Urtyp

[Metamorph]

I use the phrase Urtyp because it has certain connotations to me that the English translations lack. The closest in English would be prototype and archetype. Prototype has the connotations of something incomplete in a beta phase and archetype has the connotations of Jung and his psychoanalysis, though Jung's word archetype itself comes directly from the usage of Urtyp I am referencing. I am using Urtyp in the so-called Romantic science sense, where someone like Goethe who invented the field of morphology in both biology and geology would say things like the Urpflanze (original plant) was a blue flower. In biology today, we have the idea of a type species, for example, the type species of all flowering plants is Magnolia grandiflora. The underlying idea is essentially the idea of homology, for example, how wings on mammals and birds are homologous to arms. The original form in such cases is considered to be an arm. I speak simply of an original type, but I speak of an original type for typology rather than for something in biology or geology. In Gulenko's theory, this is clearly EIE. He makes it very explicit he thinks EIE is the underlying type of all humanity.

Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion

Contemporary British mathematician Roger Penrose has suggested that the human brain uses quantum gravity as a means for intuitive insight. He’s written several books (“The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Shadows of the Mind”) stipulating that the brain is a quantum computer, and that Aristotelian logical thinking is actually alien to human beings. If he is right, it follows that the integral type of humanity is Dialectical-Algorithmic.

This is why I say there is an Urtyp and it is EIE. Aushra and Gulenko got in fights because Aushra thought it was ILE and Gulenko thinks it's EIE. If Subteigh and Gulenko agree on something, you know it has to be true.

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

I approve of the adoption of practices that distinguish us from Society's norms.

[idol]

That cognitive style also applies to SEI ILI LSE. Why EIE ?

[Metamorph]

That cognitive style also applies to SEI ILI LSE. Why EIE ?

Although the people Shakespeare wrote about were natural human beings, Shakespeare himself was not a natural human being, and he broke Nietzsche's and Harold Bloom's bicameral minds at the thought. Nietzsche, too, was an EIE according to Gulenko, just as Goethe who wrote Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship from which that was taken. Jesus too was an EIE who was tempted in the desert, and Satan was an EIE who tempted him. Buddha was an EIE showing his dialectical-algorithmic cognition when he had his revelation of enlightenment. All these religious figures would probably be EIE-D according to Gulenko. When you see people in the world and the people they fight the both groups are almost assuredly all EIE. It is true that IEI is the actor and EIE is the mystic, in a certain turn of events that anyone who knew anything about the world or its history could observe. Show me the important people who don't exhibit characteristics of EIE according to every description of the type. There are a few, but they are in the minority. Gulenko vaunts EIE and ILI above LSE and SEI, and he vaunts EIE even above ILI as the only type that shows the purported characteristics of genius. Research by people such as @Subteigh additionally shows many more famous people than average are EIE (though actors are ironically mostly IEI and ILI, just as I would expect and some other users would expect, since I don't expect acting or performance to correlate with extraversion at all) and that EIE traits are the most adaptive ones. Gulenko's observations incidentally seem to exactly align with his biggest critic's. Where I would differ is I'm not going to type people as not-EIE any more than the Roman Catholic Church is going to say someone's definitely in Hell, if both being EIE and going to Heaven are immutable traits and both seem equally necessary to human flourishing. I shall hope everyone can be EIE.

[Riven]

What is the point of typing everyone EIE though? Or did I misinterpret what you're saying? If anything, this would just show socionics doesn't fulfill its intention of explaining "interpersonal interaction based on patterns of information selection and processing". Having some theory that does this would still be desirable, so if anything this would just result in a replacement of socionics for something else (that might as well just go under the same phenomenon of "everyone is EIE" and create a cycle).

[Metamorph]

What is the point of typing everyone EIE though? Or did I misinterpret what you're saying? If anything, this would just show socionics doesn't fulfill its intention of explaining "interpersonal interaction based on patterns of information selection and processing". Having some theory that does this would still be desirable, so if anything this would just result in a replacement of socionics for something else (that might as well just go under the same phenomenon of "everyone is EIE" and create a cycle).

Yes, I think socionics doesn't fulfill its intentions. Probably most people aren't EIE, but I should still give everyone a chance to be EIE if it's really so much better than the other 15 types and it's immutable. So socionics pretty much fails by its own criteria. I am explaining how I think socionics fails by its own criteria. I'm ironically discussing more socionics theory than anyone else to contradict socionics.

[Riven]

I thought I couldn't possibly be EIE but I guess I can now! Thanks for allowing me to!

[godslave]

What is the point of typing everyone EIE though? Or did I misinterpret what you're saying? If anything, this would just show socionics doesn't fulfill its intention of explaining "interpersonal interaction based on patterns of information selection and processing". Having some theory that does this would still be desirable, so if anything this would just result in a replacement of socionics for something else (that might as well just go under the same phenomenon of "everyone is EIE" and create a cycle).

The point of it is to recognize the EIE as the original type the patient zero if you will. It reminds me the movie "Prometheus", imagine if our species was the result of a clonage of some kind of extraterrestrial species then the first clone (the original one) would have an EIE sociotype. It has in it the God gene so to speak. Think of attack on Titan the "Founding Titan". The destiny of EIE is to be at the top, the king, the Pharaoh, the God (or God's voice/confident/delegate/ which is basically the same thing).

I said before that EIEs are the type that most likely genuinely believe (most of the time rightfully so) that they are some kind of genius, different from the plebes and to whom awaits a great destiny. In fact in ancient times they were the Gods. There is like a deterministic phylogenetic memory, a natural instincts to incarnate the divine figure and for people to recognize them as such because of their otherworldly magnetic nature that attracts everyone and force admiration and respect, sometimes to the point of reverence and adoration. EIE is the Alpha and the Omega ! We are EIE and you have been assimilated !

[Riven]

The point of it is to recognize the EIE as the original type the patient zero if you will. It reminds me the movie "Prometheus", imagine if our species was the result of a clonage of some kind of extraterrestrial species then the first clone (the original one) would have an EIE sociotype. It has in it the God gene so to speak. Think of attack on Titan the "Founding Titan". The destiny of EIE is to be at the top, the king, the Pharaoh, the God (or God's voice/confident/delegate/ which is basically the same thing).

I said before that EIEs are the type that most likely genuinely believe (most of the time rightfully so) that they are some kind of genius, different from the plebes and to whom awaits a great destiny. In fact in ancient times they were the Gods. There is like a deterministic phylogenetic memory, a natural instincts to incarnate the divine figure and for people to recognize them as such because of their otherworldly magnetic nature that attracts everyone and force admiration and respect, sometimes to the point of reverence and adoration. EIE is the Alpha and the Omega ! We are EIE and you have been assimilated !

Since I can now be considered an EIE, I can finally feel myself as being part of humanity, a valuable life. I've thought before of DCNH as Gulenko's attempt of making his own theory to replace socionics, and that's why he types everyone EIE but from different DCNH types. It's just a marketing scheme, since no one would be interested in this new system coming out of nowhere. However, if you look at it closely, he still made it so everyone is an EIE with enhanced EIE functions, with the exception of normalizers. D types have accentuated Te, Fe and Se, C types have Se, Ne and Fe and H types have Ni, Si and Fi. However, N​ormalizing not having Ni as a possible accentuated function makes no sense, so the type is signaled by an N to covertly demonstrate there's a strenghment of Ni, which is in fact together with Fe, the only possible functional enhancements to make sense. One could argue we can divide people into four types, being these types the DCNH subtypes but at its core all types are EIE, despite of Ni or Fe being accentuated, both work together, so again, EIE.

Anyone who manages to not be an EIE is a reptilian or some other kind of intruder in the all-encompassing EIE society. LSIs in special are creatures created by heretics in order to contaminate and get our clan to an end. These heretics came up with the false theory of "duality" as means to incentivate reproduction between our superior kind with these lab-created insects. By reproducing with LSIs, our offspring in fact loses the EIE ingrained code each time which puts us in danger. Individuals of other types are mostly harmless but we should not play around them. We don't know their real intentions yet.

[Renna]

Isn’t the woman in the clip LSI? She’s the one behind everything.
Also, Guts is the one that push Griffith into Femto, it’s all their fault!

[Tallmo]

The original function is sensation, according to Jung, out of which all other functions develop. The talk about EIE or ILE as some urtype doesnt make sense. It's just about free association or projecting some role on them. I dont think Gulenko said that EIE is some original type.

[Sol]

> In biology today, we have the idea of a type species

And in general reason we have the idea of a type categories, which being life long stable and related to behavior would be comparable with Jung types.
Mind processes have behavior traits too, just not seen outside. For example, the conditioning works similarly.

Among examples is people difference for right/left hand as leading one.

[Riven]

I'm right handed, which clearly points towards me being a right type, therefore, EIE. Watch out for left handers.

[Renna]

A little irrelevant, talk about Berserk, I just found this funny shit… (well this thread is for talking shit about patient zero anyway)

SEE came from another universe save the day, and turn everything into a comedy…

[Metamorph]

The original function is sensation, according to Jung, out of which all other functions develop. The talk about EIE or ILE as some urtype doesnt make sense. It's just about free association or projecting some role on them. I dont think Gulenko said that EIE is some original type.

Yeah, and this is socionics, not Jung. Socionics was made to correct Jung in many ways. That's why Aushra didn't self-type the same as Jung.

[Tallmo]

Yeah, and this is socionics, not Jung. Socionics was made to correct Jung in many ways. That's why Aushra didn't self-type the same as Jung.

Socionics doesn't correct Jung. It expands Jung's typology in certain respects, but in other ways it is a step backwards. It's not a black-and-white thing. Jung has a much more detailed and correct analysis of the functions, for example. Socionics and Jung deals with the same phenomenon.

Anyway, if you are interested in something like "urtyp" you should study what Jung says about sensation as the original function.

[CR400AF]

Yeah, and this is socionics, not Jung. Socionics was made to correct Jung in many ways. That's why Aushra didn't self-type the same as Jung.

I don't find Socionics to be fundamentally different from Jung. The fundamental definitions are essentially the same. However, I don't consider many developments of Socionics (eg. Model G) to be Jungian.

I don't think there's any "original type". IMO any type has their own characteristics. Although some types might be more easy to be successful in modern society, it doesn't mean that they are superior to other types.

In fact, Jung himself argues for introverted irrational types in order to show the colorfulness of their lives.

As far as I'm considered, a fundamental idea of Socionics is that each TIM has their own characteristics and Socionics studies that how the 16 TIMs interact and hence make up the socion. I think this idea is fundamentally the same as Jung.

However, Gulenko names beta and gamma as "central types". I can't agree with such naming.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Although the people Shakespeare wrote about were natural human beings, Shakespeare himself was not a natural human being, and he broke Nietzsche's and Harold Bloom's bicameral minds at the thought. Nietzsche, too, was an EIE according to Gulenko, just as Goethe who wrote Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship from which that was taken. Jesus too was an EIE who was tempted in the desert, and Satan was an EIE who tempted him. Buddha was an EIE showing his dialectical-algorithmic cognition when he had his revelation of enlightenment. All these religious figures would probably be EIE-D according to Gulenko. When you see people in the world and the people they fight the both groups are almost assuredly all EIE. It is true that IEI is the actor and EIE is the mystic, in a certain turn of events that anyone who knew anything about the world or its history could observe. Show me the important people who don't exhibit characteristics of EIE according to every description of the type. There are a few, but they are in the minority. Gulenko vaunts EIE and ILI above LSE and SEI, and he vaunts EIE even above ILI as the only type that shows the purported characteristics of genius. Research by people such as @Subteigh additionally shows many more famous people than average are EIE (though actors are ironically mostly IEI and ILI, just as I would expect and some other users would expect, since I don't expect acting or performance to correlate with extraversion at all) and that EIE traits are the most adaptive ones. Gulenko's observations incidentally seem to exactly align with his biggest critic's. Where I would differ is I'm not going to type people as not-EIE any more than the Roman Catholic Church is going to say someone's definitely in Hell, if both being EIE and going to Heaven are immutable traits and both seem equally necessary to human flourishing. I shall hope everyone can be EIE.

The Sedecology consensus typings (where there was a majority for one type and a minimum of 3 typers) had it that 13.26% of "famous people" typed are EIE, which is about double 100%/16. My own typings distribution vs. Sedecology was 19.65% of the famous people I typed (i.e. those I'm interested in enough to type) I type EIE, vs. 17.03% for Sedecology.

With Gulenko, from what I can count from his website, his famous people database is split as follows:

EIE	47	26.11%
LSI	32	17.78%
SLE	23	12.78%
ILI	21	11.67%
SEE	19	10.56%
IEI	8	4.44%
ILE	7	3.89%
LII	6	3.33%
ESE	5	2.78%
LIE	5	2.78%
IEE	3	1.67%
SEI	1	0.56%
ESI	1	0.56%
LSE	1	0.56%
EII	1	0.56%
SLI	0	0.00%

But I think EIE and LSI are more heavily represented amongst the people he types in this community. I think a type like IEI is more likely to be most common there.

In Big Five terms, from a few papers, from what I recall: Actors overall are above average in terms of extroversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, and middling in terms of conscientiousness. Musicians I think were introverted, high in openness to experience, below average in terms of agreeableness (if I recall correctly), below average in terms of conscientiousness, except in the facet (one sixth of conscientiousness) of Ambition (or a similarly named concept). But singers compared to other musicians scored higher in terms of extroversion. Research into politicians generally shows they score above average in terms of extroversion and conscientiousness, and I think in the Western world, higher in terms of openness to experience than the general population.

[Muira]

Isn’t the woman in the clip LSI? She’s the one behind everything.
Also, Guts is the one that push Griffith into Femto, it’s all their fault!

Why the fuck are you talking about berserk in the middle of a random thread?

[Riven]

Why the fuck are you talking about berserk in the middle of a random thread?

Read again what you just wrote.

[Muira]

Read again what you just wrote.

I did, is there a grammar mistake?

[CR400AF]

The Sedecology consensus typings (where there was a majority for one type and a minimum of 3 typers) had it that 13.26% of "famous people" typed are EIE, which is about double 100%/16. My own typings distribution vs. Sedecology was 19.65% of the famous people I typed (i.e. those I'm interested in enough to type) I type EIE, vs. 17.03% for Sedecology.

With Gulenko, from what I can count from his website, his famous people database is split as follows:

EIE	47	26.11%
LSI	32	17.78%
SLE	23	12.78%
ILI	21	11.67%
SEE	19	10.56%
IEI	8	4.44%
ILE	7	3.89%
LII	6	3.33%
ESE	5	2.78%
LIE	5	2.78%
IEE	3	1.67%
SEI	1	0.56%
ESI	1	0.56%
LSE	1	0.56%
EII	1	0.56%
SLI	0	0.00%

But I think EIE and LSI are more heavily represented amongst the people he types in this community. I think a type like IEI is more likely to be most common there.

In Big Five terms, from a few papers, from what I recall: Actors overall are above average in terms of extroversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience, and middling in terms of conscientiousness. Musicians I think were introverted, high in openness to experience, below average in terms of agreeableness (if I recall correctly), below average in terms of conscientiousness, except in the facet (one sixth of conscientiousness) of Ambition (or a similarly named concept). But singers compared to other musicians scored higher in terms of extroversion. Research into politicians generally shows they score above average in terms of extroversion and conscientiousness, and I think in the Western world, higher in terms of openness to experience than the general population.

As far as I'm concerned, the Gulenko website is a database of mistypings. As for sedcology, the typing might be different from this forum. For instance in this forum many people.type Jung as LII while in sedcology what I remember is.that few people type Jung as LII.

Many celebrities typed by Gulenko are political figures. As far as I'm concerned they are bery hard to type because modern politicians have a large team. They might have a team of intellects to research how to manipulate public emotion. Their speeches might be the result of the researches of a team. Their decisions are the results of many people.

I think perhaps VI is the most reliable method to type a modern politician. But their choice of clothes are also NTR. Hence perhaps the most reliable method is to type via eye movements. This is a hard and limited method.

[xerx]

This is why I say there is an Urtyp and it is EIE. Aushra and Gulenko got in fights because Aushra thought it was ILE and Gulenko thinks it's EIE.

The circumstances surrounding Aushra's death are somewhat open to interpretation. I'm only relaying what someone has said.

[Poptart]

The circumstances surrounding Aushra's death are somewhat open to speculation. I'll just leave that here.

What were the circumstances surrounding her death?

[The Reality Denialist]

Model G is IMO an adjustment for cases where those models seem to break. As such if you read Jung and von Franz they do not really give a sh*t for edge cases. So they just take what is convenient in murky cases which would break down socionics IRL.

As such I can see cases for semiduals and quasi identicals.There probably exists more.
Interdependence introduces a huge list list of plausible contradictions. There the real approach is to collect a huge chunk of data before person even begin with typing to a type level (functional manifestations are possible and that's pretty what Jung made up). In Jung's terms not a problem in socionics terms it is a massive problem.

[Biscuit]

The circumstances surrounding Aushra's death are somewhat open to interpretation. I'm only relaying what someone has said.

?

[Biscuit]

I remember a forum member once said :

Deep down we're all EIE

I remember the quote, but not the name

[godslave]

All muslims inspire to be EIE like. The Prophet Muhammed (sAws) was EIE and all muslims are encouraged to follow his sunnah (basically all the prophet attitudes and behaviors to the finnests details). Note that in the Hanafi school, following the sunnah is "wajib " (mandatory). Anyways, this notion of assimilation through ways of imitation is a pattern we can observe in almost all spiritual leaders and Gurus most of whom are carriers of EIE sociotype. Here is another rather radical alternative solution for achieving eternal life perfection through imitation...

Je suis la vie, je suis EIE !!



Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Genesis 1:26

[lavos]

This premise is incorrect. The "blueprint type" is another type.

[Metamorph]

This premise is incorrect. The "blueprint type" is another type.

[Citation needed]

I know the Jungians proper say it's Si but I doubt it. Jung had more questionable ideas than accurate ones. I don't have to agree with some guy just because he's dead and famous when I have concrete evidence to the contrary.

[BrainlessSquid]

I use the phrase Urtyp because it has certain connotations to me that the English translations lack. The closest in English would be prototype and archetype. Prototype has the connotations of something incomplete in a beta phase and archetype has the connotations of Jung and his psychoanalysis, though Jung's word archetype itself comes directly from the usage of Urtyp I am referencing. I am using Urtyp in the so-called Romantic science sense, where someone like Goethe who invented the field of morphology in both biology and geology would say things like the Urpflanze (original plant) was a blue flower. In biology today, we have the idea of a type species, for example, the type species of all flowering plants is Magnolia grandiflora. The underlying idea is essentially the idea of homology, for example, how wings on mammals and birds are homologous to arms. The original form in such cases is considered to be an arm. I speak simply of an original type, but I speak of an original type for typology rather than for something in biology or geology. In Gulenko's theory, this is clearly EIE. He makes it very explicit he thinks EIE is the underlying type of all humanity.

Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion



This is why I say there is an Urtyp and it is EIE. Aushra and Gulenko got in fights because Aushra thought it was ILE and Gulenko thinks it's EIE. If Subteigh and Gulenko agree on something, you know it has to be true.

Finally I can see you're being yourself.
This version of you is so much more appealing.

By the way, you're an IEE, and we're identicals

[Metamorph]

Finally I can see you're being yourself.
This version of you is so much more appealing.

By the way, you're an IEE, and we're identicals

No, I'm an EIE and we're identicals even though I'd rather not be because everyone is EIE. And where's my Si even if you're still trapped in māyā?

[lavos]

I might have figured it out:

Taurus: Earth- Bull (Beasts?)
Leo: Fire- Lion (Archons?)
Scorpio: Water- Eagle (Devas/Gods?-- Scorpio originally was "Eagle")
Aquarius- Air-Man (Humans)

Four EJ types are like the "overlords" of each quadra/element:

Taurus: LSE-Te
Scorpio: LIE-Ni
Leo: EIE-Fe
Aquarius: ESE-Fe (ESE-Fe usually is Earth, but when it is the form of 'man', it is air. In other words, the integral type of 'man' I think is ESE-Fe)

Illustration:

[lavos]

By extension, since EJ types seem to be Fixed duplicity types, maybe:

IJ - Cardinal
IP - ??? (Null? No duplicity?)
EP - Mutable
EJ - Fixed

Or in DCNH terms:

D - Fixed
C - Mutable
N - Cardinal
H - (Null)

Since D - Earth, C - Fire, N - Water, and H - Air, it means Air has no duplicity?

Logically thinking, Air has to be mutable like Fire, so I guess that means two elements are inherently mutable.

Anyway, sorry if this has no interest.

Edit: Thought a bit more

The one that repeats is: cardinal. Fire and Water are cardinal (since the first four signs set the pattern: Aries- Cardinal, Taurus- Fixed, Gemini- Mutable, Cancer-Cardinal).

So that translates in Socionics terms that Beta and Gamma are the cardinal quadras (The ones that are Se valuing, or +Ti/-Te Saturn valuing).

In astrology lore, cardinal signs are usually the more ruthless ones; fixed ones are sort of stubborn, and mutable are adaptative.

Continuing... Socionics' Statics then would be more ruthless than dynamics? Thinking a bit about it, it might be so.

[Riven]

[Metamorph]

Aquarius: ESE-Fe (ESE-Fe usually is Earth, but when it is the form of 'man', it is air. In other words, the integral type of 'man' I think is ESE-Fe)

Now, that can't be right, because man is made from earth, not from air, and that's literally what man means... human, Adam, etc. However, the water part of man is really important too, since that seems to be the psyche/mind/soul aspect. The integral type of humanity is not anything with sensing, even sensing secondary. Socionics is mostly bunk, not because the types don't exist at all but because of some of its other more insidious premises that mess up the idea of the types it proposes.

Also, I wouldn't use this astrology stuff. Yes, the Sun and Moon have influences, and the fixed stars and planets as well as some of the more geometric relationships between heavenly bodies have correlations to the Sun's and Moon's influences, but it doesn't seem like a bigger influence than something like air pressure or humidity, and no one is out mysticizing the invisible influences of air pressure and humidity. Trying to fit everything imaginable onto the Zodiac just because it looks neat and it's your memory palace doesn't seem like a good way to avoid making spurious associations.

[xerx]

What were the circumstances surrounding her death?

I'm actually not entirely sure.

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

Although the people Shakespeare wrote about were natural human beings, Shakespeare himself was not a natural human being, and he broke Nietzsche's and Harold Bloom's bicameral minds at the thought. Nietzsche, too, was an EIE according to Gulenko, just as Goethe who wrote Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship from which that was taken. Jesus too was an EIE who was tempted in the desert, and Satan was an EIE who tempted him. Buddha was an EIE showing his dialectical-algorithmic cognition when he had his revelation of enlightenment. All these religious figures would probably be EIE-D according to Gulenko. When you see people in the world and the people they fight the both groups are almost assuredly all EIE. It is true that IEI is the actor and EIE is the mystic, in a certain turn of events that anyone who knew anything about the world or its history could observe. Show me the important people who don't exhibit characteristics of EIE according to every description of the type. There are a few, but they are in the minority. Gulenko vaunts EIE and ILI above LSE and SEI, and he vaunts EIE even above ILI as the only type that shows the purported characteristics of genius. Research by people such as @Subteigh additionally shows many more famous people than average are EIE (though actors are ironically mostly IEI and ILI, just as I would expect and some other users would expect, since I don't expect acting or performance to correlate with extraversion at all) and that EIE traits are the most adaptive ones. Gulenko's observations incidentally seem to exactly align with his biggest critic's. Where I would differ is I'm not going to type people as not-EIE any more than the Roman Catholic Church is going to say someone's definitely in Hell, if both being EIE and going to Heaven are immutable traits and both seem equally necessary to human flourishing. I shall hope everyone can be EIE.

Rutinowski, J., Franke, S., Endendyk, J., Dormuth, I. and Pauly, M., 2023. The Self-Perception and Political Biases of ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07333.