’s placed, how well someone can exert force, initiate, explore concrete, raw, observable information, track what is ongoing in the environment, noticing what is in it in a vast detail, and ability to perceive concrete forms of things— appearance, movements, etc.

A good way to tell if Se is mental and strong, I would say, is to ask someone what they notice in a room.. If that person is able to go right into every detail of how something looks or seems, and is able to point out a lot of things in said room, this would be indicative of some strong mental Se….

My boyfriend is most definitely an SLE on both modern and classic.. When he was trying to answer a questionnaire on the meaning of life in scs, that I showed him, he was saying how it is the purpose in life to put oneself into animal instincts and exert action.. He was replacing a focus on hidden qualities and essence with volition and willpower, force, and with what he could see physically..

My father would also be Se.. He had pointed out recently, to a woman, how he and herself needed be behind a volleyball court, as he didn’t want their business photo, he said, “to look like they’d just got out of a restaurant opening”, something I would never have thought of on my direct own..

I have weak Se, even though I try life towards it and improve, no matter what I do, it’s just suck, I can only learn about Se from experience with stronger Se types around me (block of experience). I can notice how things look to an extent, but I can’t grasp their entire surface and I for instance with my drawing, find it notoriously difficult to draw things with physical observation, often leaving things out in their exact place, because I miss it. Nevertheless, I still push myself to be able to do this, and it never gives in much.

I made a metaphor and symbolism for it with the desert and with arrows, but Se to me is life and Ni, death. Se pushes into motion as the time allows it to progress to begin with. The vision allows concrete things to happen, and the Se pushes it into life and existence..

I am poor in force exertion, I have compensatory oral aggression for this, but I have no ability to physically move, when I have been aggressive to my abusive family, it has been a childish throw of physical objects, weak pinching and just lots of yelling and crying. I have no ability to grab and pull someone by their hair and shake them, as how my father had done me when I was 17.

[Braingel]

I have learnt to be able make aggressive threats, largely in due to being raised by a father with sociopathic traits, but I rarely can exercise these, I have blurted them out amid mental breakdown before, towards my mother and father, but this appears be an extreme place of desperation and helplessness, and I more do it to try and make them stop pushing my boundary when needed, but I am never able to do it, and I can never act on those aggressive threats, I am only able to verbalize them, other than throw things like a toddler weakly, or a childish slap.. My parents on the other hand are capable of significant physical
violence, but my mother tries abstain more than father, she doesn’t have sociopathic tendencies, but covert narcissism.

My boyfriend has seen me react with this manner, compensatory verbal aggression on some of our calls, when dealing with my parents, he says I become a different person, not my gentle, soft self, I can “harden up” and become very, very bossy, counter tk
my usual nature. I believe being raised by a person with sociopathic tendencies and hai brother a full-on sociopath I had be around immensely as a little girl and at age 15 1/2–https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/n...ctims-husband/

As well as being bullied endlessly, including having been choked amid other things and around former gang street kids in residential facilities, made me develop more Se experience, but I still am
as helpless as other at actually physically applying it, I can only approach to verbally mostly.

Perhaps the verbosity is able because my Fe is 3D, and it does manifest in an ID self-serve.. I can only express, not exert the force and my inability to manage appearance also made my parents able to hide their abuse, me losing it from their maltreatment, them having 4D Se, able to sell an illusional image of good, stable people. Able to exert force on me and to keep it concealed with their will.

Fe, Se and Ni are adept in being able to sell images. SEE, ESE, IEI and EIE would be most gifted at this. Conscious, mental Ni in eie and iei would know right timing to seize with expressions, but it’s the two ethical sensory extroverts who would be able to actually sell and enforce the image with their will and control. SEE so to amassing relations and empires of people to buy their sold to image, ese with their expression and enforcing this expression in the social sphere.. Mental track is what is most aware of and of societal reactions to said elements.. Meaning SEE and SLE know exactly what society wants and demands of how someone looks— aesthetically and their surface image of behavior and what will sell their presence.

Think of an SEE realtor, who knows exactly how to spice up the aesthetics of a house to make it sell then as rapport forms and a brief relation, they know exactly what each person looks for and which house to show)…. To make manipulations, to be able to appeal to a person.. I dated an SEE once, you have to be 21 to buy cigarettes in most American states, not 18, and he was 18, and I watched him on FaceTime skateboarding and going to a gas station where he convinced the person he was 21 merely with his presence and confidence, he is the one who pointed out he sold it because of the way he held his ID in confident stature. (We dated online). These are things I never would be able to think about on my own, SEE ex, my father with his a few week ago “we need to go to a volleyball court, we don’t want to look like we came out of a restaurant opening”. Father was saying that to an SEI.

Many models are SEE’s and ESI’s who aren’t beautiful people, but they being acutely aware of what society wants and able to sell this illusion, get in the right pose with their body, especially SEE with Fe 4D, make the illusion of beauty.

[Braingel]

I can give two more examples with 4D Se being able sell with appearance.. Or Se types going by how things seem on a surface. When child protective services came to myself at age 17, the social worker saw a “happy” family. My mother had purposefully put all the pictures out of our family smiling and she’d blackmailed my sister and I and said we’d likely be molested in foster care if taken and harped on my sister’s physical illness and how she needs her (my sister needs my mom) to take care of the medical needs and she will be put on “shitty” medical care in foster care (manipulative use of mental Si with Fe mood evoke). She’d put the pressure on me that I would be responsible for making my sister more ill if she lost their blue cross blue shield instance which gave my sister access to an elite children’s hospital, and where she’d established doctors since age 11.

When I was abused and neglected in cathedral hole for children, the staff had us clean one night prior to the state numerous annual time visits and they put up these posters they were supposed have up, printed paper ones, in all our rooms about germs and they hid the belts they allowed the girls to have loosely in their room, putting them in contraband that day.

[Braingel]

I'm not quite clear on what you mean, but the idea that typings can't refer to non-ego block functions is too extreme. Yes there should be some evidence of the ego block functions but to only use the ego block is some kind of Panjungian idea. I think that's probably not what you mean but maybe you can give an example.

Mental/vital on the other hand is totally irrelevant and is no longer used by any modern school for typing people as far as I know, it is not an observable dichotomy.

+1 on this one though Ibrahim:
https://x.com/sedecology

Hot take: SEEs are the actual "Mediator" type.

Mediators mediate conflict, and to mediate conflict, you need to be comfortable with conflict in the first place. Creating a welcoming social environment is different from mediation.

I have been trying to explain to people who type me mobilizing Se and this one guy who types me SEE that Se base isn’t about expressing verbal aggression/reactivity. In behavioral models that’s just Fe ego (more beta NF than alpha SF) and in classical, it’s more vital Fe paired with weak Fe (EII, IEE). Again, Se base is the most confident use of Se, they don’t have compensatory behavior in aggression.

I don’t base my takes on experience, but I did date an SEE (online) who tried to mediate my dysfunctional relationship with my mother.. He was instructing me to just fake apologize to her to have a harmonious relation so that my life could be easier. I didn’t want to, but he had put pressure on me, and manipulated me into it.. He typed out a message and forced me to send it to her.. I made a few adjustments in my own words which he didn’t like but accepted in brief.

I honestly believe most crisis workers in value/behavioral inclined socionics are gonna be SEE and IEI, IEI being able to move towards Se and being able to provide insight and future focus.. But the IEI will have substantially less control over the crisis and their own ability to monitor it, only having persuasion and timing, they won’t be able to control a crisis into stopping, especially if they don’t know the person and can’t use the 4D Fi. It’s geared for irrational feeler with Se. SEE with IEI would be most effective in terms of value-based typology.

I have been placed in several programs designed for people with disabilities, and the SEE workers are generally the ones who handle the ones with episodes..

[Braingel]

How I see Se:

Se is a matter to me, relative to where it’s placed, how well someone can exert force, initiate, explore concrete, raw, observable information, track what is ongoing in the environment, noticing what is in it in a vast detail, and ability to perceive concrete forms of things— appearance, movements, etc.

A good way to tell if Se is mental and strong, I would say, is to ask someone what they notice in a room.. If that person is able to go right into every detail of how something looks or seems, and is able to point out a lot of things in said room, this would be indicative of some strong mental Se….

My boyfriend is most definitely an SLE on both modern and classic.. When he was trying to answer a questionnaire on the meaning of life in scs, that I showed him, he was saying how it is the purpose in life to put oneself into animal instincts and exert action.. He was replacing a focus on hidden qualities and essence with volition and willpower, force, and with what he could see physically..

My father would also be Se.. He had pointed out recently, to a woman, how he and herself needed be behind a volleyball court, as he didn’t want their business photo, he said, “to look like they’d just got out of a restaurant opening”, something I would never have thought of on my direct own..

I have weak Se, even though I try life towards it and improve, no matter what I do, it’s just suck, I can only learn about Se from experience with stronger Se types around me (block of experience). I can notice how things look to an extent, but I can’t grasp their entire surface and I for instance with my drawing, find it notoriously difficult to draw things with physical observation, often leaving things out in their exact place, because I miss it. Nevertheless, I still push myself to be able to do this, and it never gives in much.

I made a metaphor and symbolism for it with the desert and with arrows, but Se to me is life and Ni, death. Se pushes into motion as the time allows it to progress to begin with. The vision allows concrete things to happen, and the Se pushes it into life and existence..

I am poor in force exertion, I have compensatory oral aggression for this, but I have no ability to physically move, when I have been aggressive to my abusive family, it has been a childish throw of physical objects, weak pinching and just lots of yelling and crying. I have no ability to grab and pull someone by their hair and shake them, as how my father had done me when I was 17.

But yes, at its essence, I perceive Se as an exploratory function of what is concretely in reality, in immediate sense, a measurement, relative to where it is placed in strength and block of how one focuses or doesn’t focus on concrete appearances and surroundings, how they are able or not to expand territory with will, how they are able grasp physical surface qualities.. Monitor what is around them in physical sight. It is very much an emphasis on sight and sound, in my view, also kinesthetic learning and wanting to directly learn via physical interaction with objects when an ego or extreme openness to this when a role.

It at its core is observational, initiative, practical, grounded right into reality, competent with moving things according to its own will.. Pursuing.. Dominating.. It is the best type to have in a base position for something like surgery or aviation, where you require of being acutely aware of what’s present in immediacy and all the non latent physical details of that space (though they would be hidden to a type who doesn’t concern in direct reality).. SEE is the ideal realtor.. Combat as well would suit for Se, didn’t go there in my focus..

You don’t need have something as a base to pursue focus on, but these types would just have a natural aptitude for these sorts.

Se bases are truly the best for crisis, and SEE would be for ones concerning people. They’d do best with 4D Ni present to maximize the timing and of when to act.

Same thing for something like still life drawing.. That is a very Se form of artistry.. Aesthetic appearance matching for conventions would be an SF gamma alley.. Though alpha SF may have a more unique, subjective approach where the goal is to impress and separate…

SEE would end up going by a case by case in medicine, replacing that with strict medical law, making them more able to suit needs in specific scenarios.

[Exodus]

Hi Exodus ! I've just learned what "Panjungian" really means. I guess I'm the ultimate anti-Panjungian because I don't like cross-typology correlationism to begin with. Secondly I don't consider socionics like "Jungian" in the sense that socionics is just partially inspired by some Jung principles but socionics is not inscribable within the Jungian Paradigm that is Jungian Psychology. Jung would have rejected socionics had he been alive that makes no doubt in my mind. I think of Aushra as the Dr. Frankenstein and socionics as his creature, it's a chimera albeit functioning.

I think ultimately all typology systems overlap if we look at them through the lens of type descriptions especially when the number of types possible in a given paradigm doesn't symmetrically align with the number of types of the paradigm it is compared to. It is a mistake to use a typing system to validate or invalidate the typing result of another typing system . People don't do that intentionally but it's a side effect of Typological correlationism. Indeed, correlationists would claim that adding results from different system should produce some kind of a coherent HD Type image. Some claims that it's because each system is treating a different layer of the psyche (or "personality" ) for instance they would claim that Psychosophy is about Behavior, Socionics is about cognition, Enneagram is about Motivation etc...

The problem is that while claiming that each typology treats a different layer of the psyche (or "personality") when you read the "Types descriptions" of each type of these typing systems you will find that these "profiles" cover a certain number of behaviors and mindsets that overlap with each other. That is to say that from just one layer of the psyche (or "personality" ) each typology system is capable of describing the whole behavior of a given type which of course inevitably induces overlap between types description of all these systems. So much for just "one layer" of the human psyche. Consequently I think the "different layers" argument doesn't hold water, I suspect that it is a commercial argument, it's good for business especially when you offer services covering several typology systems.

Edit : I Prefer to consider each typological system as they should be considered, namely separately. Each system is a closed system, a standalone. Now, theoretically an accurate type identification should be reasonably coherent with the result of other accurate type identifications from different system in terms of type descriptions overlappings but that's just an secondary expectation.

As a rule : One System, one type.

The reason I said it was "Panjungian" is that often people who use Jung's typology assume that only the first two functions matter in socionics.

Aren't you familiar V..D. Ermak's School of System Socionics and Irina Eglit's typing methodology ? Or would you consider it as a 'non-modern" school ?

http://en.socionicasys.org/bibliotek...-of-indicators


1. TIM identification protocol Recede (ILE)
2. TIM identification protocol Myst91 (SLE)
3. TIM identification protocol Verglas (EIE)

May I ask you what are the criteria for a "Model A based" socionics school to be qualified as Modern ?

ok yes, SSS may be one exception, but for the most part modern schools (influenced by people like Gulenko and Bukalov) do not use this anymore, preferring things like Jungian dichotomies or quadras or Reinin dichotomies etc. Not that it's worse than the other Russians schools but SSS isn't very influential.

[Braingel]

I see the Fe suggestive in behavioral socio averting on influential schools more.. I personally don’t believe that influential means a school is right, mbti for instance is the most influential typology, and it is not vastly great, with only 4 functions.

[Braingel]

Schools with the mental and vital track are also just less accessible in due to lingual barrier, and Americans and western colonies are obsessive with typology for educational purpose and business organization, often going to Gulenko and whatnot, though his clients are primarily Russian, and it’s because he was a student of Aushura, that he is taken as seriously. This doesn’t make his model right in all, per se.