Originally Posted by
RBRS
If you take a look at G's typings and contrast them with AC's typings you might realize both observe similar traits in clients yet diagnose different due to different models.
For example; Squark got typed as LSI-D by G, I imagine due to strong Te, Se & weaker yet present Fe. AC observed mostly expression of Te & Se and a little Fe which are the extraverted IMs of ENTj and therefore typed her ENTj (they probably don't think a PolR-accentuation of that kind is plausible).
EUDAIMONIUM got typed SLE, then G typed him LSI.
Suspiria is EIE in both systems.
By comparing both typings of G & AC in their justification it might be possible to distinguish the empirical traits observed without the categorization, and therefore know the strength of IMs in oneself as well as develop the capacity to self-type in other models (having the units to be categorized, you can easily translate inbetween models).
I think that one should not focus as much in how coherent the results are with one another (I remember Sol used to say that "professional typing" was unreliable as there's less than 50% same-type results).
It is impossible for socionics schools that differ in some IM descriptions and specially on definitive dichotomies for diagnosis to be concordant in the result, but the more concordant the observations made the closer we are to an unified methodology (not purely empirical & demonstrated to work but to find such a thing for socionics will not be an easy task) but more importantly the closer the client could be to find the "socionic-related" traits present in himself and the actual type.
Maybe there's no definitive answer for a type due to differences between socionics school's interpretation of the facts, but TIM is nothing more than the categorization of a specific set of information metabolisms by systematizing IMs into polarities then using the facts observed to decide on the preference of one or the other, meaning that for example, LSI does not exist, but a person with expressed metabolization of Ti over most IMs as well as Se and the rest you all know. Maybe humans have irregular development of IMs as noted by Gulenko in his theory of strengthened IM subtypes, therefore sociotypes can only be a broad category of preferences put into a system of coherence between these. There's plenty of individuals equally strong in supposedly opposite IMs.
Maybe what you need to know to get the gist of your information metabolism (which is essentially what this is all about) is the observation and the dichotomical preferences, with the type category as something secondary.
Sadly, personality type, TIM descriptions, personalized standardized sets of advice/development by type are a better selling point both because its more atractive and because under our current form of capitalism standardization of humanity is the norm and social life started to behave with the laws of the markets, meaning friendships and relationships come down to selling and buying a specific, socially valued or niche social mask, therefore most people want to build a mask to attract potential social clients and personality type is perfect for such a thing. There's a reason for the MBTI to be more and more popular in HR departments.
The simple fact that even when TIM is an artificial category to standardize cognition and then create intertype relations as well as small groups and type rings, the people fight each other over what TIM category belongs to each other, assigning negative traits to some TIMs or defending their self-assigned TIM over others demonstrate that people use typologies not for self-knowledge or to adquire expertise on psychoanalisis for example, but to play image politics. Being typed LIE or LSI or ILI or EIE should be secondary if not almost irrelevant, not a source of conflict between ppl lol.
With Gulenko there's a pretty funny phenomenon; Bc he knows he "overcategorizes" clients as Beta rational types, he tries to give enough space and flexibility to these types and describes them in good light, essentially giving room (with subtypes for example) for various social personas (The sage, the ruler, the joker, the outlaw...) to apply for these two types, in order to not provoke negative reactions to the categorization in clients. Then, people aquaintanced only with socionics on the superficial social stereotypes made up by typology communities and little to no knowledge of the systemic components of the model as well as what they actually mean (not even reading or if reading not taking into account his type and subtype descriptions) go get typed, associate the typing with the stereotype (Oh, you're telling me I'm one of those reactionary, violent and abusive LSI/hysterical and dumb EIE, no that doesn't fit) and get offended attacking the typing without taking a look at the socionics school and the system lol.
I have some problems with humanitarian socionics because it is over-filled by unnecesary theory as well as concepts of neurology and psychology that I think are unrelated to information metabolism (or atleast there's no necessary point of anchor between socionics and the rest) and I think this muddles the system and make it more prone to errors, but that doesn't mean I will not appreciate positive developments from it for example. What I will not do is take type category, make it an equal thing amongst schools, define it by stereotypes that make no sense and then judge a school by its result's correlation to the stereotypes I might work with.
The socionics community is a very cool place to study social trends and to have a few laughs from time to time. Anyways I'll stop ranting around.