Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Archetype Center's typing of forum members

  1. #1
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Archetype Center's typing of forum members

    In the spirit of the "Gulenko's typing of forum members" thread, I thought it would be cool to have all the typings of forum users done by Archetype Center (Timur Protskiy and Katerina Popova) in one place.

    This is from memory, so please tell me if I got any of these wrong or left anyone out.

    Miss Ducki - ESI
    EUDAIMONIUM - SLE
    RBRS - LIE
    Squark - LIE
    Suspiria - EIE
    The Exception - LIE
    Echidna1000 - SLE
    Varlawend - ILI
    Chakram - LSI
    Last edited by WVBRY; 08-07-2022 at 07:12 AM. Reason: list update


  2. #2
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Shambala
    TIM
    RLOAI?
    Posts
    488
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by RBRS; 07-20-2022 at 12:58 PM.

  3. #3
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jack Oliver Aaron got SLE if I remember correctly.
    The Exception probably got LIE.


    I'm not going to push my money there to get likely LIE.


    Probably their model is not layered one. It is semantic, on the surface.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  4. #4
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,043
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @RBRS I think we may see another trend with Archetype Center as we did in humanitarian school if enough people were to get typed.

    I dont expect the same result from different schools typists, but current results seem similar to me enough.

    suspiria EIE-EIE so EIE of all systems.
    squark LSI-DC - LIE so Ni/Se valuing rational logical type.
    eud LSI-H - SLE so beta ST.
    the exception EIE- LIE so Ni/Se valuing rational extrovert type.

    Since some of their typings about celebs are so different I would expect to see more bizzare results tbh. But this seems similar enough to me.

    Noted that there is again no alpha or delta typings yet although only 6 member get typed so our data isnt big enough to make conclusions.

    3 out of 6 people typed as LIE though. So they may over type LIEs according to our small data.

  5. #5
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Shambala
    TIM
    RLOAI?
    Posts
    488
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    @RBRS I think we may see another trend with Archetype Center as we did in humanitarian school if enough people were to get typed.

    I dont expect the same result from different schools typists, but current results seem similar to me enough.

    suspiria EIE-EIE so EIE of all systems.
    squark LSI-DC - LIE so Ni/Se valuing rational logical type.
    eud LSI-H - SLE so beta ST.
    the exception EIE- LIE so Ni/Se valuing rational extrovert type.

    Since some of their typings about celebs are so different I would expect to see more bizzare results tbh. But this seems similar enough to me.

    Noted that there is again no alpha or delta typings yet although only 6 member get typed so our data isnt big enough to make conclusions.

    3 out of 6 people typed as LIE though. So they may over type LIEs according to our small data.
    Yes, but that is of lesser importance than the diagnostic itself. The problem with AC is their diagnostics are not as "well justified" lacking content because they want to sell courses but overall I'd look at info metabolism...

  6. #6
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,043
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    Yes, but that is of lesser importance than the diagnostic itself. The problem with AC is their diagnostics are not as "well justified" lacking content because they want to sell courses but overall I'd look at info metabolism...
    My own definitions of Te seems to better suit to humanitarian school. About some other specific IEs, I have my own confusions due to their different approaches.

    I also dont see the forum as a representation of world. So if people are typed as LIE by AC and LSI/EIE by G here, it means this place is filled with them more in comparison to the world.

  7. #7
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The exception got 1F in her psychosophy. It seems bit weird (I think she has talked about aspergers which includes sensitivity towards that stuff but is she flexing that?) and then she retyped herself as LEVF.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  8. #8
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko is LIE according to them
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  9. #9
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Shambala
    TIM
    RLOAI?
    Posts
    488
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma View Post
    Gulenko is LIE according to them
    I remember them typing him LSE some time ago if I'm not misguided.

  10. #10
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma View Post
    Jack Oliver Aaron got SLE if I remember correctly.
    The Exception probably got LIE.


    I'm not going to push my money there to get likely LIE.


    Probably their model is not layered one. It is semantic, on the surface.

    Ah yes, you are correct and I shall add them to the list.


  11. #11
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    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.
    This is a very good post and I agree, especially with your idea that the traits observed in specific individuals are more important than the categorization of these traits into a type. Types don't exist, but the traits observed in a person do, and we try to explain these traits with a model that is hopefully both coherent and useful to the person getting diagnosed. I also think the traits observed by professionals in themselves are what one should focus on, and less on the type. This allows a person to get typed by several professionals during one's lifetime and see what observed traits seem to be repeatedly pointed out by professionals, and then pick the typing model that describes oneself the best.

    One more thing though is that I like G's use of energy metabolism, this explains why type cannot change. My criticism of information metabolism, is that one's cognition cannot be said to be the only aspect of personality. It is totally possible, and rather common, for people to say one thing, do another, and think yet another thing, and I find the multi-layered model of the psyche to explain this best. When you admit that type is not just cognition, but something much deeper, it suddenly makes sense that it cannot change. I see some typologists (who are simply incompetent in my opinion) take people's self-reported information and apply to it to type them - "he says he's a strong willed person, this means he is Se ego" or other such nonsense is common. I like that AC takes a deeper look into type as a phenomenon as something like a "skeleton of the psyche", as I believe Timur puts it one video, and how they thus don't use self-reported information but rather your (usually unconscious) choice of words. I do think information metabolism/model A is not the best to explain this, but I still like their method.

    I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get LSI in AC as I did when Gulenko typed me (and his most prominent Western student, @Varlawend, seems to agree with the typing, but also added, in my correspondence with him, that I may have accentuated Ni which, to me, explains my personality even more coherently when added to G's conclusion). I suspect I would get SLE or LIE, but I guess the best way is to get typed by AC. Unfortunately, I doubt I would be able to do so as sending money to Russia is currently sanctioned in the West, so we'll have to wait at least until the end of the war.


  12. #12
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As an LII, I can only say that paying 120 dollars for a typing service is a bit too concrete and at the same time too vague for me. I have no internal desire to do it. People here say that it's not that much money, but I rarely spend so much on a specific thing, usually I only do it when it's absolutely necessary. Most things I purchase cost at most 50€. I live a very minimalistic life. That's not to say that gulenko's service is too expensive, it's just not for me.

  13. #13
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    @RBRS I think we may see another trend with Archetype Center as we did in humanitarian school if enough people were to get typed.
    I hope so, but I don't know about how many Western forum members feel about sending money to a Russian typology school (with money sent to a Russian bank), if they are even allowed to do so in their country.

    I am really curious what others would get, and what I would get. But Kaliningrad might have to wait.


  14. #14
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alive View Post
    As an LII, I can only say that paying 120 dollars for a typing service is a bit too concrete and at the same time too vague for me. I have no internal desire to do it. People here say that it's not that much money, but I rarely spend so much on a specific thing, usually I only do it when it's absolutely necessary. Most things I purchase cost at most 50€. I live a very minimalistic life. That's not to say that gulenko's service is too expensive, it's just not for me.
    AC's service is alot less than Gulenko, though I haven't checked their website, sanctions may have come home to roost.


  15. #15
    RBRS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Shambala
    TIM
    RLOAI?
    Posts
    488
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alive View Post
    As an LII, I can only say that paying 120 dollars for a typing service is a bit too concrete and at the same time too vague for me. I have no internal desire to do it. People here say that it's not that much money, but I rarely spend so much on a specific thing, usually I only do it when it's absolutely necessary. Most things I purchase cost at most 50€. I live a very minimalistic life. That's not to say that gulenko's service is too expensive, it's just not for me.
    120$ can be nothing for let's say a central european or an american. In my case I'm from a specific demographic of a specific country (I'm not an ethnic minority btw, fully national) from which 120$ is quite a lot of cash (I'd say but then I would have to search for statistics and the like).

  16. #16
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RBRS View Post
    150$ can be nothing for let's say a central european or an american. In my case I'm from a specific demographic of a specific country (I'm not an ethnic minority btw, fully national) from which 150$ is quite a lot of cash (I'd say but then I would have to search for statistics and the like).
    It's not really the fact that it's a lot of money for me, I could easily afford it. As an Si valuing intuitive type, I can only say that I'm hesitant to spend 3 figures on a service.

  17. #17
    Aster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    ESE wannabe
    Posts
    4,071
    Mentioned
    596 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I’ve been wanting to do this, but I’ve been spending all my extra money on skin care, clothes, and Bai boosts. Maybe some day I’ll muster the self control to afford throwing my money at something other than my current obsessions
    ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈 ♓︎ 𝓅𝒾𝓈𝒸𝑒𝓈
    ♍︎ 𝓋𝒾𝓇𝑔𝑜 𝓇𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 ♍︎

  18. #18
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Archetype Center types me as ILI, as of May 2020:


    “Hello, Mitchell!
    That’s very strange and happens quite rare, but we also found out that you’re really introverted logic+intuit, so our choice was among two possible variants LII and ILI, and finally we got ILI «Balzac», since you have valued white ethics and black sensation what points to Gamma quadra. Also you definitely have black ethics as your «blind spot» function, so LII and LIE variants can be discarded. So, it’s strange that our conclusion coincided with Gulenko’s typing, we thought he typed you as LII as he likes)) You’ll find our socionic description and some additional info attached.
    What concerns psychosophy, we got FLEV result, I’ll make a translation of our description tomorrow and send it to you as soon as possible. Will is your weakest function, while physics is actually high due to your principled and conscious requirements for the real world.
    If you have any questions — please feel free to ask them.)”


    So they agree with Gulenko in results, but I agree with RBRS that the observations matter more than the results per se, which is why people end up getting typed differently in understandable ways. I also find that very interesting. I would relate it to Ken Wilber’s integral philosophy: https://integrallife.com/three-princ...gral-thinking/


    “Principle 3: Enactment — “If you want to know this, do that”
    Most “paradigm clashes” are usually deemed “incommensurable”—meaning there is no way for the two paradigms to fit together—but this is so only because people focus on the phenomena, not the practices. But if we realize that phenomena are enacted, brought forth, and disclosed by practices, then we realize that what appeared to be “conflicting phenomena” or experiences are simply different (and fully compatible) experiences brought forth by different practices. Adopt the different practices, and you will see the same phenomena that the adherents of the supposedly “incommensurable” paradigm are seeing. Hence, the “incommensurability” is not insurmountable, or even a significant barrier, to any sort of integral embrace. -KW”


    As well as Korzybski’s general semantics, his warning that the map is not the terrain, and how we need to be conscious about how we abstract categories out of more basic observations (this leads to chronic miscommunication which languages like E-prime, perhaps unwieldly in their own right, were built to prevent or at least make us more conscious of): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics


    I often feel like I’m beating a dead horse with these sorts of principles, but I wish conscious intellectual integrity and epistemology like this was a more frequent part of typology discussions (in this one I’m really glad to see so much of it so it is not an example of this problem) since I think it would lead to a lot less pointless conflict and a lot more opportunities for understanding one another all around, and almost surely greater understanding of typology phenomena in themselves. How much the results of a typing matter still seems like a substantive question to me in itself since it may have causal implications, but more focus on specific observations is a much better way to approach inter-paradigm discussions and understand the real benefits of approaching typology via a certain paradigm instead of just rigidly supporting one paradigm or worshipping shallow products of own intellects (typology labels) without actually taking a meta, mindful or critical attitude towards them as a necessary precondition to understand why we perceive the world via certain categories in the first place (thus justifying or refining the categories at a much higher and more dialectical level).
    Last edited by Varlawend; 07-21-2022 at 02:04 AM.

  19. #19
    Chakram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    339
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Archetype Center typed me as LSI.

    They also used my video as an example LSI on their youtube channel for anyone interested in their methodology, some of the comments do a pretty good job of describing why LSI was picked.

  20. #20
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguine Miasma View Post
    Probably their model is not layered one. It is semantic, on the surface.
    I think they understand socionics type on a single level yes, but they also add Psychosophic type (if you pay for it) as an additional layer. The latter is more about your motivations/interests, for example high Psychosophic Emotion will lead to aesthetic interests regardless of socionics type, and strong Psychosophic Will marks a tendency towards leadership.


  21. #21
    Lo'taur ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,333
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    These typologies they seem very similar at first glance but if you dig into this both theories you will know that they are very very different in their structure in their nature (...) it is a comparative table that shows i think, the main feature about socionics and psychosophy
    The only differences I see are the number of types and the IE vs Behaviors. The date of creation of both systems is irrelevant.

    Timur goes on and declared:

    this typologies are describing different layers of our psyche because socionics studies information processing (...) while psychosophy is (roughly speaking) describing behaviors and down to earth priororities


    I find it rather curious to declare that Psychosophy is an additional layer when Alexander Afanasyev (the creator of psychosophy) said that his system was supposed to be an
    alternative to socionic because he wasn't pleased with socionics but instead of becoming an alternative to socionics it became a "different view from a different angle to human psyche. That is why this two typologies (psychosophy and socionics) do not contradict each other in any way. They just complement each other, they're describing a person from different angles they have no contradictions between them.
    So we have kinda closed the door of incompatibilities and contradictions between the two system just by declaring (deus ex machina) that the two systems are depictions of different layers of our psyche, right ? I find that very convenient at least from a business perspective.

    what about the idea that both systems have ITRs subsystems, are there multiple layers of ITRs in the psyche too? If so is it possible that one or several ITR in socionics exclude one or several ITR is Psychosophy ?

    Same question with types, since their numbers are different (16 vs 24) are there some possibilities of mutual exclusion between the types in both systems ?

    Is it relevant to compare types in both system for consistency purposes in the first place ?

    Anyway, I like both systems but I seriously doubt that there can not be contradictory diagnosis between them because to me a single mutual exclusion is a contradiction and a reason to not consider those two systems perfectly complementary but it's just me. For instance an SLE Enneagram 9 can not exist, those types although from different systems are mutually exclusive imho.

    I think that there is some kind of inter-Typologies irenicism which is good for business. It's better to kill two birds with one stone than shooting yourself in the foot. Typology is also a market after all, imho.

    Edit : Should I transfer this post to a Psychosophy Thread ?
    Last edited by godslave; 10-31-2022 at 03:03 PM.

  22. #22
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    So we have kinda closed the door of incompatibilities and contradictions between the two system just by declaring (deus ex machina) that the two systems are depictions of different layers of our psyche, right ? I find that very convenient at least from a business perspective.

    what about the idea that both systems have ITRs subsystems, are there multiple layers of ITRs in the psyche too? If so is it possible that one or several ITR in socionics exclude one or several ITR is Psychosophy ?

    Same question with types, since their numbers are different (16 vs 24) are there some possibilities of mutual exclusion between the types in both systems ?

    Is it relevant to compare types in both system for consistency purposes in the first place ?

    Anyway, I like both systems but I seriously doubt that there can not be contradictory diagnosis between them because to me a single mutual exclusion is a contradiction and a reason to not consider those two systems perfectly complementary but it's just me. For instance an SLE Enneagram 9 can not exist, those types although from different systems are mutually exclusive imho.

    I think that there is some kind of inter-Typologies irenicism which is good for business. It's better to kill two birds with one stone than shooting yourself in the foot. Typology is also a market after all, imho.

    Edit : Should I transfer this post to a Psychosophy Thread ?
    I think it's a quite relevant post (the Gulenko thread probably contains a lot that is even less directly "on-topic" after all, lol). And I think you have a lot of sound and perspicacious points here, but there are a few things I want to flesh out or dispute.

    In principle there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a system which diagnoses two different areas of human nature in systematically different ways. Multiple layers of ITR's also doesn't seem like it has an inherent contradictions either, given that some are relations between ways of processing information, and others are between ways of behaving and acting. It does leave (potentially quite problematic) unanswered questions to proceed this way A PRIORI, as if we could just assume that these things are completely separate (as you are already getting at).

    It can't be a priori because it's a question vulnerable to empirical disproof: let's say we type a huge set of people based purely on Archetype Center Semantic Socionics criteria, not considering Psychosophy. Then let's say we type that same set of people based purely on Archetype Center Psychosophy, in the analogous way, blind to what they were typed in Socionics (perhaps using some double blind diagnostic methods). If these systems truly bear no relation, then these typings should not have significant correlations between systems. If they do have a significant correlation, it implies (at least in a likely way that can't be dismissed a priori) shared structure and thus some theoretical overlap. If they have any theoretical overlap, then they can't be treated as "completely separate" systems without the intellectual dishonesty of ignoring potentially problematic contradictions.

    Now, the Archetype Center claims that there isn't a significant correlation between these systems, and that they do in fact encounter basically all of the Psychosophy types with each of their semantically oriented Socionics types (I asked Timur about this on Facebook a few years ago). This is an obviously interesting result, but its trustworthiness rests upon the thoroughness, precision, and objectivity of the AC diagnostic process, and is in contention with some others schools that practice Socionics and Psychosophy:
    -The SHS school includes a lot of behavior elements to their Socionics, which may overlap with Archetype Center Socionics and/or Psychosophy in various ways
    -Attitudinal Psyche correlates its Psychosophy types (or at least its types, which are utterly similar to Psychosophy) to Socionics and Enneagram types based on lots of diagnostics and data

    So who interprets this with fewer and less severe contradictions? Are both replete with contradictions and need to include more information to reach the 80-20 in understanding (invoking the Pareto Principle, since of course our understanding can never be literally perfect)?

    This gets into the excellent distinction you brought up that cuts through the heart of many of these Socionics schools, like an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other: Research imperatives versus Business imperatives. If everyone was oriented at disinterested research, then of course the priority would be examining these typology systems with every tool we had (science experiments, thorough and good faith discussions, tests and surveys, etc.) to see HOW true they are and in exactly what ways and where systems overlap, regardless of which system it was. Some questions that need to be openly asked of AC and many other typology systems, with more focus on contradictions than confirmation: how do information and behavior interact, or do they interact at all? Is my version of Socionics as inclusive of information, logically consistent and consistent with observations as the other best typology systems on the market? If not, then what should I do about that?

    You are indisputably correct that the typology community is a market which is inevitably full of self-interest and bias because of the need to make money, because of loyalty to systems we are used to as opposed to systems we have never studied which would require a lot of effort of us, because of groupthink and social pressure, because we need to uphold our authority and credibility, because humans are just inherently (at least) a bit selfish, etc. Sadly, this is understandable and probably insurmountable; people will inevitably pay these gurus to type them and learn Socionics systems because they are interesting, professional people who know more than most, who can at least be more objective about your type and traits than you can since they have less investment in them, and they need to make a living with what they put their time into. And since typology businesses are always going to be inherently suspect due to their investment in their own perspective, it will be up to less business interested people (like some of us) to do the broader-scale comparative typology research and analysis rather than trusting in the lack of contradictions that our "benevolent authorities" are willing to assume for us.

    On that note, there are (at least) two kinds of contradictions between these different typology schools, as it relates to diagnostics:

    Type 1: contradictions in typology labels assigned at the end of a diagnostic:
    This is almost exclusively what some people focus on (e.g. "which label is correct?"), but this is almost laughably superficial and surface-level. It amounts to a verbal dispute (https://consc.net/papers/verbal.pdf). There are two problems with disputing mere typology labels between schools (e.g. is the archetype center right that Squark is an LIE, or is SHS right that he is an LSI?):
    -Those words mean hugely different things between schools, aren't clearly applied to the same systematic behaviors, and include different content not included in the other school. To say these schools should apply the same label to Squark is almost like saying that words should mean the same thing in different languages (but not quite that far, since in typology there is often at least some overlap in meaning).
    -In spite of overall meaning different things, these labels might include some of the same fundamental observations of reality under different labels or personality clusters. So even if we use different words, we might not disagree about this person, and we can't assume this dispute ends at the words themselves.

    Type 2: contradictions in observations about a person during the diagnostic (e.g. the many clustered traits that the labels refer to which could be used to justify the use of the typology label):
    -A contradiction here is much more problematic, and it really means that one of the systems may be more correct than the other since you can't both be consistent with reality while saying genuinely contradictory things. And this is where I will agree with you that these contradictions matter a lot, so I'm agreement with you as long as you are talking about this type of contradictions. There is a lot more to this, but I think the basic distinction I'm drawing is clear.

    I do think it is possible for an SLE to have Enneagram type 9, and I have even typed one (privately). This is because the labels alone don't mean much; based on your definitions (e.g. maybe that SLE is a very aggressive person, and 9 is very peaceful and unwilling to be aggressive), there may be a huge inherent contradiction between SLE and Enneagram type 9. However, in SHS, SLE is not necessarily such an aggressive person (they may have the capacity for it in any case), but if they have a Harmonizing subtype, they may still be quite sensitive and prefer peace a lot. And Enneagram 9 can also have more anger in itself in some Enneagram interpretations, and be capable of aggression, especially 9w8. Likewise, in Archetype Center methodology, SLE simply refers to the perception of information semantics. So AC SLE's might be very perceptive of power dynamics, but hardly aggressive at all themselves if they have a behavioral type like FLEV or FELV, so it seems like SLE could easily be best fit to Enneagram 9 in AC as well. The human personality is a highly complex system, and it should not be assumed to be simple or single-layered.

    A (Type 2, genuine) contradiction could mean:
    -one interpretation is more correct than another
    -both interpretations are grossly incorrect (both correct is NOT an option under the contradiction assumption)
    -one or both interpretations need to be completely scrapped (if the contradiction is located at the core assumptions of the theory)
    -one or both interpretations need to be minorly adjusted (if the contradictions are located at tenuous or probabilistic empirical tendencies in the theories)

    Saying two labels can't have a certain relationship to one another is not meaningful (you may well agree with this).

    So, which interpretation is most sensible: yours, SHS's, AC's, a synthesis of them, an adjustment of one of them, an adjustment of a synthesis of several of them, etc.?

    Also, semi-apologies for the long post, as I know some don't appreciate that; I'm just trying to be thorough because I think it matters in the final analysis (not necessarily for casual conversations). If you want a TLR, just ask me, as it's a reasonable request, just not my first priority.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 10-31-2022 at 07:35 PM.

  23. #23
    Lo'taur ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    H 694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,333
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thank you for your time and analysis. I'm very impressed by the quality of your post !

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    I think it's a quite relevant post (the Gulenko thread probably contains a lot that is even less directly "on-topic" after all, lol). And I think you have a lot of sound and perspicacious points here, but there are a few things I want to flesh out or dispute.
    Thank you.

    In principle there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a system which diagnoses two different areas of human nature in systematically different ways. Multiple layers of ITR's also doesn't seem like it has an inherent contradictions either, given that some are relations between ways of processing information, and others are between ways of behaving and acting. It does leave (potentially quite problematic) unanswered questions to proceed this way A PRIORI, as if we could just assume that these things are completely separate (as you are already getting at).
    Okay, But I want to point out that socionics and Psychosophy may depict different layers however when you read the detailed type descriptions of one and another, there is so much ground covered that it inevitably goes way beyond the layer of the psyche each of those systems are supposed to cover and thus overlap with each other. In other word it's quite impressive that both of those systems can fully describe types to the point of attributing to them the name of a famous figure as a reference. All that with only a fraction (a layer) of the psyche material.


    It can't be a priori because it's a question vulnerable to empirical disproof: let's say we type a huge set of people based purely on Archetype Center Semantic Socionics criteria, not considering Psychosophy. Then let's say we type that same set of people based purely on Archetype Center Psychosophy, in the analogous way, blind to what they were typed in Socionics (perhaps using some double blind diagnostic methods). If these systems truly bear no relation, then these typings should not have significant correlations between systems. If they do have a significant correlation, it implies (at least in a likely way that can't be dismissed a priori) shared structure and thus some theoretical overlap. If they have any theoretical overlap, then they can't be treated as "completely separate" systems without the intellectual dishonesty of ignoring potentially problematic contradictions.
    Agree with the methodology ! It will be interesting to see that work actually done assuming that a significant amount of data is available (which seems to be the case).


    Now, the Archetype Center claims that there isn't a significant correlation between these systems, and that they do in fact encounter basically all of the Psychosophy types with each of their semantically oriented Socionics types (I asked Timur about this on Facebook a few years ago). This is an obviously interesting result, but its trustworthiness rests upon the thoroughness, precision, and objectivity of the AC diagnostic process, and is in contention with some others schools that practice Socionics and Psychosophy:
    -The SHS school includes a lot of behavior elements to their Socionics, which may overlap with Archetype Center Socionics and/or Psychosophy in various ways
    -Attitudinal Psyche correlates its Psychosophy types (or at least its types, which are utterly similar to Psychosophy) to Socionics and Enneagram types based on lots of diagnostics and data
    AC expresses an opinion when they claim that. The thing is when someone ask "how does that type manifest in real life ?" you can't just describe a type, you have to describe a real person and include some sets of behaviors directly derived from what the system is predicting in terms of attitudes and way (style) of thinking thus engaging the validity and credibility of the system. Overlaps esp in type descriptions are inevitable imho and they go in both sides ( Psychosophy >< Socionics).


    So who interprets this with fewer and less severe contradictions? Are both replete with contradictions and need to include more information to reach the 80-20 in understanding (invoking the Pareto Principle, since of course our understanding can never be literally perfect)?

    This gets into the excellent distinction you brought up that cuts through the heart of many of these Socionics schools, like an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other: Research imperatives versus Business imperatives. If everyone was oriented at disinterested research, then of course the priority would be examining these typology systems with every tool we had (science experiments, thorough and good faith discussions, tests and surveys, etc.) to see HOW true they are and in exactly what ways and where systems overlap, regardless of which system it was. Some questions that need to be openly asked of AC and many other typology systems, with more focus on contradictions than confirmation: how do information and behavior interact, or do they interact at all? Is my version of Socionics as inclusive of information, logically consistent and consistent with observations as the other best typology systems on the market? If not, then what should I do about that?
    thank you ! I agree with all that.

    You are indisputably correct that the typology community is a market which is inevitably full of self-interest and bias because of the need to make money, because of loyalty to systems we are used to as opposed to systems we have never studied which would require a lot of effort of us, because of groupthink and social pressure, because we need to uphold our authority and credibility, because humans are just inherently (at least) a bit selfish, etc. Sadly, this is understandable and probably insurmountable; people will inevitably pay these gurus to type them and learn Socionics systems because they are interesting, professional people who know more than most, who can at least be more objective about your type and traits than you can since they have less investment in them, and they need to make a living with what they put their time into. And since typology businesses are always going to be inherently suspect due to their investment in their own perspective, it will be up to less business interested people (like some of us) to do the broader-scale comparative typology research and analysis rather than trusting in the lack of contradictions that our "benevolent authorities" are willing to assume for us.
    That's quite a dilemma indeed.

    On that note, there are (at least) two kinds of contradictions between these different typology schools, as it relates to diagnostics:

    Type 1: contradictions in typology labels assigned at the end of a diagnostic:
    This is almost exclusively what some people focus on (e.g. "which label is correct?"), but this is almost laughably superficial and surface-level. It amounts to a verbal dispute (https://consc.net/papers/verbal.pdf). There are two problems with disputing mere typology labels between schools (e.g. is the archetype center right that Squark is an LIE, or is SHS right that he is an LSI?):
    -Those words mean hugely different things between schools, aren't clearly applied to the same systematic behaviors, and include different content not included in the other school. To say these schools should apply the same label to Squark is almost like saying that words should mean the same thing in different languages (but not quite that far, since in typology there is often at least some overlap in meaning).
    -In spite of overall meaning different things, these labels might include some of the same fundamental observations of reality under different labels or personality clusters. So even if we use different words, we might not disagree about this person, and we can't assume this dispute ends at the words themselves.
    I agree, the internal consistency of a given system does not engage that of another. Nomenclature is key though and the usage of identical words in different systems doesn't necessarily mean that the fundamental understanding of those words is the same but it can add confusion. For instance OP system is very confusing imho.

    Type 2: contradictions in observations about a person during the diagnostic (e.g. the many clustered traits that the labels refer to which could be used to justify the use of the typology label):
    -A contradiction here is much more problematic, and it really means that one of the systems may be more correct than the other since you can't both be consistent with reality while saying genuinely contradictory things. And this is where I will agree with you that these contradictions matter a lot, so I'm agreement with you as long as you are talking about this type of contradictions. There is a lot more to this, but I think the basic distinction I'm drawing is clear.
    Exactly !

    I do think it is possible for an SLE to have Enneagram type 9, and I have even typed one (privately). This is because the labels alone don't mean much; based on your definitions (e.g. maybe that SLE is a very aggressive person, and 9 is very peaceful and unwilling to be aggressive), there may be a huge inherent contradiction between SLE and Enneagram type 9. However, in SHS, SLE is not necessarily such an aggressive person (they may have the capacity for it in any case), but if they have a Harmonizing subtype, they may still be quite sensitive and prefer peace a lot. And Enneagram 9 can also have more anger in itself in some Enneagram interpretations, and be capable of aggression, especially 9w8. Likewise, in Archetype Center methodology, SLE simply refers to the perception of information semantics. So AC SLE's might be very perceptive of power dynamics, but hardly aggressive at all themselves if they have a behavioral type like FLEV or FELV, so it seems like SLE could easily be best fit to Enneagram 9 in AC as well. The human personality is a highly complex system, and it should not be assumed to be simple or single-layered.
    Okay, here I have a slight need to clarify my thoughts. We are assuming that there is a clear separation between Enneagram and Socionics and more precisely AC socionics. I don't think that SLEs are particularly aggressive (btw that would be overlapping !) on the contrary. But when I read the core E9 specifications and contrast them with some SHS SLE general description I have a hard time believing that those two descriptions can apply to the same type of person. Like I said when it comes to descriptions overlaps are inevitable regardless of the system be it motivations, information processing, attitude behavior, or else it doesn't matter imho. But fair enough. And I obviously totally agree about the complexity of the Human personality

    A (Type 2, genuine) contradiction could mean:
    -one interpretation is more correct than another
    -both interpretations are grossly incorrect (both correct is NOT an option under the contradiction assumption)
    -one or both interpretations need to be completely scrapped (if the contradiction is located at the core assumptions of the theory)
    -one or both interpretations need to be minorly adjusted (if the contradictions are located at tenuous or probabilistic empirical tendencies in the theories)

    Saying two labels can't have a certain relationship to one another is not meaningful (you may well agree with this).
    Absolutely, I agree !


    So, which interpretation is most sensible: yours, SHS's, AC's, a synthesis of them, an adjustment of one of them, an adjustment of a synthesis of several of them, etc.?
    I don't have the answer to that question but I can say that my interpretation doesn't really matter ahaha !

    Also, semi-apologies for the long post, as I know some don't appreciate that; I'm just trying to be thorough because I think it matters in the final analysis (not necessarily for casual conversations). If you want a TLR, just ask me, as it's a reasonable request, just not my first priority.
    you don't need to apologize, however I need to thank you again for taking the time to reply with such precision and quality.
    Lack is the Muse of all Poets

Posting Permissions

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