On my real type (EII)— Aushura, Beebe

[Biscuit]

Model G is basically a system made for Se egos. Which is no surprise, because Gulenko is actually an Se ego his own self. Others may try argue, “but it is the only system that considers a plethora of possibilities”.. Yes, it considers possibilities, but based on physically observable qualities and features of a person, and their expressed, seen behavior. This is Se replacing Ne. This is why Gulenko is an XSI, and I type him as an ESI, because TiNe super ego form of mental functions make far more sense than of FiSe super ego/mental, and he is quite open to Ti systems, and hyper focuses on peoples’ placements in society.

It is Se replacing Ne to focus on possibilities by physical observation and what is concretely presenting, and to make an entire model based around “type images”. Even Gulenko’s book descriptions are based on physical characteristics and observed behavior. It never goes into deep cognition or what’s underneath the behavior and of why it happens.

To what extent do you think the type differs between the three systems (SCS, Model G and modern socionics ) ?

[Braingel]

To what extent do you think the type differs between the three systems (SCS, Model G and modern socionics ) ?

Hi, I will answer you several ways, as I don’t know if you intend this as from the types I mentioned with EII, LSI, ESI and IEI, or generally. I’m going to assume the ladder, but I’ll brief the former.

Well, SCS is largely based on the motivation and outlook of functions and how they process inside and then project outward.. The other two are largely behavioral, but they put different dimensionality and archetypes to them… This makes it less likely to consistently remain the same type in all three of these things, which others seem to miss.. What I can say for myself as I’m an NF in all systems…

They all just base on completely different metrics to type; motivation and formation of outlooks (scs), outright values behavior and its strength that gets put to value formation (wss), and micro expressions and behavior and a rigid archetype (shs) that gives the illusion of not being rigid with all the dcnh and accentuation combo.

Now far the other 4 mentioned types… An EII in WSS seeks practicality, in G, it is more about emphasizing forgiveness and they are able to be practical, because they have 3D Te suggestive.. And in SCS, an eii is closer to an IEI’s Te polr, in that the Te is vital and not thought of. Even in my scs questionnaire, the Te is the hardest thing to answer.. The IEI is someone who is very conscious of practicality and of space…. The eii doesn’t have mental Si so isn’t.. The ESi and LSI fixate on Ne and will often mistake their own self as good in these areas and think about them a lot, but base it on experience instead, which is what you see a person like Gulenko doing….. It doesn’t matter at all for experience in western and in G, and instead, the wss is just stubborn and avoids Ne and in wss, they lose energy from it, making Ne polr in those models unlikely to even be mental Ne polr in classic…

Some of the informational elements also change definition in slight.. For instance, Ne in scs is partially about the internality of an object, which is Ni in modern. Fe is about screaming and emotional display and not Se at all in SCS, in other models this can be both Fe or Se. But an Fe ego would consciously do this for an effect and impact on a mood, it wouldn’t be some unconscious emotional display (which is my own case).

Which brings me to another point; EII is not aware of its impact on others’ moods and an IEI is, making an IEI much more cognizantly in control of how others receive them… They aren’t as aware of their relations and distance from other people… (For SCS). The IEI is more conscious of time.. I am quite gifted in time recognition, but it happens unconsciously. I rarely need set an alarm, as my unconscious naturally wakens me to the time of my needing wake up, generally I’ll wake up 5 minutes to a half hour before I even need be up.. Doesn’t matter what time it is, how tired I am, how many hours of sleep I’d gotten. I will also often walk out of a thing in the right time when others are ready to leave.. I just somehow know it’s time to go.

The biggest difference SCS has that G and WSS have not is the whole mental/vital track of conscious and unconscious.. You don’t need be conscious of your impact on others’ moods to be Fe in G or in WSS, just expressive..

ESI and LSI are conscious of the same things and not.. But their ego placements swap.. So an ESI is more open to Ti info in the role and an LSI is with Fi.. The LSI is receptive to any relational placement and an ESI is with placement and hierarchies.. And rules.. ESI relies on experience for Ne and Te and LSI, it’s Fe and Ne. So Pe and Je ego and super ego and ego in 3D and 1D. Static.

Awareness has significantly less to do with the two behavioral models. This is why I say that SCS is far more motivationally-influenced.

Something I also excluded is the polr is more like the suggestive on scs…..

[Biscuit]

Hi, I will answer you several ways, as I don’t know if you intend this as from the types I mentioned with EII, LSI, ESI and IEI, or generally. I’m going to assume the ladder, but I’ll brief the former.

Well, SCS is largely based on the motivation and outlook of functions and how they process inside and then project outward.. The other two are largely behavioral, but they put different dimensionality and archetypes to them… This makes it less likely to consistently remain the same type in all three of these things, which others seem to miss.. What I can say for myself as I’m an NF in all systems…

They all just base on completely different metrics to type; motivation and formation of outlooks (scs), outright values behavior and its strength that gets put to value formation (wss), and micro expressions and behavior and a rigid archetype (shs) that gives the illusion of not being rigid with all the dcnh and accentuation combo.

Now far the other 4 mentioned types… An EII in WSS seeks practicality, in G, it is more about emphasizing forgiveness and they are able to be practical, because they have 3D Te suggestive.. And in SCS, an eii is closer to an IEI’s Te polr, in that the Te is vital and not thought of. Even in my scs questionnaire, the Te is the hardest thing to answer.. The IEI is someone who is very conscious of practicality and of space…. The eii doesn’t have mental Si so isn’t.. The ESi and LSI fixate on Ne and will often mistake their own self as good in these areas and think about them a lot, but base it on experience instead, which is what you see a person like Gulenko doing….. It doesn’t matter at all for experience in western and in G, and instead, the wss is just stubborn and avoids Ne and in wss, they lose energy from it, making Ne polr in those models unlikely to even be mental Ne polr in classic…

Some of the informational elements also change definition in slight.. For instance, Ne in scs is partially about the internality of an object, which is Ni in modern. Fe is about screaming and emotional display and not Se at all in SCS, in other models this can be both Fe or Se. But an Fe ego would consciously do this for an effect and impact on a mood, it wouldn’t be some unconscious emotional display (which is my own case).

Which brings me to another point; EII is not aware of its impact on others’ moods and an IEI is, making an IEI much more cognizantly in control of how others receive them… They aren’t as aware of their relations and distance from other people… (For SCS). The IEI is more conscious of time.. I am quite gifted in time recognition, but it happens unconsciously. I rarely need set an alarm, as my unconscious naturally wakens me to the time of my needing wake up, generally I’ll wake up 5 minutes to a half hour before I even need be up.. Doesn’t matter what time it is, how tired I am, how many hours of sleep I’d gotten.

The biggest difference SCS has that G and WSS have not is the whole mental/vital track of conscious and unconscious.. You don’t need be conscious of your impact on others’ moods to be Fe in G or in WSS, just expressive..

ESI and LSI are conscious of the same things and not.. But their ID ego placements swap.. So an ESI is more open to Ti info in the role and an LSI is with Fi.. The LSI is receptive to any relational placement and an ESI is with placement and hierarchies.. And rules.. ESI relies on experience for Ne and Te and LSI, it’s Fe and Ne. So Pe and Je ego and super ego and ego in 3D and 1D. Static.

Awareness has significantly less to do with the two behavioral models. This is why I say that SCS is far more motivationally-influenced.

Very informative, thank you