Yes, more than two but not dozens of course. They are all the same format, determination of temperament and installation by using dichotomies. It's very MBTI/Keirsey. It's basically still this method: https://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/DarkAngelFireWolf69-mbti.html
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad method, it's very straightforward and quick but I don't see anything "game-changing" about it. Are you referring to my tone and mood? I haven't been specifically questioning SGF's typing if that's what you mean, I actually commended DarkAngelFireWolf69 on that typing back then and haven't changed my mind about it. Almost everyone getting typed as betas suggests a systemic bias but I'm not convinced yet that it means most forum members actually are betas.
If you're reading my intention as attacking everyone who has been typed DarkAngelFireWolf69, you're reading it wrong.
What exactly is illogical now? It's common for people to be good at knowing or formulating theories but not necessarily at applying them in practice. Or do you see a lot of theoretical physicists building bridges despite their knowledge on statics? Yes, the major difference to MBTI is the intertype theories, however I haven't seen this aspect being used for type determination by DarkAngelFireWolf69 for example.Why would you say "it is foolish to unquestioningly trust them based on their popularity" if a person didn't trust someone enough to type them? That's just illogical. How can a person know a theory but not apply it? That also makes no sense. Vultology and CT are different AFAIK (though I think inspired by Socionics) so I don't care about those. However, again I will say this isn't a personality theory. That's MBTI or Psycheyoga. Socionics is a psycho-social theory which is meant to look at how people think and interact as a result.
I was talking about DarkAngelFireWolf69's contributions to the structural theory when I mentioned his publications, not his skill in the "craft of typing" which is a very debated subject where no two people seem to agree on methodology for typing actual people. It's a sad state of socionics if there are "secret methods" that need to be protected from "exploitation" (of other competing "schools"?), because finally coming up with a workable system of typing real people would do much to elevate socionics as a whole.You're making a lot of assumptions here. I'm pretty critical of Socionics as a whole, which I've spoken about multiple times in different posts. You yourself have not given any actual logical reasoning, just off topic rambles such as "it's not real science" or "Vultology bad", and other opinions like "I've read his publications on his methods which were OK" (which may not have even revealed all his methods that he teaches or uses, that would be too exploitable).![]()
Finally referring to this Timur quote:
Socionic type has almost no effect on how you behave, it is not related to the level of intelligence, social success, personal qualities like honesty or kindness. Socionic type shows what kind of information your mind processes better, and which one is worse, which one it needs, and which one it ignores at all. Socionic type is a “skeleton” of our psyche, its deep mechanism, like our temperament.
I find this to be in contradiction to how determining someone's type is literally based on their behavior when answering a set of questions.



Reply With Quote