Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: A Core Primer On Stackemup Typology (Socionics-Side)'s VI Templates

  1. #1
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,416
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default A Core Primer On Stackemup Typology (Socionics-Side)'s VI Templates

    These are high-quality, time-tested, time-proof valid VI templates that completely demolish Aushra and Socionics.com's VI templates in terms of quality and practicality (Russian socionists have been trying to develop top notch VI templates for decades). I beat 'em to it.

    https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/

    Each section contains a workable, easy to master VI template that you can use to type yourself and others with. Grouping by the physical structure of eyes accurately predicts cognitive markers for purposes of socionics typing. If you are not using VI for your socionics typings, I would submit that you're relying primarily upon conjecture and speculation.

    One objection to VI is that ‘well, if you are saying to supplement VI with common sense, doesn’t that mean VI is not sound?” No, not true. Common sense tells you this person is not a LSE even if you can't make a strong VI connection between them and that type. That doesn’t mean to give up on the VI. It just means your eye isn't yet trained enough to pick up on the VI connection. That the connection is more subtle than you are giving it credit for and that you have to be more cogent in looking at it.

    A second objection is that it can’t be this clearcut. It’s not. There are plenty of look-a-likes such that it’s not always clear-cut. I run into many ambiguous examples. The VI also changes ever so slightly with stacking that you really do need a trained eye. So there are a number of variations even within the same socionics type. Knowing what to look for to resolve those ambiguities is the difference between an expert socionics typer and one that is not. Again, I have already put the time in the trenches working these ambiguities out.

    A third objection is that you cannot determine somebody's type by VI. VI has already been proven with samples of identical twins. Identical twins have the same micro-expressions and cognitive markers. They tend to know what the other is thinking and can easily finish each other's thoughts/sentences. VI opponents point out that identical twins can often be very different from each other and identical twins often tout their differences. But the desire to individuate is very common in human nature. It may be more of a hang up for identical twins such that they can develop an aversion to having an identical twin. So they find areas of differences, and intentionally cultivate areas of differences, from their twin as if to emphasize that they are not like each other. My VI templates speak more directly to the nature of biological cognition (socionics).

    A fourth objection is that people that VI the same type are not always a hundred percent alike. Of course, they are not always going to be a hundred percent alike. But that's where enneagram and stacking come into play, and where the list is particularly flexible. For example, Robert Redford and Bill Clinton are both IEE-Fi. But Clinton is a 3w2 and redford is a 6w7. Clinton is more ambitious, competitive and confident by nature/temperament than Redford is.

    Nevertheless, both Redford and Clinton have a similar cognition when it comes to using their NeFi to mirror, to adapt themselves to different roles, to change masks in order to suit the occasion, to engage in fluffy, pop pseudo-psycho analysis of others, etc. Redford channels that into acting and Clinton channels his cognition into politics. If you don't have a firm grasp on Enneagram , you may assume they have a different socionics type. This was a mistake socionists made in the past as they were locked inside of a one typology closed universe. Fortunately, as those who have reviewed my Core Primer for Enneagram Types in the Enneagram Sub-forum, that's no longer a problem as Stackemup Typology has ushered in the era of the Typology Multi-verse.

    I stand by the pinterest list 100 percent as the best diagnostic typing tool out there. If you like typing celebrities, or other members, this makes typing time manageable. Why should you waste time out of your life researching celebrities before you can type them or confirm your typing of them. VI provides the ultimate shortcut and the pinterest list lays out the blue print. In the real world, when you meet somebody and you have the VI down pat, you can very quickly size up the person’s type. You won’t need to know their life story, you won’t need to ask them eighty to a hundred questions, and you don’t a year to chart down their cognition so that you can come here, start a ’type this person’ thread and lay out a 1000 details about the person only to get ten different answers.

  2. #2
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,416
    Mentioned
    239 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My VI templates are the "5G Revolution" of Socionics...The VI templates from Russian Socionics is equivalent to "3g LTE"...OR

    My VI templates are the Atomic Bomb of Socionics....Russian Socionics doesn't have an Atomic Bomb,

    Stackemup Typology [(enneagram-side)(socionics-side)] has ushered in the Era of the TYpology Multiverse.

    My Twin Towers of Typology will be the Mother of All Bombs in Typology!

Posting Permissions

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