Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Typing Methods: Type of Information Metabolism

  1. #1
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Typing Methods: Type of Information Metabolism

    I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.

    A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

    It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.

    So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.

    What does this mean? For example, if I see that someone uses actively all the time and seems to avoid using , I can conclude that they are probably an ego type. It's key to define what "using " means here.

    In short, information metabolism is the input, processing, creation, and output of information.

    There is NO ONE OBSERVABLE TRAIT that is unique to a particular type, nor does any type always have a particular observable trait. There are many people of the same type that are nothing alike at first glance, yet share something more abstract.

    If you stick to this methodology your typings will be more robust. It is necessary to gain experience with concrete examples of the types, but I still meet people who are nothing like anybody I knew before, and in that case I am forced to resort to more abstract typing methods.

    The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,978
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    removing behavioral traits from the analysis in socionics is intellectual suicide. it makes it impossible to check claims for truth.

    you speak about "methodology", when in fact your way of thinking is a rejection of methodology.

    i agree that in the final analysis a socionics type would be something apart and separate from behavior, but it is simply not workable to discuss the types in this way without creating a climate where the correctness of claims is neglected in favor of their ability to attract publicity.

  3. #3
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    removing behavioral traits from the analysis in socionics is intellectual suicide. it makes it impossible to check claims for truth.
    I said nothing about ignoring behavioral traits. Obviously they are necessary for typing. My point was that they should be explicitly linked to information metabolism when possible.

  4. #4
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is an almost perfect translation of long-going intellectual disputes among Kiev socionists. One side (Yermak) sees "information metabolism" as the foundational principle of socionic types, and the other side (Gulenko, sometimes others) accuses him of fleeing into an abstraction. In practice, neither side is as extreme as they may appear to be based on their words alone. Certainly, thehotelambush is not eschewing behavioral traits altogether — just a certain category of "concrete" traits that are not necessarily deeply intertwined with the rest of a person's personality. Behavioral traits that are stable over the long term and have a large impact on a person's relationships with others, I think, are often related to socionic type.

    Even the silly ones like "loud," though, often have some correlation with type. For instance, probably only 10-20% of ILIs would be labelled "loud" by others, while 30-50% of SEEs might be. Intuitive types are probably more likely to have an avoidant relationship style, and Ne types are more likely to be noncommittal. I think thehotelambush would agree with this, but that the correlations are not strong enough to make a big deal about in typing.

    The weakness of the "information metabolism above all" approach is that "it's key to define what is here." Not all types tend to be skilled at this intuitive approach (try teaching it to a SEE, for instance). So there is always opposition between an approach that starts with abstractions and incorporates concrete traits "when necessary" and an approach that goes the other way. And between people who are old hands at socionics vs. those who are new and flailing around trying to relate type to something they can comprehend.
    It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  5. #5
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,100
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:21 AM.

  6. #6
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good to hear from you on this, Rick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    This is an almost perfect translation of long-going intellectual disputes among Kiev socionists. One side (Yermak) sees "information metabolism" as the foundational principle of socionic types, and the other side (Gulenko, sometimes others) accuses him of fleeing into an abstraction.
    Very interesting.

    In practice, neither side is as extreme as they may appear to be based on their words alone. Certainly, thehotelambush is not eschewing behavioral traits altogether — just a certain category of "concrete" traits that are not necessarily deeply intertwined with the rest of a person's personality. Behavioral traits that are stable over the long term and have a large impact on a person's relationships with others, I think, are often related to socionic type.
    Of course, I have nothing against using behavioral traits in typing, and most of my typings are based on some kind of behavioral observations. But still, I am talking about all traits, not just a certain category. They should always be linked back to information metabolism somehow.

    Like I said, it's important to learn the manifestations, but to have any kind of reasonably objective discussion on an internet forum about typings it may help to take a relentlessly theoretical approach. People complain endlessly about how subjective typing is, and I feel that with this approach there is very little subjectivity.

    Even the silly ones like "loud," though, often have some correlation with type. For instance, probably only 10-20% of ILIs would be labelled "loud" by others, while 30-50% of SEEs might be. Intuitive types are probably more likely to have an avoidant relationship style, and Ne types are more likely to be noncommittal. I think thehotelambush would agree with this, but that the correlations are not strong enough to make a big deal about in typing.
    Definitely.

    I am only making this post because of what I have personally discovered to work in my own typings over the last 5 years.

    Honestly, I remember hearing you make similar arguments when I was still a beginner and it can be confusing, because it demands greater familiarity with socionic concepts.

    The weakness of the "information metabolism above all" approach is that "it's key to define what is here."
    Yeah, I slipped that very important sentence in there.

    Not all types tend to be skilled at this intuitive approach (try teaching it to a SEE, for instance). So there is always opposition between an approach that starts with abstractions and incorporates concrete traits "when necessary" and an approach that goes the other way. And between people who are old hands at socionics vs. those who are new and flailing around trying to relate type to something they can comprehend.
    When someone's learning socionics it's important to have lots of concrete examples to learn from, e.g. to learn what is. But it's best to get weaned off of them as soon as possible, because who knows, maybe you're talking to someone who happens to only know the 10-20% of ILIs that happen to be loud.

  7. #7
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,384
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What I often observe especially on this forum is that when people use IM, everyone has such a different interpretation that the results are that all 8 IM will be named. While if you look at behaviour, you will rarely hear someone say, he's loud, and someone else say he's quite. Then there's more agreement.

    anyways, I think after a while of typing people, you will make your own mental constructs of how a type looks like, and you don't use a methodology anymore, only comparison with your mental constructs.

  8. #8
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,100
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:21 AM.

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,978
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    information metabolism based interpretations are not even an "approach" to socionics. every time a person uses an argument based on interpretations of what form of "information metabolism" is going on on an unverifyable, "behind-the-scenes" level, they are just formulating an obfuscationary excuse for going with whatever vibes with the subjective impressions. it has nothing to do with providing a measure of "evidence" of a typing to the best extent this is possible. this is how it promotes the climate of controversy that plagues communities like these.

    1) Promotion of misleading stereotypings about what various types are supposedly like, which fail to incorporate a realistic range of individual differences.
    stereotypes are also an issue where "information metabolism" is concerned. this is not an argument.

    2) Subjective variations in observer POVs/impressions when assessing another's behavior. It's not unusual for two different individuals observing the same person's behavior, under the same conditions, to arrive at opposing interpretations about it. For example, what may seem 'crass' and 'rude' to someone might seem entirely 'easygoing' and 'friendly' to another.
    this is to a far, far worse extent the case with interpretations of "information metabolism". how can you possibly think this argument helps YOUR case?

    3) There are plenty of other observable cues humans give off which are typologically useful, making it unnecessary to rely any great extent upon behavioral-based conjectures, apparent traits, or patterns thereof when typing someone.
    if you're focussing on "observable cues", you're not in the information metabolism camp. these observable cues are exactly what behaviorists look for. you have clearly not understood the problem.

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,978
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    just for clarity's sake; i was an IM-enthusiast for most of the three years i first studied socionics. i believed in the fiction as fanatically as a lot of people here do. i started focussing on observable traits when i realized that the level of controversy raised by the practice was unacceptable. the only way to keep up the IM interpreting game is to engage in a kind of immature form of solipsism where you expect yourself to always be guessing right and others to be guessing wrong. there are never any verifyable predictions made and so never any risks of being exposed as a charlatan. from the cynical point of view, this makes anyone who joins the "game" a charlatan by default.

  11. #11
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,384
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    labcoat, I see myself agreeing with every post you made in this thread so far. Funny cause we used to be a bit more opposites on these matters.

  12. #12
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,100
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:21 AM.

  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,978
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I usually work off of self-report data. I listen to people, read what they say, I look at how they phrase their communication and what semantic patterns they tend to employ.
    right, you do focus on observable properties. this is the broader concept of what i get at with "behavior". behavior is not of special importance in this regard.

    I'll also examine their values and beliefs, desires and motivations, what they're reactive to, their outlooks on the world, etc.
    this is more difficult, because to reach these things one needs to engage in an act of interpretation. usually this interpretative step can not be fully revealed to an audience. this is why the practice is subjective and prone to creating controversy.

    Ultimately, what's vital from all of this is getting an idea of how the person perceives themselves to be and through what sort of psychological orientation they tend to experience life and reality.
    this "getting an idea" is what i'm referring to. there is always something left unexposed about how these ideas are formed. when another person sees eye to eye with you on the judgment, this is not a problem. when the intuition is not shared, you need a more "public" way of explaining the argument, and it is here that usually observable characteristics are cited.

    When and how does information metabolism inculcate stereotyping?
    Se is willpower, Ti is logic, alpha is fun, etc, etc, etc...

    And certainly, even if it did, it's been nowhere near as egregious of an abuse as behavioral stereotypes always have been.
    the practice is equally commonplace if not more so.

    What interpretations are you referring to? Point at something.
    i don't have time. the argument is really basic. it's amazing you could even suggest that behavior is more variant to interpretation than socionics functions and IM processes are.

    Usually when referring to a person's 'behavior' in a psychological context, this is taken to mean something about that person's volitional actions or conduct. Whereas things like autonomic physiological processes wouldn't fall under the same umbrella.
    behavior is not the primary issue. i'm mainly getting at anything that can be observed and pointed out without raising controversy over it's identity. such properties can then be used as undenyable bases for consensus formation. IM processes occur "behind the scenes", on an unobservable plane, and are as such never instances of such properties.

  14. #14
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,384
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    maybe this is a good example but just to make things simple:

    Observation: Somebody is being loud.

    The camp of IM: it's an expression of his discomfort he's using Si. Another of the same camp would say, it's an expression of his emotions, it's Fe. And this continue's until all 8 IM's have been accused of being the reason for being loud.

    The camp of behaviour: everybody says, he's loud, so more likely extravert than introvert.

    simply put, IM camp looks for motivation behind the scenes, these are not visible so everybody invents their own idea. Behaviour camp looks at correlation between behaviour and type.

  15. #15
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,100
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:21 AM.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    261
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    just for clarity's sake; i was an IM-enthusiast for most of the three years i first studied socionics. i believed in the fiction as fanatically as a lot of people here do. i started focussing on observable traits when i realized that the level of controversy raised by the practice was unacceptable. the only way to keep up the IM interpreting game is to engage in a kind of immature form of solipsism where you expect yourself to always be guessing right and others to be guessing wrong. there are never any verifyable predictions made and so never any risks of being exposed as a charlatan. from the cynical point of view, this makes anyone who joins the "game" a charlatan by default.
    What's the difference between your method and the IMers? Your basis must be derived from a source population who were determined via "subjective" IM predictions. There's nothing quite yet that's objective about socionics, hence the disparity in typings consistently being produced.
    LII?

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    It's called TIM for a reason. The theory itself was based on the way different types metabolize information. Everything else exudes from that premise.

    To go purely by either is ridiculous. But I tend to prefer the IM methodology. I don't think that behavior is nearly so telling as the things which occur in the person's mind. However, it is easy to see how a behaviorist approach is more objective.

    I don't know much about this (I'm currently trying to find good sources of it, along with reasoning it out myself), but it seems to me the main problem with IM analysis rather than behavior analysis is the subjective nature of the former. Be that as it may, I think that, if IM analysis was more accurate/objective, it would clear why it is a better typing method.

    That's all I have for now. I can only speak in vague language, as my understanding is not very well developed. I think there is some potential in Information Aspects, if it were ever decided what they mean.

    More later, maybe. This is really abstract stuff (especially since there aren't many good sources), so thinking about it is difficult. However, I think something shall become apparent soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Se is willpower, Ti is logic, alpha is fun, etc, etc, etc...
    Are you sure this is what IM is? This sounds to me more like a behaviorist perspective. "Se types use force", "Ti types create logical constructs", etc. One can easily see these manifestations of behavior. Information Metabolism, in my understanding, describes what information is gathered and what information is ignored. If that is not what IM is, could you tell me what the name is for what I am talking about?

    The truth is, behavior is at least partially determined by the TIM, but I do not think it is 100% accurate.

    It sounds to me, actually, that what you are saying is an attempt to describe the external manifestations of Information Elements, not Information Metabolism.

    Maybe... maybe Information Aspect describes the type of information one gathers, Information Elements describes the interpretations/external manifestation of behavior inherently there because of the type of information it gathers, and Information Metabolism is a conglomerate of the two. That would explain why behavior can also be used to determine type, I think... At any rate, it seems to me that Information Metabolism is the most general, and then Information Aspect and Information Element are subordinate to it, and are related somehow.

    Sorry is this is common knowledge... I'm still fairly new to Socionics.
    Last edited by nil; 04-06-2011 at 07:37 PM.

  18. #18
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,384
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buckland View Post
    There's nothing quite yet that's objective about socionics, hence the disparity in typings consistently being produced.
    There are other reasons for the disparity thinkable. Different and weak typing methods. Not experienced users of typing methods. Not knowing the typed person as well. Etc.

    Overall there is a lot of objectivity in socionics. Everyone knows that extraverts are energy spillers and introverts are energy savers. Though IM's are less easy to define and therefor also lead more easely to confusion.

  19. #19
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

    The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.
    I am Mountain Dew and I approve this thread.


  20. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    261
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    There are other reasons for the disparity thinkable. Different and weak typing methods. Not experienced users of typing methods. Not knowing the typed person as well. Etc.
    All of these are subjectivities, or at least introduce subjective bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Overall there is a lot of objectivity in socionics. Everyone knows that extraverts are energy spillers and introverts are energy savers. Though IM's are less easy to define and therefor also lead more easely to confusion.
    No, the only objective criteria that can be measured currently would be relationship statistics. Everything else is entirely subjective (or at least qualitative as opposed to quantitative), for example the above bolded bits and other stereotypes. They are useful as guidelines but no more than that.
    LII?

  21. #21
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,379
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this is a very complicated issue. It can't be solved with a logical imperative, I'm afraid.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    261
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    this is a very complicated issue. It can't be solved with a logical imperative, I'm afraid.
    LII?

  23. #23
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,384
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by buckland View Post
    All of these are subjectivities, or at least introduce subjective bias.



    No, the only objective criteria that can be measured currently would be relationship statistics. Everything else is entirely subjective (or at least qualitative as opposed to quantitative), for example the above bolded bits and other stereotypes. They are useful as guidelines but no more than that.
    oh oke.

    When I write objective I mean what the majority of the people agree on. Else everything would be subjective. But I see what you mean.

  24. #24
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,100
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:23 AM.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the IM method mainly emphasizes method and motive of behavior over the actual behavior, if it makes more sense to consider that way.

  26. #26
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think now that I worded this post too strongly - can it please be un-stickied?

    I still see information metabolism as the fundamental object of socionics, but people also go easily to the other extreme of ignoring behavior which is also not right. Attributing behaviors to type is fine as long as you know which attributions to make and realize how widespread they actually are.

  27. #27
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,074
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush
    Information metabolism is a rather amorphous term. This seems to suggest somewhat of a blackbox approach: stuff goes in and stuff comes out but what goes on inside is largely irrelevant. The Socionics black box consists of eight compartments and the degree to which the compartments are used comprise the basis for determining type behaviour. Therefore, one can predict how organizations function simply by assigning observed output to a set of standard departments. The view can be nothing but superficial........

    a.k.a. I/O
    Last edited by Rebelondeck; 03-11-2017 at 05:01 PM.

  28. #28
    幽霊||๏ ᴘʀᴏᴛᴇᴀɴ ᴍɪᴇɴ Hexcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    TIM
    New to Socionics
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tl;dr - Basically just prioritize the information (rather than rendering the lower priority / more extraneous components fully obsolete).

    The problem is: which ones are what priority, and for what reasons? There is a schism because none of this is actually based upon concrete facts, and thus it can't be firmly proven to be one thing or another. It can always be debated until more concrete factors become involved.
    INTP • Ti/Fe & Ne/Si • 9w8 Meme / 5w? / 4 • Sx/Sp • C?-LII-Ne
    “ᴛᴏ ᴀᴛᴛᴀɪɴ ᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ, ᴀᴅᴅ ᴛʜɪɴɢs ᴇᴠᴇʀʏᴅᴀʏ. ᴛᴏ ᴀᴛᴛᴀɪɴ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ, ʀᴇᴍᴏᴠᴇ ᴛʜɪɴɢs ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴅᴀʏ.” ― ʟᴀᴏ ᴛsᴇ

  29. #29
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTP 7w8
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.

    A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

    It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.

    So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.

    What does this mean? For example, if I see that someone uses actively all the time and seems to avoid using , I can conclude that they are probably an ego type. It's key to define what "using " means here.

    In short, information metabolism is the input, processing, creation, and output of information.

    There is NO ONE OBSERVABLE TRAIT that is unique to a particular type, nor does any type always have a particular observable trait. There are many people of the same type that are nothing alike at first glance, yet share something more abstract.

    If you stick to this methodology your typings will be more robust. It is necessary to gain experience with concrete examples of the types, but I still meet people who are nothing like anybody I knew before, and in that case I am forced to resort to more abstract typing methods.

    The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.
    this ''information metabology'' outs itself into personality, traits, habits and behaviour. theyre not disconnected

  30. #30
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    this ''information metabology'' outs itself into personality, traits, habits and behaviour. theyre not disconnected
    Yes which is why I corrected the post above.

  31. #31
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd just point out to newer members that HotelAmbush got a lot of that from Stackemup Typology (Socionics New Wave), which I am the founder of. Hotel Ambush wrote:

    I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.

    A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

    It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.

    So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.
    I posted this back in July:

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...27#post1286027

    Si similarly got railroaded by those working inside the one dimensional, one typology closed universe....there it got conflated into type nine. Avoidance of allowing situations to disturb one's mental tranquility is pure enneagram nine. R & H calls it the nine's inner sanctum. That's not to say the nine does not avoid such situations....the SLE-Se 9w1 so/sp can be quite brutal, but that its more nines negate the impact of their actions through the defense mechanism known as isolation. They disassociate...it allows them to be aggressive without really having to experience the impact of that aggression. The inner sanctum never gets touched. In attributing type nine to Si/SEI, socionists began invading the domain of behavior and personality. They couldn't just stick to socionics as cognition even though that was the crux of the theory. Think about it. Avoidance is behaviorally-related rather than cognition-type related...because the crux is 'to avoid', to avoid disturbing situations. To avoid is a behavior, so, thus, does not infer any particular cognition and has no significance socionically. People will vastly different styles of cognition can engage in avoidance. Yet, this was the direction Si and moreso SEI ended up becoming taken in.
    I've been pressing that same theme for years and years now. HotelAmbush has now turned Stackemup Typology's platform into his typing method (and even mirrored my dislike for "behavioral typing"). In other words, he's trying to take the same approach as me, but let's just be clear I've been pressing the definition now for many years and there are more threads to prove it. I've also been pressing my dislike for behavioral typing for years now and there are more threads to prove it. Furthermore, whatever I say pertaining to types represents Stackemup Typology (Socionics Side) formerly Socionics New Wave. Of course, it's good to see HotelAmbush paying homage to the more disciplined philosophy of American Socionics (as pioneered by Stackemup Typology) rather than the dreamy and undisciplined Russian approach used by Jack and Expat.

    Now, HotelAmbush is still ten steps behind me. As I've said before, VI is the most practical method of typing in the real world because you can arrive at a type very quickly and it's an accurate indicator of socionics type....my templates show beyond any reasonable doubt that cognition can be inferred through the physical construction of the eyes. Thus, my VI templates for each socionics type and subtype scientifically validates socionics because it provides a basis for making probable predictions about a person's cognition...I've done it and demonstrated it a thousand times. Stackemup Typology has also led the attack on the Quadra Values Mythology and laid down a scientific basis for the successful unification of socionics and enneagram, a task that Niffweed had previously tried to pull off but failed.

    I want to point out that anybody is welcome to utilize and enrich Stackemup Typology for personal benefit...I'm only calling HotelAmbush on it because he is my EII conflictor.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-18-2019 at 10:54 PM.

  32. #32
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,377
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush Happy to see you are finally coming around to appreciating our lord and master k4m.

  33. #33
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,804
    Mentioned
    874 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    @thehotelambush Happy to see you are finally coming around to appreciating our lord and master k4m.
    I am very impressed that @thehotelambush got this from "Socionics New Wave (Stackemup Typology)" considering he posted before k4m even joined the forum and "Socionics New Wave" didn't exist at the time. He truly is a metaphysician/sorcerer of the highest level!

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  34. #34
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,998
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "anybody whose [sic] using my foundations will qualify to receive protection and reinforcement"

    Awesome, guess I'm all set then

    Where's my bodyguard? Do I get a helicopter??

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,097
    Mentioned
    910 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    "sociotype" is Jung's type

    a lot of "confusion" (mismatches) is due to:

    - using of baseless wrong theory (alike Reinin's bs) or wrong theory's understanding (alike your claims that Si types get tired quicker)
    - muddy typing methods (with multiple interpretations) and doubtful skills in their usage (mb supposed about anyone who do not identifies types regularly)
    - the lack of correct and useful typing data (alike when are used only questionnaires with prejudiced answers without nonverbal behavior)

    all this leads to that REAL typing match between ANY two typers is <50% and average is <20%
    (as minimum this is true about the very majority. never seen the other)

    Peoples' behavior and IR effects fiting to normal theory shows me that I'm correct subjectively. The results of IR test may show that I'm correct objectively and may be sometimes to proof duality existence. Alike I've done before with objective proof that VI is useful for typing.
    While what you prefer to do is to play in theory reasoning with the lack of interest to reality. Only this approach can lead to that after many years messing with the theory and typing you strangely understand even the basic's about types and may seriously use random bs instead of Jung+Augustinavichiute's theory.
    Having the high interest to typology and being active in its discussions you'd could to make more reasonable efforts and mb to get better practical results. To use lesser reasoning for reasoning, but to pay more attention to the reality - to check good on practice how hypotheses work before to trust them. Then lesser of mistakes you'll do.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  36. #36
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    24,593
    Mentioned
    592 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I watch and observe people over time. Sometimes functions jump out at me and other times I need more time to determine which function they are “demonstrating “ as a social mask and which one they are doing
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  37. #37
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    watching and observing...mb "S"-type

    over time...mb -type

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •