Talanov's Model T and Borderline types

[Baqer]

Talanov is someone who I've discovered through looking through old threads in this forum, and someone who's theory seems to have been strangely ignored for how much more in depth it is than the Model A.

http://sociotoday.narod.ru/funkcii1.html
http://sociotoday.narod.ru/funkcii2.html
http://sociotoday.narod.ru/funkc_3.html
http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.r...l_kratko2.html

(The fourth link is the Model T, which is a whole thing in of it self that's worth mentioning to understand the general context of Talanov's thought process)

The first 3 links are is this utterly massive series about functions, choke full of data and analysis, and in the last one of the trilogy talanov tries to figure out the borders between types, and in his data he eventually found 22 borderline types(you can see them if you go to the third link and click "Examples of content for some "borderline" types (their exclusive, marker properties)"). He also tries to integrate the borderline types into his theory, but the main reason I'm posting this is just to get discussion on about the Model T and see if it helps to type people through these border types.

[Sol]

have been strangely ignored

what is not Socionics (Jung + Augustinavichiute) is outside of this forum theme
what has no objective proof is reasonable to ignore as it doubtful to be correct

also
Socionics is about IR, mainly. it needs correct types. to identify types is enough of ideas by Jung and Augustinavichiute. there is no significant need in another yet baseless fantasies, which have much more chance to mislead than to help

Talanov trusts in Reinin traits for what has nothing good as his experiment about Reinin traits is weak in results. For own fantasies as "model T" he has lesser. His claims about high accuracy of own tests look as a joke too.
As in common, Talanov has problems with types understanding, what is seen in low typing accuracy of his famouses types.

In sum
Just one of fantasers with doubtful theory understanding and skills. He's noticable by his tests, which are not bad, use lesser usual approach as 8 functions - and not more.

Borderline types... There can be different balance of functions pairs (T-F, S-N, mb dichotomies E-I). It's not special types, but just different degree of dichotomies what is doubtful to be useful in practice. There are no accurate methods to calculate the concrete functional balance and no data how stable it can be. There is nothing for practical usage in this.

Theory additions without objective proof and good methods can: 1) to mislead being mistakes, 2) be used to reduce importance of fiting to normal theory to rationalize mistakes in types.
This I saw with Reinins traits nonsense, which is used to explain why someone does not fit to a dichotomy - it's explained by having delusional Reinin trait which is delusionally assigned to another Jung type, while not fiting to dichotomy theory is ignored.
This is main reason to develop new muddy theories - to rationalize mistakes and nonsense in practice. While to accept that people just do typing mistakes they do not like. While they do many mistakes, as typing matches are objectively low in general.
When you see someone who offer new theory of types - it's mostly an example of the one who instead of making own typing skills better, developes explanations why his mistakes are not mistakes. They develop subtypes, model T, model G, etc baseless rationalizations of inabbility to use normal theory.

[Baqer]

what is not Socionics (Jung + Augustinavichiute) is outside of this forum theme
what has no objective proof is reasonable to ignore as it doubtful to be correct

Limiting the entirety of socionics to the Model A and Jungian Functions prevents any exploration of what socionics could be. There is no basis for the Model A(something that's supposedly about information metabolism) working other than IR, of which I haven't seen(if you have any I'll happily read them) studies about IR. Without any studies to collect reliable data, Model A and everything Jung or Augustinavichiute have hypothesized is simply a possibility, not a reliable tool. While the Model T itself may not be true, a lot of the data collection Talanov and Reinin has done have advanced socionics enough to the point where it has a chance of being considered a real science. Theory means nothing without objective basis, of which Reinin and Talanov have been the only people I've seen try to find in their work.

From table. 5.1. it can be seen that, by any estimate, from 93% to 97% of the total variance of all kinds of psychological properties is associated with the immanent properties of 8 socionic functions. This part of the properties is determined only by the weight contribution of certain socionic functions to the psychotype and is in no way connected with their position within the psychotype, much less with their proximity within the psychotype with other socionic functions. No more than 3% of the total variance is associated with the peculiarities of the position of functions within the psychotype (for example, it is programmatic or creative, and not actually with the magnitude of the function), and obviously less connected with the neighborhood of functions (with which functions turn out to be direct neighbors within the TIM) 4.5% of the total variance of psychological properties, and the lion's share of these percent falls on the attribute “aristocratic democrats”. In the order of "lyrical digression" let us draw the readers' attention to how little dispersion in the array of the most diverse psychological properties are associated with the so-called "weak" socionic features - it is not for nothing that they are called weak. Hence, you yourself can draw a conclusion about how unreliable the typology is based on "weak" socionic features (questimism-declarativeness, positivism-negativism, etc.)

Talanov has himself discovered the fact that the most important dichotomies are of L-E, E-I, and S-N(with rationality in a solid 4th). Probably the reason that he uses the Jungian extroverted and introverted functions over his own theory from 2006. With this larger emphasize on these functions though, the position of them matters much less than the strength of them, meaning that this data here about the strength of each function on average in each type compared to the population average to be:

programmatic(1) = +1.63 - that is, its value is higher than the socionic mean (taken as the zero reference level) by 1.63 standard deviations (the standard deviation here is measured by the spread of the function value between all 16 psychotypes, it roughly corresponds to the standard deviation of the population spread of the value functions, although, generally speaking, somewhat less than it);


creative(2) = +0.03 (practically does not differ from the average social level, close to the average population level);


contact(3) = -0.04 (almost the same in magnitude as the creative function - therefore, for a number of accentuated representatives of TIMs, it may even exceed the value of the creative function);


mobilization(4) (aka "painful") = -1.48 (the lowest value of all 8 TIM functions);


For the functions of the second ring, the decreasing hierarchy of functions begins with the function in the demo position:


demo (8)= +0.90 ;


controlling(7) = +0.37 ;


activation(6) = -0.38 ;


suggestive(5) = -1.02 .

This data suggests that any socionic model should put the demonstrative above the creative in terms of importance and use, something that directly goes against Model A(though has been noted and been attempted to be fixed by the use of dimensionality)